<p>And perhaps on the way to becoming illegal NOT to consider race:</p>
<p>[Mich</a>. ban on race in college admissions illegal - WTOL.com - Toledo’s News Leader |](<a href=“http://www.wtol.com/story/15012266/mich-ban-on-race-in-college-admissions-illegal]Mich”>http://www.wtol.com/story/15012266/mich-ban-on-race-in-college-admissions-illegal)</p>
<p>xiggi - I am surprised there was no rodeo participation of these ranch raised animals for prizes/scholarships…</p>
<p>I am glad to see Curmudgeon had such a great opinion of his daughter’s involvement in student government and club activities. :p</p>
<p>I guess that is why he calls himself a curmudgeon…</p>
<p>Doe he live on that ranch, too? Or is his d living away from the curmudgeon?! JK</p>
<p>My father IS a quintessential curmudgeon, so much so that he has no sense of humor about it! (he is a lawyer, and a real arguer, too…)</p>
<p>Haha, Cur is not only a rancher, but a practicing attorney. Reading his past posts should provide a comic relief from the discussions in this thread. </p>
<p>For instance, his accounts of the various travels between Texas and Rhodes are CC classics. However, do not let the humor fool you … he knows/knew a lot about admissions.</p>
<p><a href=“Moving Story - Parents Forum - College Confidential Forums”>Moving Story - Parents Forum - College Confidential Forums;
<p>So, maybe my Dad would develop a sense of humor about his CUR-ly-ness if I could talk him into becoming a rancher! (Did Cur go to Yale Law School?)</p>
<p>Allow me please to admit my mistake. Indeed it is Constitutional now, because of a late 70s court decision. But it was illegal before because of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits any discrimination based on race. No new Amendment is needed, just the 14th Amendment needs to be brought back into the realm of the elite academic institutions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>May or may not, but that is neither here nor there. Do you think it will change the student composition of elite public schools with respect to race? If you do, then that’s a tacit concession that today Asians are discriminated against based on race. If you don’t, then you should be fine with the the law, right?</p>
<p>Which way are you leaning?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The surefire way to figure out if there is a racial bias is to ban the use of race in college admissions, and then see if the class composition changes. Anywhere this has been done - California, Michigan - the composition changed heavily in favor of Asians. By heavily, I don’t mean a by a few sigmas. I mean by a factor of 2-3x. As a trained economist, I cannot ignore the evidence. So yes, to me it is indeed like Global Warming or Evolution. The facts are there for all to see, but some don’t want to see it. As I have said earlier, there is only one debate here, though three angles keep coming up:</p>
<p>1) There is no racial bias against Asians, which is patently false
2) There is racial bias, but it is justified because of AA, which is debatable
3) There is no racial bias, but Asians are textureless robots and hence unworthy, which is a racist position not even worth responding to</p>
<p>So the real debate is over #2.</p>
<p>I was ready to admit Curmudgeon for whatever program is available out there but dang, he broke the rules by exceeding the new 500 word limit on his essay.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m fine with a “law” like that. Nothing would change for the Asian’s and whites except for a slight increase in numbers due to shortchanging the URM’s. Still don’t understand why the Asian’s have such a problem with them and feel it is OK to systematically produce an underclass of citizens. I get the feeling that the mentality is “anything to get ahead”.</p>
<p>I don’t think most of the supporters of AA think it is to correct a wrong created by Caucasians “in the past” but to correct the wrongs of the current American society (any Asian’s out there have Latino housekeepers/ gardners? Are the URM’s attending the same quality of public school as the Whites and Asian’s? </p>
<p>So yes, this thread is futile because the problem that so many think is so easily fixed is beyong the scope of anyone on this thread. For anyone of us to think we have THE answer just shows ignorance. I wish people could take it up a level and have an open dabate about the issue without all the sarcasm and name calling. It’s sad that this is the level of conversation on the parent’s thread (It is amazingly similar to the HS thread). But alas there have also been studies on anonymous forums that show people feel empowered to treat others disrespectfully and to abandon the good manners they normally show.</p>
<p>Sewhappy: I like you found this thread to be a place to test my thinking on this topic and have also had the discussion with others outside CC. It is a good thing! I’m afraid however that it has been reduced to something I am not used to engaging in for educational purposes.:(</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow. That’s…absurd.</p>
<p>The only good news to come out of that is that it is SURE to be appealed.</p>
<p>
Sigh. I don’t want to get into a big debate over this. Merely declaring something so does not make it so. Even for an esteemed trained economist such as yourself. If you wish to actually debate the statistics with someone who cares, and has the inclination to discuss the same data for the thousandth time, I implore you to PM siserune and tell him he is off his rocker. </p>
<p>The former and current California and Michigan cases are specific cases which have been debated ad nauseum on here, as has every tiny consideration of this issue. People are not in unanimity on what the data shows, despite your declarations. </p>
<p>BTW - I see you don’t even agree with yourself -</p>
<p>in post 2477</p>
<p>IP from post 2477 -
</p>
<p>From a more recent post -</p>
<p>xiggi:
</p>
<p>IP
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, the “slight” increase will hardly be slight. Experience shows that. That will prove, once and for all, that there is indeed a racial bias against Asians.</p>
<p>Asians are not as a group interested in keeping URMs down. Asians as a group are interested in not being victims of racial bias. I don’t understand how other racial groups expect Asians to be fine with racial discrimination as long as it helps another race. The whole point of the 14 Amendment is to prevent any racial (or other) group from being discriminated against. That includes Asians.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“People” may not be, but social scientists are in unanimity. Every single research article on this topic shows that. I tend to believe much more in peer-reviewed academic research than popular opinion. Hence my comparison to Global Warming or Evolution.</p>
<p>I will leave the rest of your post alone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Race-blind admissions does not “shortchange” so-called “underrepresented” minorities; since when does treatment WITHOUT regard to racial classification amount to “shortchanging”? Let’s get this straight; we used to “shortchange” blacks in our country BECAUSE of their racial classification. We certainly didn’t “shortchange” them because we ignored it, did we?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whoa, you better be careful with where you’re going. I can’t speak for all “Asians” and neither should you. I don’t have a problem with anyone on the basis of racial classification, and your “systematic…underclass” is total BS. Why is it that we tell Asians that it’s OK for them to go to Maryland instead of Johns Hopkins, but for "URM"s, they just HAVE to go to Hopkins or else? Why is Maryland good enough for Asians but not for "URM"s?</p>
<p>Sure, Dale and Krueger found that students from poor families and students who were "URM"s got more out of elite educations than did students who were neither poor nor “URM.” But is that your justification for racial preferences?</p>
<p>
If you have this **peer reviewed academic research<a href=“please%20not%20Epenshade%20or%20Dale%20and%20Krueger%20again”>/b</a> I’m sure “people” would welcome complete citations. I’ll certainly look at them if I have free access. </p>
<p>And not Golden or Karabel. I own and have read both those books. To the extent they can be called academic research, they prove nothing, and Karabel really does not devote much of his book to the current system.</p>
<p>So bovertine, you are asking me to provide you with academic research that you agree with, and discard all academic research that you disagree with, and prove my point which is orthogonal to yours using only such research as is acceptable to you?</p>
<p>Incidentally, the other day I was discussing Global Warming with an acquaintance in the gym. He told me that in order to prove Global Warming I must use only research that proves that there is no Global Warming, as the rest of the research is nonsense, and that he is very open minded and will be happy to look at any valid research (valid meaning it proves that there is no Global Warming). Brings back memories.</p>
<p>Now, bovertine, how do you explain the explosion in the Asian admission rate at UCB post Prop 209? What happened if there was no Asian quota before?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry but I am still having trouble with this statement. If you look at all the UC’s the admit rate for Asians has gone DOWN from pre prop209 to post prop209.</p>
<pre><code> 1994 2009
</code></pre>
<p>UCB 37% 25%
UCLA 49% 24%
UCSD 66% 42%
UCI 72% 49%</p>
<p>There are MANY other factors going on besides racial preferences, like the disproportionately high numbers of Asian applicants pre209 vs. post 209. You can’t simply conclude that Asians are now getting higher admission rates (because they aren’t)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How interesting. Since you might be surprised to find out, I agree with you. I suspect there is some bias against Asians in head to head admissions with Whites.
I merely have not seen these abundant, definitive academic studies everyone keeps talking about. I have seen impressive statistically based arguments on both sides, particularly from siserune (who, incidentally, got me to change my mind on another issue through solid argumentation). That’s why I do not dismiss these intelligent posters offhand as you seem to do. </p>
<p>As far as with URMs, I don’t think anybody is debating whether they are advantaged in admissions. That’s an ideological issue, not a factual one.</p>
<p>I am not interested in debating this with you or anyone else on here. It’s tiresome and pointless. All the arguments about the California and Michigan cases have bveen made in the prior thousands of pages, and on many other thread. I am interested in seeing something new. I am interested in seeing and reading all the studies you claim exist.</p>