are colleges racist?

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

I have consistently expressed how nonsensical it is to tell Asians that they’ll be fine wherever they go but to tell blacks that it is important that they attend super duper private elites.

</p>

<p>Yes, that’s the major problem in the African-American community in the US in the year 2011 – too many of them are being told that it’s important that they attend super duper private elites. @@</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>“I’ve been suggesting “(1.5)” as a compromise. That is, use unique identifiers but modify the box so that it’s just “(Optional) Are you a ‘URM’? If yes, please check one or more of the following:” Ideally, I’d go for (1), but I am not against compromise. soomoo, sewhappy, Hunt, epiphany and several others have said they have no issues with “(1.5).””</p>

<p>I would have no problem with such a solution. I think even the most well-intentioned person, who would never countenance discrimination or bias, might have inadvertent reactions to names. I mean, I’m sure there are adcoms who have negative reactions to Worthington Witherspoon III from Connecticut, accompanied by a resume of lacrosse and water polo, even though Worthington might be a down-to-earth, great kid.</p>

[texaspg]

<p>shrinkrap "If you want to “cut me out” because I’m full pay, I’m not sure where this will go. One of the “tipping points.” And I’ll want to know why “full pay” folks who are NOT URM get an alleged advantage. "</p>

<p>The question truly was whether you should get an URM edge if you are full pay and an URM. I believe the discussion was about richer African Americans needing the admission because the other ones needed to marry the already upwardly mobile. :p</p>

<p>I am a bit lost on the 3% and 7% you keep mentioning.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Yes, that’s the major problem in the African-American community in the US in the year 2011 – too many of them are being told that it’s important that they attend super duper private elites. @@

</p>

<p>I agree that a “HYPSM or bust” mentality is not optimal, though I disagree that Asians really do “disproportionately” think that way given that they’re “overrepresented” at so many research universities and LACs. My point is that if you’re going to tell an Asian that he can do well no matter where he goes, you should tell a “URM” the same thing.</p>

<p>

I would have no problem with such a solution. I think even the most well-intentioned person, who would never countenance discrimination or bias, might have inadvertent reactions to names.

</p>

<p>Glad to see that even on this issue, we can have some common ground.</p>

[NCL]

<p>Re: #2795</p>

<p>I guess that one sees things the way he/she wants to see them.</p>

<p>Xiggi’s statement:

This is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. Espenshade has admitted that nothing in his work demonstrates … discrimination.

</p>

<p>Espenshade’s statement to the official spokesperson of Princeton University (and posted on official Princeton website):

People may read this and want to say, “Oh, because I’m Asian American, my SAT scores have been downgraded.” That is not really the way to interpret these data. Many times people will ask me, “Do your results prove that there is discrimination against Asian applicants?” And I say, “No, they don’t.” Even though in our data we have much information about the students and what they present in their application folders, most of what we have are quantifiable data. We don’t have the “softer” variables – the personal statements that the students wrote, their teacher recommendations, a full list of extracurricular activities. Because we don’t have access to all of the information that the admission office has access to, it is possible that the influence of one applicant characteristic or another might appear in a different light if we had the full range of materials.

</p>

<p>Espenshade’s statement was apparently very precisely and carefully worded. One of the key words here is “prove”. What constitutes a “proof”? A proof by preponderance of the evidence, a proof beyond reasonable doubt, or a mathematical proof? Clearly, without all the “softer” variables, Espenshade et al. cannot mathematically prove discrimination, especially for individual cases. As he stated:“…it is possible that the influence of one applicant characteristic or another might appear in a different light if we had the full range of materials.”</p>

<p>But the claim that the inclusion of “softer” variables would change the conclusion of a study using data from 124,374 individual applicants requires a huge leap of faith: asians, as a group, are weaker in all these “softer” variables. In fact, if one reads the study (2004), asians were stronger than whites in both GPA and class rank, which, like the “softer” variables, were not included in the regression analysis.</p>

<p>Or we can just read the paper (2004), which states in its conclusion:

…Other things equal, Hispanic applicants gain the equivalent of 185 points, which is only slightly more than the legacy advantage, which is worth 160 points. Coming from an Asian background, however, is comparable to the loss of 50 SAT points. (out of 1600)

</p>

[johnwesley]

<p>Fab (calling me out, once again) wrote:

johnwesley might read my post and insist that I’m prejudiced against middle class blacks or that I think they should know their “place.” That’s his right, but neither is true. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No, but it is sort of sad that after four years of high school and another four years of college, you don’t seem to know many middle-class blacks. In fact, it’s not clear that after receiving a degree from one of the most prestigious engineering schools in the country that you know many middle-class people at all. :/</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

If you wanted the most academically prepared students, you could likely just draw from Andover, Choate, Taft, Harvard-Westlake, Horace Mann,insert your own rigorous private high school of choice and maybe throw in some (very affluent) public high schools. Is that what colleges want? Merely the most academically prepared? It may be what you WANT them to want, but that’s different.</p>

<p>And if the system isn’t admitting the very best of the best like you seem to think - and compromising academic quality because of their soft hearts towards underprepared / not ready students – then why would you want to go there in the first place? It’s odd to dislike how they compose their student body at the same time you want passionately, oh so desperately to be a member of it.

</p>

<p>I really don’t care what kind of students colleges take, as long as</p>

<p>1) the selection criteria are as objective as possible
2) the selection criteria are open for all to see, and train themselves accordingly
3) the selection criteria do not violate the 14th Amendment</p>

<p>I never said that I think only the best of the best - academically or otherwise - should go to the best academic institutions. I merely said that while SAT/GPA is not an indicator of future success, neither are the soft stats. So, people who discount SAT/GPA but extol the ECs are just as biased as those that do the opposite.</p>

<p>Why is going to a top academic institution important? It’s pedigree to some extent, but truly what you get is the network. You reap the benefits of that for the rest of your life. It is most certainly not the academic training.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

I would have no problem with such a solution. I think even the most well-intentioned person, who would never countenance discrimination or bias, might have inadvertent reactions to names. I mean, I’m sure there are adcoms who have negative reactions to Worthington Witherspoon III from Connecticut, accompanied by a resume of lacrosse and water polo, even though Worthington might be a down-to-earth, great kid.

</p>

<p>Would you have a problem with your option 1? If yes, why?</p>

[xiggi]

<p>Yadda, Yadda, NCL. </p>

<p>You seem to forget that people know how to read. Most people also know that to prove means to demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.</p>

<p>Espenshade’s statement was indeed very precisely and carefully worded when he said: “Do your results prove that there is discrimination against Asian applicants?” And I say, “No, they don’t.” And, fwiw, do you now want to offer more nonsense to dismiss the statement about the absence of a smoking gun?</p>

[Shrinkrap]

<p>“The question truly was whether you should get an URM edge if you are full pay and an URM. I believe the discussion was about richer African Americans needing the admission because the other ones needed to marry the already upwardly mobile.”</p>

<p>Ok then, my mistake. I don’t remember it that way. .</p>

<p>“I am a bit lost on the 3% and 7% you keep mentioning.”</p>

<p>Didn’t realize I KEPT mentioning it. My intention was to note a number I thought was reasonably close to the decrease in black students without race preferences , and the impact it might have on black males . Anybody want to do the math?</p>

<p>Ah! Totally different 3 and 7 I’m looking for, for my kids schools! it really didn’t want to get below three percent, which was pretty much the standard in California; seven was exceptional.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

I’ve found it of significance only in landing the first job; after that, it’s what you do. I routinely work with Harvard, U Chicago, and other elite graduates, as well as graduates of good state flagships, and at this stage in the game it really doesn’t matter. I stand in front of big-company client CEO’s all the time and amazingly they’ve never asked where I went to school, and I know they come from all different backgrounds as well.

</p>

<p>Clearly our experiences have been different. I am forever grateful to the two Ivies that I went to, as without that stamp I wouldn’t have gotten an interview in the first place in the two institutions where I have worked. I benefit from the network that I created in those two places - especially the one from Business School - many years post graduation. I fully expect to continue to benefit from that network till I retire.</p>

<p>Hence, I think it is very important for my kid to go to a similar or even better Ivy. The Ivies agree, as they reserve spots for URMs, who would benefit from going to the Ivies. URMs agree as well, as they do take advantage of that quota. My Caucasian friends similarly extol the virtue of their Harvard and Yale networks (I went to neither).</p>

<p>But clearly your experience has been different.</p>

[texaspg]

<p>Is this a number from UC system or Texas changing rules?</p>

[Shrinkrap]

<p>^ Just a guess, based on conjecture I’ve seen here (probably should have guessed 10 percent overall), and the UC stuff posted recently (at least twice the impact on males).</p>

<p>“URMs agree as well, as they do take advantage of that quota.”</p>

<p>I don’t know about Hispanic students, but would you care to estimate the percentage of college age blacks that take advantage of that quota? Maybe it would be better to say 1/2 of 1 percent (wild guess; probably much less) of black’s agree, as 1/2 of 1 percent take advantage of that “quota”.</p>

<p>Depressing.</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>

Most people also know that to prove means to demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

</p>

<p>Of course the problem of deciding whether something is an adequate demonstration isn’t quite as trivial as the naive definition.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

While I don’t have any hard evidence to support my claim, you don’t have any evidence to support yours either, other than an appeal to an (admittedly racist) stereotype of Asian families.

</p>

<p>Math SAT scores of relatively poor Asian Americans compare favorably to affluent European Americans, though there are also a high number of very low scores. In the Seattle area, one study published in National Review by Arthur Hu showed that Asian Americans tended to score as well as Whites in the next better suburb. Studies have shown Asian Americans to be, on average, about two years ahead in math ability compared to average, which is also about the same gap observed between nations such as China and Japan compared to the United States. This is despite the fact that Asian Americans have the same school year, and often go to the same urban school systems that serve other minorities. Nationally, Asian Americans tend to get higher grades and have a higher completion rate than whites, and lower rates of discipline, along with lower rates of drug use and premarital sex, entirely inconsistent with the common wisdom that minority status necessarily results in poorer outcomes. Asian Americans still lag on verbal scores because of the predominance of recent immigrants.</p>

<p>[Model</a> minority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_minority]Model”>Model minority - Wikipedia)</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

So what does this mean in practice? Stop piano and violin, immediately. Start a guitar, encourage your kid to start a rock band, or if you must follow piano, go for jazz piano. Go for theater, an EC Asians don’t usually do. Go for poetry and writing and politics and economics - et cetra. For heavens sake, don’t go for math or physics or engineering. They are the kiss of death. You can teach your kid to be a top-notch mathematician, but hide that in the applications.</p>

<p>Play some sports. Play lacrosse. Fence. Whatever. Just avoid whatever the other Asian kids are doing.</p>

<p>Basically make your kid a Caucasian Robot. The adcoms will eat that up.

</p>

<p>After I wrote the above, I agonized a bit over this. After all, the basic premise of America is one should be able to follow their dreams without being unfairly stigmatized. So, what about the many, many Asian kids who have a true passion for STEM? Should they drop it altogether?</p>

<p>I personally don’t think that they should drop it, but I wouldn’t definitely hide that in college applications. They should keep pursuing their dreams. Once they are in college, they can always choose their major in a field that excites them. However, given that being honest about where their passions are would immediately get them labeled as a robot (oh the irony!), I cannot in good faith recommend that they are open about their passions.</p>

<p>I do hope that this all changes one day, where kids are able to openly declare that they love STEM without being stigmatized. Unfortunately, that day is not here today. There is significant bias against STEM, and one needs to fight the good fight from within, and not from outside. When these kids grow up, they need to pump huge amount of funds into STEM programs, and get on college boards to influence the thinking.</p>

<p>Incidentally, if there was a similar bias against liberal arts I would have recommended the same. Prejudice is prejudice.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

Espenshade’s statement was indeed very precisely and carefully worded when he said: “Do your results prove that there is discrimination against Asian applicants?” And I say, “No, they don’t.” And, fwiw, do you now want to offer more nonsense to dismiss the statement about the absence of a smoking gun?

</p>

<p>In racial discrimination cases there hardly is a smoking gun. The courts try to understand if there is reasonable cause.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

I benefit from the network that I created in those two places - especially the one from Business School - many years post graduation. I fully expect to continue to benefit from that network till I retire.

</p>

<p>I don’t doubt elite school networks. At all. I would just point out a few things, though … A) There are plenty of non-elite schools that have very powerful and deep networks, so it’s not just a function of elite-ness, and B) if networking is important, then that in and of itself demonstrates why the core criteria shouldn’t be just scores / grades – it should involve some ability to interact socially with the world. Nerds studying in their rooms don’t form networks.</p>

<p>

Hence, I think it is very important for my kid to go to a similar or even better Ivy.

</p>

<p>You cannot seriously think that the differences of a few points in USNWR translate into a school being markedly better or worse. I’m sorry, if you really think there is any meaningful difference in quality between, say, 4 and 9, or whatever, I’m going to have to laugh.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

I do hope that this all changes one day, where kids are able to openly declare that they love STEM without being stigmatized. Unfortunately, that day is not here today. There is significant bias against STEM, and one needs to fight the good fight from within, and not from outside.

</p>

<p>Yes, you can hardly find any Asian kids who have true passion for STEM at top schools. Nosiree, you can’t find 'em at all. @@ Pardon me while my eyes roll out of my head.</p>

<p>There’s no “bias” against STEM - but there is a bias against people who don’t seem to comprehend that universities need STEM majors and French majors and philosophy majors and music majors and theater majors and that they can’t have too many of the same. </p>

<p>I wouldn’t tell an Asian kid who was sincerely interested in STEM not to pursue it - that’s ridiculous. You have to be authentic and let the chips fall where they may.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>I measure the quality of a school primarily by two things. Graduate school placement and job placement. There are very good estimates of these for all the top schools, and they are not at all all created equally. In fact, I can just look up how many kids from each school ended up in Goldman Sachs (where I don’t work) as an Analyst. That’s a good enough indicator of the strength of the school. I can also look up how many kids from the school ended up in Harvard Law, Business, or Medical schools. It’s actually quite simple.</p>

<p>It is a myth that nerds don’t network. They network with other nerds. Those networks are just as strong and often more beneficial, as nerds have a tendency to end up in the top spots of the business world (and otherwise, in medical and law, or STEM).</p>