I did read the study, and while it’s interesting, it doesn’t really stand for the proposition that the schools in the study–much less elite privates–were discriminating against Asians in favor of whites. The legal changes in those states eliminated preferences for URMs, and the study suggests that when that was done, Asians got most of the seats lost by URMs as a result. But what, if anything, does this tell us about how those colleges treated Asians vs. whites? Not much. A few points:
Nothing in the article, or anywhere else, suggests that the schools changed their policies with respect to admitting whites vs. Asians–it was all about eliminating preferences for URMs. If there is any evidence to the contrary, I’d like to see it.
Don’t most of the schools in the test group base admissions mostly on stats? If so, this result is consistent with Espenshade, in that Asians have higher stats than whites. But Ivies don’t based admission mostly on stats.
The inclusion of Cornell in the control group was profoundly stupid. If they were trying to match Berkeley, they might have used UVa. The poorly constructed control group, as well as scant attention to other demographic changes in the relevant states, makes it hard to tell if the whole result is just a “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy.</p>
<p>In other words, this article supports the idea–promoted heavily in this thread–that URMs are “stealing” the seats of Asians at some schools. It doesn’t really support the proposition that whites are doing so.</p>
<p>No. Not letting either you or performersmom get away with false premises. Calling both of you on trying to control the argument by inventing your own definitions. </p>
<p>The term ‘racism’ is a loaded word – a charge that can be applied legally (as an act of legally forbidden discrimination), or as a universally observable immoral act (such as prejudice or animus shown by individuals or groups against another individual or group, by reason of the latter’s personal affiliation only), or, as on CC, as a vague accusation which is dubiously “concluded” from any combination of unsupported assumptions, bits and pieces of phrases within media (going from 1 + 1 to maybe 10 instead of 2), and personal proclamation that it “exists.”</p>
<p>Subjectivity in admissions (all educational institutions, not just college) =/= racism. Weird priorities in admissions, if not attributable to a racial category, =/= racism. Balancing a class on many factors (per Grutter) =/= racism. But all such factors can be cause for any consumer to pick up their feet and walk elsewhere; none of them are necessarily court cases, let alone Supreme Court cases.</p>
<p>This is social sciences, not physical sciences. You do not have exact controlled experiments, you have analogues. For example, let’s say you want to know for a fact if raising taxes would lead to stagnation in the USA. That would be a impossible question to answer, unless you actually raise taxes and observe the effect, which would beat the purpose of having a reasonable guess to the answer beforehand. So you look at other G-7 countries and see what happened there, and draw a conclusion.</p>
<p>I am not questioning anything you have just said. </p>
<p>My question is:
Why use “race” as a basic way to categorize applicants?
Because it is legal.
Should it be?
I do not always take what authorities proclaim as right. Decisions fro the highest levels can be questioned, improved or refined or brought up to date with changing conditions.</p>
<p>Change it to prejudice shown by individuals or groups for or against another individual or group, by reason of the latter’s personal affiliation only.</p>
<p>How is AA not racism then?</p>
<p>And how about not wanting 50% of the incoming class to be Asians?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Balancing a class on many factors (per Grutter) == legally allowable racism. It needs to be - and is being - challenged in courts.</p>
<p>Okay, will take the baton and run a bit from others on this thread. Personally, I don’t think the OP’s question and the question in general is “Do colleges discriminate against Asians in favor of whites?” How did this argument become that?</p>
<p>The discussion is about whether it is racist to factor race into admission decisions. And from any objective perspective, yes it emphatically is racist. Essentially, these schools who employ these practices tell members of certain races they can purchase admission with less – less in terms of gpa and scores and ECs because they are a preferred race. Applicants of other races are told that they can purchase admission at a higher price – higher scores, gpa, ECs. That’s called price discrimination – charging one buyer a different price than another buyer based on demographics. That’s racism, guys. Sorry, I know your motivation is driven by nobility of purpose . . . but it is racism.</p>
<p>I ask my kids what they make of it and they are basically accepting. The younger one says it’s the way the upper class keeps the under class from rising up! The older one says it’s just what is and he’s glad he’s smart enough to scoot around the whole edifice basically erected to keep kids like him out: smart, white, upper middle class parents who can pay but feel the pain, no legacy, etc. He’s like . . . why noodle over this? It will dissolve eventually from the sheer stupidity holding it up?</p>
<p>Then there’s the whole question of who this status quo is really benefiting. MY BIL the latino md hates AA, says it undercuts his accomplishments constantly and undercuts his efforts in parenting his kids to become achievers.</p>
That was Hunt’s question. It has also been asserted by many. Hunt has posed this request for data or studies probably 20 times. He is asking to see data on this, as was I.
There is no rule that a thread must stick with the OP’s question. And believe it or not, neither you nor IP set the rules or decide the debate victors anywhere except in your own heads.</p>
<p>I know this is a long thread and you came in more than half way through it, but I don’t believe that anyone is arguing that URMs don’t have certain advantages over Whites and Asians in admissions to elite schools. This has been discussed to no end on this thread and others.</p>
<p>The only question which, I believe, may have some merit (and this has NOT been shown) is whether or not Asians are discriminated against vs. WHITES. </p>
<p>At least Fabrizio can separate the two arguments!!!</p>
<p>Well, I for one would like to discuss the whole question of favoring URMs over other applicants. This question is likely to go to the Supreme Court before long (witness Michigan) and I think it is the truly meaningful question here.</p>
<p>I am not interested in that question. I believe that when AA is gone, Asians will rise to the normal level of student body composition as measured by talent - about 50%. What happens after that is not my interest.</p>
<p>Wow! So many people admitting today that colleges are unjustly giving seats from Asians to URMs! Couldn’t have imagined this a week back, when the mantra was that that simply was not happening!</p>
<p>Fully agree, especially if many people are now admitting that the OP’s question ends in an affirmative answer. Changing the subject seems to be the time honored move to deploy now.</p>
<p>I agree with this. Which is why I, and several others on this thread, used the term “whining” about AA, way, way back at the beginning of this thread. If you, IP or anyone can come up with a basis upon which to strike down AA, bring it on!</p>
<p>For some reason, no one has been able to do this in the last 8 years (since Grutter). I wonder why.</p>
<p>Its probably not going to happen until URMs can maintain their current level of representation without preferences. Sorry…Asians may never hit 50%. </p>
<p>Although I support Affirmative Action for URMs…I don’t think Asians should have to racially classify themselves. They can be lumped in with Whites.</p>
<p>No. This was NEVER the mantra. Go back to the beginning of the thread and start reading!! And you added the word “unjust”. I never said it was unjust. I happen to agree with it. Unjust is very subjective. I also said “asians and whites”…so you are twisting my words and I am quickly losing respect for your arguments.</p>