are colleges racist?

Shrinkrap · June 16, 2011, 5:38pm

Well…it’s really hard to get past 3 percent black in California, and in the PNW, it’s hard to get past 1 percent. But perhaps that is a different subject.

fabrizio · June 16, 2011, 5:41pm

To clarify, my “URM” figures for Michigan summed blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans. I probably should have said that earlier.

fabrizio · June 16, 2011, 5:51pm

Admonition accepted. I rephrase and reiterate that you still haven’t provided the titles of these studies so I can judge for myself.

How about you tell me which post I made in the “past few weeks” that said that?

Hunt · June 16, 2011, 6:28pm

For me, the simple answer to this question is that poor white people were never slaves in this country.

I would just like to press the point I raised above–are we really talking only about preferences for URMs, or are we also talking about preferences for whites as opposed to Asians as well? I really don’t like to see those two things mixed up, because they differ in terms of (1) intent (2) impact and (3) evidence that they are actually occurring.

woeishe · June 16, 2011, 6:33pm

^ Are African-Americans slaves now? It was a horrible occurrence, but it’s not a good excuse anymore.

Hunt · June 16, 2011, 6:34pm

Ah, I wish I could be young again!

fabrizio · June 16, 2011, 6:42pm

Bay’s supposed to get on to you for using reparations instead of (the sham of) “diversity” to justify racial preferences, but I accept that reparations is what drives YOU to support racial preferences.

I’m talking about both, and I oppose both.

siserune · June 16, 2011, 6:43pm

Sample quotations:

Extra points for adding the word MYTHICAL so that nobody might assume the author believes in a master race. Important not to get smeared by the tar as you are cooking it up!

fabrizio · June 16, 2011, 6:46pm

But I’d like to continue this point. My interpretation of some of Pizzagirl’s recent posts are that she believes racial classification and socioeconomic status are very highly correlated to where socioeconomic preferences cannot be called race-neutral.

Hence, my question–“Then why NOT use socioeconomic preferences in lieu of racial preferences?”

The flippant answer I received from mokusatsu and the serious answer from Hunt suggest to me that some racial preference advocates have a vested interest in the program. That is, even though socioeconomic preferences may accomplish the same objectives with far less controversy, they would still support racial preferences.

Hunt · June 16, 2011, 6:47pm

No, not reparations per se, but social engineering justified by the distortions caused by events in the past. I don’t favor reparations payments to individuals, for example.

Well, if you’re talking about preferences for whites over Asians, remind me why it is that you think the Ivies are lying about this, if you do think so?

fabrizio · June 16, 2011, 6:47pm

Ah, two months (eight weeks) is a few. Thank you, siserune. My reply follows:

In [post</a> 802](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/790609-do-elite-colleges-discriminate-against-asian-students-54.html]post”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/790609-do-elite-colleges-discriminate-against-asian-students-54.html), NCL wrote “If this is what you needed to prove to yourself that you descend from some super race and are intellectually superior to East Asians, it is totally fine with me.”

But why quote NCL when you can

[quote</a> siserune]
(<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/790609-do-elite-colleges-discriminate-against-asian-students-48.html#post9000083]quote”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/790609-do-elite-colleges-discriminate-against-asian-students-48.html#post9000083)?

Edit

PS: The titles of the studies, if you please.

fabrizio · June 16, 2011, 7:00pm

But that’s still in violation of Bakke: “Hence, the purpose of helping certain groups whom the faculty of the Davis Medical School perceived as victims of ‘societal discrimination’ does not justify a classification that imposes disadvantages upon persons like respondent, who bear no responsibility for whatever harm the beneficiaries of the special admissions program are thought to have suffered.”

Again, I reiterate that I respect that YOU feel that way. The rationale is not Constitutional, but it is not my place to tell you that it is “wrong” to feel that way.

Talk is cheap, and actions speak louder. Much was made of the 26%/30% figures for Asians at MIT in the 2010-2011 admissions cycle. Yet, after Jian Li filed his complaint with the Office of Civil Rights, Princeton declined to release similar information to the public:

“Princeton, for its part, denies using quotas. The university declined, however, to release admissions data broken down by race and test scores, spokeswoman Cass Cliatt said, ‘because we don’t want anyone to make the mistake that we make admissions decisions by category.’”

[url=<a href=“http://www.discriminations.us/2008/07/princeton-receives-weekly-chutzpah-award/]Source[/url”>Princeton Receives Weekly Chutzpah Award]Source[/url</a>] (The original link is dead.)

siserune · June 16, 2011, 7:04pm

And will fabrizio please explain how those sociological observations (from math competitions, theoretical math/physics/CS professional tracks and so on) constitute a Master Race narrative?

The words “IQ-taxing” were chosen for a reason, by the way. There is an Asian supremacist narrative that has raises its head in these discrimination discussions, the logic being that the East Asian IQ distribution has a thicker tail (e.g., if it is an upward-shifted version of the non-Asian distribution, or has higher variance) and thus under merit selection the higher the threshold, the greater the natural proportion of Asians. In addition to its appearance in CC discussions, the shifted-distributions IQ theory is in the background of some of the material linked here (specifically, the Kara Miller articles with her experiences as a Yale admissions reader. Miller cites a well-known Chinese-American academic, who advocates the Asian IQ supremacy and is its current scientific godfather.) Anyway, whatever the scientific merits of this IQ theory, it is at odds with the data from math competitions etc that I have posted. THAT was the subtext, and it was a large part of the reason the Chinese CC posters went ballistic when their assumptions were confronted with data.

fabrizio · June 16, 2011, 7:13pm

Oh, that was why you wrote what I quoted?

I have not made those claims, and neither did NCL. As I recall it, we were the ones who most disagreed with you. Perhaps you should cite examples of Asian CC’ers who have made these Asian supremacist claims on this thread.

Oh please. Your “analysis” of the IMO didn’t prove your point at all. Besides, the one year that it seemingly did was the year that “low hanging fruit” guy Alex Zhai scored 42/42 on the IMO.

Edit

Names of the studies, please.

siserune · June 16, 2011, 7:33pm

The difference is that I never said or implied that you or NCL are pro-Asian racists, but both you and NCL make specific and repeated assertions that there is a Super-Race Hypothesis (such as white superiority or Asian inferiority) present in my postings. For the record: please explain what that hypothesis is and which part of the quoted material constitutes a racial supremacy theory.

That’s a separate issue. Whether I name such individuals or not has no bearing on whether a Master Race narrative follows from anything that I wrote. I did identify a “Chinese-American scientist” quoted in some of these threads, and you can identify him by looking up the Miller article. The Asian-IQ-distribution argument did make an appearance in this thread, but – unusual for CC – balanced with a secondary argument about the verbal vs visual-spatial split in the IQ scores. I don’t agree with the conclusion, for various reasons, but the posting itself was non-supremacist.

Bay · June 16, 2011, 7:39pm

Another reason to rid ourselves of SAT tests: Many people equate the results with IQ, which leads to a host of racial superiority arguments. Even if it were true that certain races tend to have higher IQs than others, so what? That does not make them more deserving of attending HYPSM et al.

fabrizio · June 16, 2011, 9:25pm

Oh, so all of those posts you made attempting to prove that Asians were “decimated” (your word) in the IMO…you did not make them to show Asian inferiority? No, your choice of the word “decimated” was an accurate reflection of a sociological phenomenon made by an impartial commentator and in no way was meant to imply any sense of Asian inferiority. Because, you know, “decimated” is such a neutral term.

So “Chinese [sic] CC posters” went ballistic after you unveiled the “truth” on them, but you can’t–excuse me, haven’t named any of these supposed believers in Asian (Chinese?) supremacy.

Thanks for corroborating my version of the events, namely, that NCL and I discussed your “analysis” the most, and that neither of us espouses an Asian supremacist worldview.

And the names of the studies, if you please. The “Berkeley NMF” data that you “will post” would be nice too. (Or since you claimed that your calculation was “correct,” did you already post it?)

Hunt · June 16, 2011, 9:43pm

Wait, so this is supposed to be proof that all the Ivies are discriminating against Asians in favor of whites on the basis of race alone? What else ya got? (I think Jian Li’s narrative was hurt a bit by his having been admitted to Yale.)

fabrizio · June 16, 2011, 10:08pm

You asked me “why it is that I think the Ivies are lying about this.” I gave you a response: they refuse to release data similar to last year’s 26%/30% figure for Asians at MIT. You don’t find my response satisfactory. Riddle me this, then. The acceptance rate the year Jian Li applied was [url=<a href=“http://registrar.princeton.edu/university_enrollment_sta/common_cds2006.pdf]10.19%[/url”>http://registrar.princeton.edu/university_enrollment_sta/common_cds2006.pdf]10.19%[/url</a>]. Asians made up 14.41% of the freshman class, though it is not known what the proportion of applicants and admits was.

Well, though it’s likely untrue, assume that every Asian accepted matriculated. Why didn’t Cass Cliatt say something like, “Asians made up 12% of the applicants but 14% of the entering class. Jian Li needs to shut up”? Was it because she couldn’t say that because the numbers didn’t let her say that? Oh, but you would reply, even if she couldn’t, that doesn’t prove that Asians were discriminated against because admissions is holistic and you believe Asians are worse than whites in “soft” factors. (Or did I misrepresent your position?)

I disagree strongly that Li’s “narrative” was hurt by his having been admitted to Yale. To the contrary, I think it strengthened it. Without it, Princeton could easily and more convincingly say “Li was simply unqualified.” In fact, Janet Rapeleye said something to that effect–“his outside activities were not all that outstanding,” if I remember correctly. (To show how biased some people were against Li, some of the parents here interpreted Rapeleye’s comments to mean that Li was not qualified to attend Princeton, even though those same parents are the first ones to say that being rejected doesn’t mean you weren’t qualified!)

But given that Li was accepted to Yale, Rapeleye’s comments come off as extremely defensive. Moreover, by dissing Li, Rapeleye actually dissed Yale; apparently Yale admitted a guy whose “outside activities were not all that oustanding.” And Rapeleye also dissed Harvard, because Li successfully transferred to Harvard. But hey, what do I know? I didn’t attend any of those schools; maybe those disses are par for the course.

Pizzagirl · June 16, 2011, 10:47pm

You have a very odd view of admissions if you think that Li’s admission to Yale means he “should have” gotten into P, or that Rapeleye is “dissing Yale” in saying P just wasn’t all that into Li. Again, you are working under the assumption that admittance is “earned” and if it happens at Y but not P, something is awry. Y and P are fully entitled to choose whoever they like on whatever criteria and whether the one accepts the student is irrelevant.

You keep saying you believe in holistic admissions (ex race) but when you suggest that Y’s acceptance of Mr. Li “says something” about whether P should have admitted him, it’s clear you really don’t believe holistic admissions to be valid.

are colleges racist?

CONNECT WITH US