are colleges racist?

[IndianParent]

<p>

What do you consider hard/soft factors?</p>

<p>And the hard factors aren’t as so straightforward as well, if you consider ‘hard’ factors to be SAT scores and other numerical data. So, the SAT people report that Asians do have an overall better average SAT score, but while they are above all ethnic groups in the math score, they are not in the critical reading. So it’s hard to claim that Asians are ‘far ahead’ here.</p>

<p>And if you look at ACT scores, nationally, it appears that Asian Americans do outscore most groups (in 2009) with a 23.2 overall ACT, but the next highest group, Causcasian Americans, have a 22.2 I wouldn’t exactly say that a one point difference is ‘far ahead’.

</p>

<p>There is not much of an achievement gap between Caucasians and Asians. That’s why Asians typically don’t complain about the Caucasians taking their spots. the complaint that you hear about URMs is because there is a large gap between URMs and Asians on the hard stats. While there is definitely some Asian displacement due to Caucasians, I think by and large that displacement is justified, as Caucasians also are more well-rounded in general (but Asians are getting there).</p>

[mokusatsu]

<p>

3. The California study you presented is interesting. I think it’s the best argument. But it’s been made and debated here many times, and it is not a slam dunk either. It talks about Asians filling the spots formerly held by URMs, but in the white enrollment sections it explains away much of the loss of sdmissions spots by white males with demographic changes and gains by white females. So with respect to white vs. Asian head to head comparisons I do not find it particularly convincing evidence. This is the same case that has been made on here many, many times.

Also, even if this showed that the University of California was engaging white v. Asian discrimination, that would not show that any other university was doing so.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

Also, even if this showed that the University of California was engaging white v. Asian discrimination, that would not show that any other university was doing so.

</p>

<p>Even if sea levels are rising in many places, that is not proof that Global Warming is real …</p>

[Shrinkrap]

<p>From page 86, # 1222 by Hunt </p>

<p>“Now, if you please, would campuses be 60% Asian in the absence of racial preferences? If not, then…we don’t need racial preferences to ensure diversity. We can get it by, what did you say? “Cleans[ing] [our] palate with a student who has a different set of interests.”
I don’t think the campuses of Ivies would be 60% Asian in the absence of racial preferences as between whites and Asians. I think they’d be somewhere between 12% and 19% Asian, because of various “soft” and demographic factors. I think if you eliminated racial preferences for URMs, the percentage of Asians would go up by a couple of percent, as would the percentage of whites. …”</p>

<p>To which I, with my limited math skills ultimately gleaned…</p>

<p>“Two percent of 5000 is 100 kids. So if you take 100 kids from the 1000 URMs, they go down to 900/5000 or 18%. Their overall enrollment drops 10% (obviously)”</p>

<p>Ahh! So in that hypothetical scenario, to get an increase of two percent of white students, you need to decrease by 10 percent the URM’s? It would have to decrease by how much more, to increase Asians from say 16 to 18 percent? That would closer to, but not one for one."</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

I don’t think the campuses of Ivies would be 60% Asian in the absence of racial preferences as between whites and Asians. I think they’d be somewhere between 12% and 19% Asian, because of various “soft” and demographic factors. I think if you eliminated racial preferences for URMs, the percentage of Asians would go up by a couple of percent, as would the percentage of whites. Despite several extremely lengthy discussions of this over several years, I haven’t seen anything that makes me think that this opinion is wrong. It could be wrong, of course, but I’d like to see some data to the contrary before I’d suggest getting out the pitchforks and torches.

</p>

<p>What happened in UCB?</p>

[Shrinkrap]

<p>There’s lot’s more; circa page 87… might have gone from there to U Mich…I think it was well covered.</p>

<p>Does anybody else find this really depressing?</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

I do think that there is a bias towards Caucasians, but I don’t think that is due to race. Caucasians have many more hooks.

Yes, this sounds reasonable. I’ve seen it postulated on this thread as well. And Jean Fetter wrote about this in her book on Stanford Admissions.</p>

[skrlvr]

<p>

That’s why Asians typically don’t complain about the Caucasians taking their spots. the complaint that you hear about URMs is because there is a large gap between URMs and Asians on the hard stats.

</p>

<p>But Asians overall have a higher median income than any other group and there is a higher proportion of Asian families with incomes over 100K than any other group. </p>

<p>And we do know that SAT scores track pretty well with income. The highest SAT scores are achieved not by Asian students but by students from families with incomes over 200K.</p>

<p>Now, here’s where we are going to differ. For you, it shouldn’t matter how that SAT score was achieved. If you have access to better educational opportunities because you have a higher income, and this access results in a higher score, then you should take the place of someone with a lower score (within reason). Someone should not be ‘punished’ for taking advantage of opportunities. Any attempt to ‘compensate’ for a lower score as a result of access to superior educational opportunties is unfair. </p>

<p>For me, I think that these scores should be looked at in context.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

Yes, this sounds reasonable. I’ve seen it postulated on this thread as well. And Jean Fetter wrote about this in her book on Stanford Admissions.

</p>

<p>Look at college admissions as a market share game. Does Android need to steal market share from iPhone, or should it go after the likes of palm and other small players where there is a clear gap in feature/functionality. This is why you will repeatedly hear from Asians that their problem is with AA and not Caucasian admission rates. It is not necessary to displace Caucasians in order for Asians to reach the full “market share” potential in the class composition. Displacing URMs is easier, objectively justified, and meets the “market share” goals. Displacing Caucasians is far more difficult, objectively justified sometimes but not with a clear distinction, and is not necessary to meet the “market share” goals. That’s all really.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

But Asians overall have a higher median income than any other group and there is a higher proportion of Asian families with incomes over 100K than any other group.</p>

<p>And we do know that SAT scores track pretty well with income. The highest SAT scores are achieved not by Asians but by families with incomes over 200K.

</p>

<p>Ah, now you are coming to a point when my liberal politics is starting to agree with you. AA shouldn’t be about race. It should be about socioeconomic class. This, as much as it hurts the chances of my son, is something I cannot totally discredit. </p>

<p>However, that is not what is done in practice. Race is used as a proxy for socioeconomic class. That’s just plain wrong. It is prohibited in the Constitution in the 14th Amendment. </p>

<p>Now, what’s the best way to boost the chances of poor(er) kids. Should they be given extra credits for lower scores? Then what happens once they are admitted? It is not just their SAT scores that are low, their overall academic preparation is lower as well. They typically take fewer AP classes, and in general are the products of a less rigorous education system. The proper way to correct this is to pump in Federal tax dollars into the education system for underprivileged localities. I am all for paying more taxes to support this.</p>

<p>There still remains a problem though. In Freakonomics, there was a very interesting analysis, which showed the effect of parents on kids, even when adjusted for the same academic environment and other factors. Kids who have parents that are driven and successful, have a much higher chance of being driven and successful themselves. It is a pure case of role modeling. So, even pumping in money will not help the lower income groups completely, but it will for sure lower the achievement gap.</p>

<p>However, lowering the bar is just wrong, for both the high and low achieving kids, whatever the underlying reason for low achievement.</p>

[mokusatsu]

<p>

Even if sea levels are rising in many places, that is not proof that Global Warming is real …

If the level of Lake Tahoe is rising, that is not proof that the level of Lake Michigan is rising.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>Mokusatsu, Tell me, what sort of proof would you need to be convinced that there is a bias against Asians in elite college admissions?</p>

[texaspg]

<p>welcome back shrinkrap. i cant believe you post two messages and you are already depressed!</p>

<p>I would have thought you were out celebrating a win in Michigan. :p</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>OK bovertine, let’s just settle on this question then. Do you believe that if colleges were forced to disregard race in their admissions process the composition of the student body would remain unchanged?</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

Do you believe that if colleges were forced to disregard race in their admissions process the composition of the student body would remain unchanged?

No. Clear enough?</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

No. Simple enough?

</p>

<p>Simple enough indeed.</p>

<p>Now, that must mean some races are underrepresented today (by all other factors except for race), and some are overrepresented. Yes or no?</p>

[skrlvr]

<p>

Ah, now you are coming to a point when my liberal politics is starting to agree with you. AA shouldn’t be about race. It should be about socioeconomic class.

</p>

<p>Yes, we are in agreement somewhat here. However, even if you ‘make it’ financially as a URM, you can still face significant barriers of access.</p>

<p>But if you want to see another heated thread about class and elite college admissions, then go to those threads about financial aid and elite colleges. There, you will see people upset because those from families who earn under 60K get significant help, while those from families who earn over 200K tend to be full pay.</p>

[limabeans01]

<p>

But the big point here is that you apparently believe Asians are a vile and bitter group out to screw "URM"s:

</p>

<p>Fab:</p>

<p>I obviously struck something deep inside of you for you to react with such hostility. Might these words represent something someone has said to you? I am sorry you felt compelled to write such a hateful statement and then infer it is how “I feel”. You might want to examine how racism has already personally affected you and work through it. You might find you’ll be a better debtor on the topic.</p>

<p>Happy fourth of July weekend everyone! Stop posting on CC and spend some time with your loved ones!</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

let’s just settle on this question then

I thought we were settling on question one. </p>

<p>Are you in the habit of cross examining people who agree with you, merely because they ask for more evidence to bolster the case? </p>

<p>This is really tedious.</p>

[fireandrain]

<p>

… leave spots open for Asians in the top schools?
… the deserving missing out on a spot.

</p>

<p>Indian Parent: Why are Asians more deserving of spots in top schools than certain minorities? What specifically do you think they offer that makes them more deserving than the students who are being accepted?</p>

<p>ETA: And the students who are being accepted, why are they “less deserving” than the Asians who are not getting in?</p>

<p>And why are the Asians who are denied admissions more deserving than the other 90% of applicants who are also being rejected?</p>