<p>Going back to Casper’s standard fallacy, where you and I differ, Hunt, is that you think it’s OK for a “URM” to be admitted because he happens to be a “URM” whereas I don’t.</p>
<p>Now, I’m perfectly fine with admitting a “URM” who may have lower SAT scores than an Asian if the “URM” has demonstrated that he is more intellectually hungry. Suppose the hypothetical Asian fits xiggi’s stereotype of a trophy-hunting cheater whereas the hypothetical “URM” has conveyed through his essays and recommendations that he has a thirst for knowledge and loves learning for the sake of learning. If such a desire was genuinely demonstrated, by all means admit him because of that!</p>
<p>Just don’t admit him because he’s a “URM” and your institution “needs” more "URM"s to be “diverse.”</p>
<p>What frustrates me is that at times, people who disagree with me understand that that’s where I’m coming from but at other times, I’m pegged as a supporter of “quantitative, scaleable admissions criteria” only.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No personal attacks at all. I directly quoted xiggi’s remarks and stated where they came from. The phrases he used stuck in my mind, which is how I was able to search for them. He has never shown any indication of backing off from them.</p>
<p>As for you, hey, you’re the one talking about a diversity tax from the comforts of your affluent suburb. I have nothing against suburbanites; I’m sure that if my parents didn’t live in a rural South Georgian town, we’d be in a suburb too. But my parents aren’t clamoring for a diversity tax. You are.</p>
<p>So Rothman et al. are testing the “racial diversity brings educational benefits” hypothesis. What did they find?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Forseeing the criticism that racial diversity is more than just blacks,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The picture didn’t change for Hispanics. What about for Asians?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Asians have neither a positive nor negative impact on educational benefits, contrary to “URM” groups. The conclusion from Rothman et al. is that pretty much everything the racial preference side says about educational benefits is false.</p>
That’s because you insist on mixing in the idea that Asians are being discriminated against with respect to whites, something which, if it is happening, could really only be fixed with more quantitative criteria. I agree that’s not the issue with respect to your campaign against URM preferences.</p>
<p>As for your continuing ad hominems, really, they’re pretty ugly. You should be ashamed of yourself. But if it makes you better about your efforts to pull the rug out from under those less fortunate than yourself, have at it.</p>
<p>Why wouldn’t assigning unique identifiers work? You can even still have racial preferences by modifying the box.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ashamed of what? Bringing up a sensitive issue? Hey, if you didn’t want it brought up, you shouldn’t have argued that everyone is obligated to pay a “diversity” tax. Or maybe you should’ve decided to live in a more “diverse” neighborhood; in fairness it doesn’t have to be a Bawlmer rowhouse.</p>
<p>As for those “less fortunate,” who exactly are we talking about? I already pointed out that in the two years the Campus Learning and Life project went on at Duke, Latino students came from families that on average earned more than those of Asian students. My apologies for failing to reconcile “disadvantaged” with “on average comes from family that earns more than supposedly ‘advantaged’ Asians.”</p>
<p>I guess that my support for AA policies that benefit blacks and “browns” must be viewed as a secret ploy to ensure the growth of blue-eyed students in US schools and preserve their eurocentric “look.” </p>
<p>My thick skin must envelop a pretty thick and dense mind!</p>
<p>And this one published in 2008, “Racial Diversity Matters,” by Denson and Chang, which concludes that benefits associated with racial diversity may be even more far-reaching than previously documented:</p>
<p>Maybe this is naive, but AA policies that (1) benefit blacks and browns that of African/Hispanic/Native American descent are completely consistent with (2) pooling ALL other racial categories into one homogeneous group for college admissions. Neither Hunt nor Bay nor xiggi are able to reconcile (1) and (2) and the discussion continues to bounce back and forth between negative action for Asians and affirmative action for URMs. Both undoubtedly exist. There is no convincing rationale other than racial preference (college quadrangles look prettier dotted with whites which encourages giving):</p>
<p>Why is the common app question not worded this way:
“(Strictly optional question) Which of the following describes your ethnicity (no information you provide will be used in a nondiscriminatory way)
( ) African American
( ) Latino
( ) Native American
( ) None of the above”</p>
<p>The ONLY reason to not do it my way is to racially discriminate (i.e., be a racist). What do these whites think of the above.</p>
<p>I wrote this before, but it is my understanding that the wording of the common app question is mandated by the federal government, and not determined by the colleges. The purpose for the question is to monitor whether unlawful racial discrimination, is in fact, occurring.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not agree that not doing it your way is racist. What about colleges that have very few to no Asians? Are Asians not interested in having their race considered when they might bring needed racial diversity to a campus?</p>
<p>Also, how will the federal government monitor whether Asians are being discriminated against, if they have no data regarding the Asians who apply?</p>
<p>Thank you for bringing those to my attention, Bay.</p>
<p>Gurin et al.'s results don’t seem to strongly support the “educational benefits” hypothesis. Quoting from Kuklinski’s review,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Cliff’s Notes version seems to be that your kids and Hispanics get more out of “diversity” than do blacks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I really don’t see how Gurin et al.'s results are strong enough to support their conclusion: “The actual experiences students have with diversity consistently and meaningfully affect important learning and democracy outcomes of a college education.”</p>
<p>I haven’t read enough of Denson and Chang to comment.</p>
This piqued my curiosity. Unfortunately either our school has stopped doing the scattergrams or I no longer have access, but I do have the stats for the lowest stats accepted at HYPM for our school. It’s a big suburban/urban school 60% URM. In the two years I’ve been aware of where kids were going, no URMs got into HYPM though there were some who got into other Ivies. The data is a weighted grade point average and can be inflated by music which is counted in it. Unweighted GPAs for my kids were 4 to 6 points lower. No way to know if these stats are for white kids, athletes, sob stories or even ORM. But it was interesting that you clearly don’t have to have a stellar SAT score. </p>
<p>College _ Lowest GPA Accepted <em>Lowest 1600 SAT _ Lowest 2400 SAT
Harvard</em><strong><em>96.92</em></strong><strong><em>1240</em></strong><strong><em>1810</em></strong>_
Yale________<strong><em>99.08</em></strong><strong><em>1360</em></strong><strong><em>1980</em></strong>
Princeton____<strong><em>100</em></strong><strong><em>1530</em></strong>____<strong><em>2270</em></strong>
MIT___<strong><em>100</em></strong>__________<strong><em>1550</em></strong>___<strong><em>2240</em></strong></p>
<p>Great post Bay … I also believe the question about race is federally mandated and is the same (or very similar) to the one that is federally mandated for job applications.</p>
<p>A lot of people are assuming that the race of candidate is explicitly displayed on the application somewhere … however I’ve been under the impression the race of an applicant is not explicitly displayed unless the candidate is an URM which is flagged; similar to how a legacy ot athletic recruit is flagged. (BTW - if the race is not explicitly displayed other than for URMs than whites and Asians are effectively in the “other race” bucket.)</p>
<p>What’s frustrating to me is the insistance that Asians are explicitly compared with each other without backing up that claim when it does not seem that difficult to get some evidence. There must be at least 10 AdComs or Deans of excellent schools who are members of CC … so I’m wondering why someone hasn’t proven this is happening by asking the CC AdComs and Deans if candidate’s race are explicitly shown on applications for all applicants, for URMs, or for noone?</p>
<p>I actually applied to a LAC where Asians were “correctly” represented. I can’t speak for all Asians, but I’m not interested in being a beneficiary of racial preferences.</p>
<p>If a LAC feels that it wants more Asians, what’s wrong with simply encouraging them to apply? That’s actually how I ended up applying. I received a packet stating that if I wrote an additional essay and submitted the application earlier, I could compete for scholarships. Heck, they even waived the application fee as part of the scholarship application process.</p>
<p>I’ll never know if I benefited from racial or geographic preferences, though I do know that my SAT scores put me above the 75th percentile in both critical reading and math (but not writing). But that is the kind of outreach I support in general.</p>
<p>IP … well they could 1) dodge 2) tell the truth or 3) lie … personally I think it would be #1 or #2 … however if they did answer the question I wouldn’t think they are lying … and so far I’ve seen a lot of posters presume race is explicitly marked without even taking a shot to find out the answer (while the books I’ve read on admissions imply it is not; or at least that is what I remember)</p>
<p>Prof. Gurin was the most important expert witness in the Grutter case. While I respect your right to draw your own conclusions about her data, the fact is that the US Supreme Ct found it to be highly credible and likely pivotal in the case.</p>