are colleges racist?

[3togo]

<p>

I am amazed by these numbers, frankly. This indicates less than $65k/year on average annual earnings for most schools, or less than $35/hour. The first thought that came to my mind after reading this was - whoa! Why are people even going to colleges then? Why are they not becoming, say, plumbers or electricians or a union worker in a auto company? To put this in context, in 1983, Michael Lewis was making $200k (in 1983 dollars, mind you) at the then Solomon Brothers, by trading bonds. </p>

<p>What am I missing here?

</p>

<p>A possibility … that some people value education and then go into fields like …

• teaching
• professor
• research scientist
• working for non-profits
• going to work on social programs in third world countries</p>

<p>The median FAMILY income in the USA is something like 50k … not everyone has trhe ability to be an investment banker, CEO, or management consultant … and more importantly, tons of the people with the ability choose not to.</p>

[johnwesley]

<p>Another good one from Indianparent:

USA as a country did exceptionally well before the Civil Rights era, too.

</p>

<p>ROTFL: You’d get no argument from Randall Robinson on that: [Randall</a> Robinson On Reparations for Slavery](<a href=“http://www.democracynow.org/2000/2/8/randall_robinson_on_reparations_for_slavery]Randall”>Randall Robinson On Reparations for Slavery | Democracy Now!)</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

That article has data and graphs on all the states with ballot initiatives. You can duly check that the Asian/white ratio shows no abnormal jumps when race-blind admission is introduced, other than natural annual fluctuations and the slow growth trend one expects from natural demographic processes.

</p>

<p>Figures 1 and 2 of the Moses et al. (2009) paper indeed show that there are no abnormal jumps in the Asian/white ratio between 1997 and 1998 at Berkeley and UCLA. I continue to say that your demographic explanation is quite convincing and weakens two notions: (1) Asians “win” following civil rights initiatives and (2) civil rights initiatives make “imbalance” worse.</p>

<p>But what do you make of the spike in “race unknown” at both of those schools in the year Proposition 209 went into effect? At both schools, it more than doubled, from 7% to 16% at Berkeley and from 5.5% to ~14% at UCLA.</p>

<p>Moses et al. cite [Saenz</a>, Oseguera, and Hurtado (2007)](<a href=“http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/college-access/affirmative-action/charting-the-future-of-college-affirmative-action-legal-victories-continuing-attacks-and-new-research/orfield-charting-the-future-affirmative-action.pdf]Saenz”>http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/college-access/affirmative-action/charting-the-future-of-college-affirmative-action-legal-victories-continuing-attacks-and-new-research/orfield-charting-the-future-affirmative-action.pdf) as an example of “additional research discussing the increase in ‘race unknown’ in the UC System.” But Saenz et al. themselves cite [Smith</a> et al. (2005)](<a href=“http://irvine.org/assets/pdf/pubs/education/UnknownStudentsCDI.pdf]Smith”>http://irvine.org/assets/pdf/pubs/education/UnknownStudentsCDI.pdf), who appear to conclude that most of the “race unknown” students in their sample were white.</p>

<p>Edit</p>

<p>I’d like to note that the notion that Asians “win” following civil rights initiatives is not held only by those who oppose racial preferences. Three former administrators at the University of Florida wrote a [url=<a href=“http://escholarship.org/uc/item/35n755gf]paper[/url”>Admissions and Public Higher Education in California, Texas, and Florida: The Post-Affirmative Action Era]paper[/url</a>] arguing that “Asian-American students in California were the major beneficiaries of Proposition 209 in California…Clearly in an open admissions process where affirmative action does not enter into enrollment decisions and where legacy and donor issues are discouraged, Asian-American students compete very well.”</p>

<p>Their figures aren’t as good as those of Moses et al. because their x-axis (time) doesn’t have consistent increments, which distorts the trend.</p>

[texaspg]

<p>Siserune -
“A look at the annual data tables provided by the AMC (see amc.maa.org) will show that there are very few high scores on the AIME each year after subtracting the non-US competitors. The published tables and scatterplots also show that the AIME score does not correlate all that well with AMC score, because it is extremely difficult in comparison. The “hundreds” of USAMO qualifiers consists of about 120 high school graduates per year. Even if the qualifying exams were easy, there’s a large difference between generally being able to do problems of the AIME and AMC type, and doing them well enough to rank in the top 100 of one’s class nationally.”</p>

<p>Am I interpreting it correctly when you say subtract non-US scores, there are a large number of students outside of US that are doing these tests well? If so, I am guessing that is precisely IP’s point because he is trained in India and feels these tests are too easy. IIT entrance exams are quite tough and one needs to be really good at Math, Physics and Chemistry to get through. So may be it comes down to training in US high schools not being sufficient to do well in some of these exams?</p>

<p>TK
"Perhaps more importantly for purposes of this thread, another thing you seem to be missing is this: not all students admitted to highly selective colleges want to be Michael Lewis. Some of them want to be school teachers, college professors, or members of Congress (and I think it’s fair to say, adcoms welcome that.) In 2006-2007, faculty salaries at private independent institutions averaged about $85K/year (based on US Department of Labor stats). "</p>

<p>From what I have heard, there are some departments even in well known universities where the pay is much lower than the other deparments like engineering or medicine. I heard faculty in music in some schools might be paid as low as 30-40k.</p>

[tk21769]

<p>^ $84,249 is the 2006-07 USDoL average I’ve seen for private independent institutions.
Salaries for full professors at the wealthiest universities can exceed $100K. Of course, adjunct/part-time faculty do earn much less. But these figures are before profits from intellectual property (patents, books). This is individual income, not family income. A couple of married full professors at a top college can earn a very nice income, especially when you consider the value of long summer vacations and sabbaticals (then maybe throw in a consulting practice). Beats working as a roofing contractor, in my book (even if it takes years to reach this level.)</p>

[Bay]

<p>

Hmm, I don’t recall ever saying that a 50% Asian class would imply one with insufferable prima donnas, without linguistic, or even English skills, and significant personal hygiene issues. </p>

<p>Did I, Bay? I think you made that up my friend, and that’s what I found racist.

</p>

<p>Yes, I made it up, but for the second time, it was not directed at Asians, but rather described the types of people who would might be ensnared by pro sports teams who recruit purely by stats, and by analogy (since you analogized them), universities who admit students without regard to recommendations, interviews, or subjective personal qualities. Both of which you proclaimed to be the superior processes, and for universities would result in a composition of at least 50% Asian (again, according to you).</p>

<p>It is rather sad that you are resorting to twisting people’s posts to comport with your desire to find racism somewhere.</p>

<p>Btw, I used those descriptions because I thought it likely they would apply to pro baseball players, not Asians. ;)</p>

[Canuckguy]

<p>

The legacies vary too. Harvard says only undergraduate parents are legacy which rules out first gen immigrants who mostly do graduate studies. The fallacy of the idea is that the parents are expected to have gone there first, which rules out probably 99% of first gen immigrants.

</p>

<p>Another example of an intentional unintentional walk.</p>

<p>

According to Fabrizio, that there isn’t an “Asian” perspective, or “Asian” behavior, or “Asian” anything. And that it is racist to suggest such a thing.

</p>

<p>Divide and conquer. </p>

<p>

I think IndianParent also said that Asians don’t donate money or assimilate well. I don’t remember fabrizio getting bent out of shape over those comments.

</p>

<p>More of the same.</p>

<p>

ROTFL: You’d get no argument from Randall Robinson on that: Randall Robinson On Reparations for Slavery

</p>

<p>Doesn’t square well with Rudyard Kipling, doe it? The beauty of power stands: you can force a third party to pay the reparation.</p>

[texaspg]

<p>Canuckguy - “Another example of an intentional unintentional walk.”</p>

<p>I know a walk and intentional walk. What in the world is the definition of intentional unintentional walk?</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

Am I interpreting it correctly when you say subtract non-US scores, there are a large number of students outside of US that are doing these tests well? If so, I am guessing that is precisely IP’s point because he is trained in India and feels these tests are too easy. IIT entrance exams are quite tough and one needs to be really good at Math, Physics and Chemistry to get through. So may be it comes down to training in US high schools not being sufficient to do well in some of these exams?

</p>

<p>Spot on. The quality and level of Math and Science educations in the US K-12 program are far, far below international standards. There are problems in AMC 8 that kids in 3rd or 4th grade do in India, and I believe Singapore is even more advanced. So, sure, it may seem difficult to the average US high school student, but not to the average international student. </p>

<p>Why do kids need supplemental coaching from a very early age to qualify in the USAMO? Well, if the schools taught what they are supposed to teach, there wouldn’t be such a need.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

ROTFL: You’d get no argument from Randall Robinson on that: Randall Robinson On Reparations for Slavery

</p>

<p>You missed my point. Just because HYPSM does well right now doesn’t mean the admissions policies are equal towards all races. USA did fine as a country before the civil rights movement.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

A possibility … that some people value education and then go into fields like …

• teaching
• professor
• research scientist
• working for non-profits
• going to work on social programs in third world countries</p>

<p>The median FAMILY income in the USA is something like 50k … not everyone has trhe ability to be an investment banker, CEO, or management consultant … and more importantly, tons of the people with the ability choose not to.

</p>

<p>That’s fair. If people choose to work in professions with lower average compensation, then the value of a HYPSM diploma in getting higher compensation is suppressed. I buy that.</p>

<p>But do you and TK buy that for people who choose to go for a career with higher average compensation, the HYPSM diploma adds a lot? Thus, to tell any and everyone that HYPSM diplomas do not add to economic potential is intellectually dishonest and lying with statistics? People who do value economic potential surely are not thinking about going to work in a non-profit. To extol the virtues of Reed College to them is unethical, as some of them may actually follow that advice.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

^ I agree w/Ghostt. Railing against “holistic” admissions is another matter. However, before we do that, it would be good to try to understand what motivates it, from as emotionally neutral a point-of-view as possible.

</p>

<p>I know what motivates that. I do not disagree with the motivation at all. I am all for holistic admissions as long as</p>

<p>1) The holistic criteria is decided beforehand, written down, and made public, and doesn’t include race
2) Applicants are ranked against the holistic criteria objectively, from as emotionally neutral a point-of-view as possible, so much so a machine can do it
3) The results are subject to random audits </p>

<p>Would this be acceptable to you TK?</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>siserune, Rarely do I get a personal attack (spammer etc.) from a poster who I have not even exchanged a post with. I am disappointed.</p>

<p>I had earlier posted a link to this article.</p>

<p><a href=“http://escholarship.org/uc/item/35n755gf[/url]”>Admissions and Public Higher Education in California, Texas, and Florida: The Post-Affirmative Action Era;

<p>If you disagree with its conclusions, and you seem to, and seem to also believe that your research has proved something but, you should write an academic paper, get it reviewed by your academic peers, and publish it in a journal. I have no inclination of peer reviewing your research, especially since 1) there are already peer reviewed articles that contradict your claim, and 2) you are rather rude, and I do not enable people who are rude.</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

[beawinner]

<p>IndianParent, thank you for being a frequent and mild mannered, polite yet assertive poster. Keep up the good work!!!</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

What Asians should “change:” recognizing that out of every 100 kids who apply to HYPS, only 5-10 get accepted. And that percentage is the same whether you are Asian or white. The percentage might be higher if you are African American or Hispanic, but based on all the numbers I’ve seen thrown around here and elsewhere, it is not high enough that suddenly several thousands more white and Asian students will get accepted if the elite schools decide to stop accepted URMs. (And the acceptance rate for URMs is probably a lot closer to 10% than 100%).

</p>

<p>So, Asians should just accept that while race gives an advantage to URMs, it is best not to challenge that in a country where the Constitution prohibits discrimination by race, and doing so would be challenged with labels such as greedy and needing therapy?</p>

<p>

Harvard’s acceptance rate for African Americans is 16%, if I’m not mistaken. Given that African Americans only account for a small percentage of the applicant pool, and that 16% is a very low acceptance rate anyway, I don’t think railing against affirmative action at Harvard, Yale and Princeton in particular makes much sense.

</p>

<p>That would be nearly double that of the general population, though less than the legacies.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

IndianParent, thank you for being a frequent and mild mannered, polite yet assertive poster. Keep up the good work!!!

</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

Yes, I made it up, but for the second time, it was not directed at Asians, but rather described the types of people who would might be ensnared by pro sports teams who recruit purely by stats, and by analogy (since you analogized them), universities who admit students without regard to recommendations, interviews, or subjective personal qualities. Both of which you proclaimed to be the superior processes, and for universities would result in a composition of at least 50% Asian (again, according to you).</p>

<p>It is rather sad that you are resorting to twisting people’s posts to comport with your desire to find racism somewhere.</p>

<p>Btw, I used those descriptions because I thought it likely they would apply to pro baseball players, not Asians.

</p>

<p>Then I must contend that it was a really poor analogy. Baseball players do not need to string two sentences together, or speak English. Picking the nose - or, my personal favorite, spitting tobacco juice - doesn’t hinder the performance of a baseball team either. Finally, it has nothing to do with race. </p>

<p>If you merely stopped at conformist, poor track record of donation, and lack of assimilation, I wouldn’t have found it racist at all. Those would be facts (by my own estimation from my experience with the first generation Asian community - others may disagree).</p>

<p>That you went ahead and indicated that UCB is such a campus that is full of nose pickers, and coincidentally nearly 50% Asian, seemed to indicate to me that some made up racist accusations are coming the way of the Asian student population at UCB.</p>

<p>Perhaps as I had suggested you should carefully read such posts to see if they reek of covert racism. I think they do.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

Notwithstanding all these numbers, I don’t think it is irrational to believe that a high-demand major (STEM, finance) at a tippy top school (HYPSM) is a much more promising path to riches (for a smart, hard-working person) than a random major at a random school. Adcoms at the tippy top school will accomodate the ambitions of some but not all applicants who want to follow that path. In my opinion, the reasons they don’t admit even more students who fit that profile, right or wrong, have nothing to do with overt “racism” (although there may indeed be cases in which more-or-less subtle stereotyping does lead the profiling process astray.)

</p>

<p>Hence my recommendation to all Asian kids to never, ever mention that they want to major in STEM, or be an engineer, doctor, lawyer, or investment banker. When being truthful results in an undeserved penalty, it is better to gain entrance and change the system from within.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

I am 18 and am going to be a college freshman next year. You’re right, I think American’s in general do not know how to ace a test. Someone like you could help. Have you thought about volunteering at your local public HS?

</p>

<p>LOL. I would probably be dismissed as a reactionary for suggesting that kids be “taught to tests”.</p>

[texaspg]

<h1>3753 - I am going over this article and I am glad to see much maligned 10% rule in Texas seems to have a better impact for URM admissions than before the rule.</h1>