are colleges racist?

[fabrizio]

<p>

Why would the elites take their arguments in favor of using race all the way to the US Supreme Ct if it were that simple?

</p>

<p>In 2009, Dalton Conley, John McWhorter, Julian Bond, and Lee Bollinger [debated</a> racial preferences](<a href=“http://fora.tv/2009/04/16/Race_vs_Class_The_Future_of_Affirmative_Action]debated”>http://fora.tv/2009/04/16/Race_vs_Class_The_Future_of_Affirmative_Action). You don’t have to watch the whole thing (it’s long), but if you skip to the parts where Conley explains how his socioeconomic preference policy would work, it becomes clear that Bond and Bollinger don’t know what Conley’s talking about.</p>

<p>Bond and Bollinger repeat the standard racial preference line that socioeconomic preferences benefit mostly poor whites. Thus, they are not a substitute for racial preferences. But their line is based on a socioeconomic preference that uses INCOME as the metric. Conley’s idea is based on NET WEALTH. Despite repeatedly emphasizing the distinction, Bond and Bollinger don’t seem to appreciate the difference.</p>

<p>So the answer to your question is “miscommunication.” Conley’s talking, but Bond and Bollinger either aren’t listening or aren’t getting what he’s saying. (I know exactly how Conley feels.)</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

white parents talk about this openly everywhere in affluent suburbs where their kids are not getting accepted to schools they themselves were accepted to years earlier. They blame asians.

I thought a major premise of this thread was that Asians were not taking the spots of white students because the racist colleges were fixing the admissions. I thought it was URMs who were taking white people’s rightful spots, and white people were taking Asian’s rightful spots.</p>

<p>BTW, if I was hanging around a bunch of folks I considered racist I’d probably look for a better class of people to associate with.</p>

[Lemaitre1]

<p>The claim that there is a surplus of high achievers in all racial groups and that the 25 most elite universities could have proportionate to population URM representation is just not true. This data is somewhat old but I think the only thing that has changed since 1995 is that the number of high achieving Asian students has significantly increased while the number of high achieving black students has been at best stable. These statistics illustrate why the 25 most elite colleges have no trouble finding Asian students that meet their usual admission standards but can not possibly admit a significant number or URMs without using racial preferences. </p>

<p>"For example, in 1995, for 103,872 Black test takers of the SAT 1 Test, in the Math, 107 Blacks scored between 750 and 800, 509 Blacks scored between 700 and 749, 1,437 Blacks scored between 650 and 699. Total > 650 for Blacks was 2,053 or 2.0% of all Black test takers. Total > 700 was 616 or 0.6% or six tenths of 1 percent. Total > 750 was 107 or 0.1% or one tenth of 1 percent.</p>

<p>In 1995, for 103,872 Black test takers, in the Verbal, 184 Blacks scored between 700 and 800, 465 Blacks scored between 650 and 699, and 1,115 Blacks scored between 600 and 649. Total > 600 was 1,764 or 1.7% of Black test takers. Total > 700 was 184 or 0.15% or less than two tenths of 1 percent.</p>

<p>In 1995, for 81,514 Asian test takers of the SAT 1 Test in the Math, 3,827 Asians scored between 750 and 800, 7,758 Asians scored between 700 and 749, and 9,454 Asians scored between 650 and 699. Total > 650 for Asians was 21,039 or 25.8%. Total > 700 was 11,585 or 14.2%. Total > 750 was 3,827 or 4.7%.</p>

<p>In 1995, for 81,514 Asian test takers of the SAT 1 Test in the Verbal, 1,476 Asians scored between 700 and 800, 2,513 Asians scored between 650 and 699, and 4,221 Asians scored between 600 and 649. Total > 600 was 8,190 or 10%. Total > 700 was 1,476 or 1.8%."</p>

[Shrinkrap]

<p>I will look at that and say why did only 2 percent of black test takes score above 650 on the verbal, and how can I help? Fab will say, why did not more than 10 percent get admitted to X university, and how can I help? (or maybe, “only 2 percent of blacks scored above 650 because of affirmative action!”)</p>

<p>Race doesn’t matter?</p>

[bovertine]

<p>^^^
Interesting data I guess.
But this caught my eye, appropos of nothing really -

In 1995, for 81,514 Asian test takers of the SAT 1 Test in the Verbal, 1,476 Asians scored between 700 and 800

</p>

<p>Really? That’s all? I don’t know, for some reason I imagined it would be higher, even 16 years ago.</p>

[Bay]

<p>

if you skip to the parts where Conley explains how his socioeconomic preference policy would work, it becomes clear that Bond and Bollinger don’t know what Conley’s talking about.

</p>

<p>I can see why. I watched Conley’s speech twice and I still don’t know what he’s talking about. His public speaking skills are mediocre, for one thing. He starts off by admitting that he (a White man) benefitted from the racially diverse campus environment spawned by the pro-AA folks. At some point, he claims that we can solve the problem of the Black-White wealth gap by admitting students by class not race. In doing so, he assumes that the purpose of AA is to solve wealth and class issues, but that is not the basis upon which the Court in Grutter upheld AA. Finally, he states that post-Prop 209 CA evidences that class-based admissions works - what??</p>

[texaspg]

<p>Xiggi -
"Some people seem to be quite willing to throw the term “racist” with abandon! Wasn’t it our esteemed “Professor” who called Stanford racist? Now a parallel with none other than Hitler! </p>

<p>Fwiw, some might want to check the CC rules regarding the use of ad hominem. "</p>

<p>The name of the thread is “are colleges racist”. </p>

<p>When you have a title like that, Hitler is one extreme example. If a moderator does nt like what is being said, either the person saying it will be moderated or thread will get shut down. I have seen the above statement about CC rules and it just does nt fly as an argument.</p>

[Canuckguy]

<p>

The US draws people because of its wealth and freedom and liberal immigration policy; because English is an international language; and because the higher education system not only offers financial aid (or at least loans) but a path to residency and immigration.

</p>

<p>I am glad to see somebody finally answer the simplistic and self-serving reasoning behind some of the comments. This again goes back to my original point that we have this bad habit of setting different standards of proof, depending on whether the person agrees with our point of view, or not.</p>

<p>

Since I assume Professor Karabel understands the conclusions of his own work, and since he still supports race based diversity programs am I to assume you also support programs which take racial diversity into account, provided they are designed to avoid quotas, and take all factors into account including ethnic underrepresentation (which is basically what the Karabel plan was)?

</p>

<p>Not necessarily. This quote from Thomas Sowell may help to pinpoint where the problem is:</p>

<p>*Poll after poll over the years has shown that most faculty members and most students are opposed to double standards in college admissions. Yet professors who will come out publicly and say what they say privately in these polls are as rare as hen’s teeth. </p>

<p>Such two-faced talk is pervasive in academia and elsewhere. A few years ago, in Berkeley, there was a big fight over whether a faculty vote on affirmative action would be by secret ballot or open vote. Both sides knew that the result of a secret ballot would be the direct opposite of the result in a public vote at a faculty meeting.</p>

<p>*

In this case, the argument that diversity is beneficial becomes circular–students are taught that diversity is valuable, asked whether diversity is valuable, and then their positive replies are seen as proof of diversity’s value.

</p>

<p>As a kid I was taught the following: Jesus loves me because the Bible said so. I see things have not changed much.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

I can see why. I watched Conley’s speech twice and I still don’t know what he’s talking about. His public speaking skills are mediocre, for one thing. He starts off by admitting that he (a White man) benefitted from the racially diverse campus environment spawned by the pro-AA folks. At some point, he claims that we can solve the problem of the Black-White wealth gap by admitting students by class not race. In doing so, he assumes that the purpose of AA is to solve wealth and class issues, but that is not the basis upon which the Court in Grutter upheld AA. Finally, he states that post-Prop 209 CA evidences that class-based admissions works - what??

</p>

<p>Oh I freely admit that of the four, Conley was the worst at public speaking. Julian Bond and Lee Bollinger wowed me, and it didn’t hurt that they both exude a “grandfatherly” air. I’m biased, yes, but I thought McWhorter was the strongest of the four.</p>

<p>But throughout the discussion, I consistently saw that Bond and Bollinger kept associating socioeconomic preferences with INCOME, and that just wasn’t what Conley was saying. At the end, Richard Kahlenberg asked Bond and Bollinger if they would support socioeconomic preferences ASSUMING that it did garner the same outcome. I saw Bond very grudgingly say “yes.”</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>In regards to fireandrain’s “the Asian point of view,” I note that today’s Times has three letters about the recent article on race in college admissions. None is supportive, and no author had an Asian surname.</p>

<p>[url=&lt;a href=“Opinion | Race as a Factor in College Admissions - The New York Times”&gt;Opinion | Race as a Factor in College Admissions - The New York Times]Link[/url</a>]</p>

[sewhappy]

<p>^ Thank you for sharing that link, Fabrizio. It helps me feel as if my perspective on this is not so out of synch with many others out there.</p>

[Bay]

<p>

I thought McWhorter was the strongest of the four.

</p>

<p>McWhorter’s fervent, admittedly un-profound closing speech struck me as silly. If the prospect that his “udeserving” (Black) D might recieve admission to more colleges than her White friends is so upsetting, then just don’t check the race box!</p>

[sewhappy]

<p>Epiphany,</p>

<p>I just read your post disagreeing with me about the Flanagan piece. Hmmm . . . I’ve now spent nine years of parenting kids through elite college prep schools and I rarely DON’T encounter one of the “Good Mothers” at school events. Very rarely. So I guess you and I move in different circles.</p>

<p>FWIW, my Asian mom friends tell me I’m a “hard boiled egg”. I guess I’m a little bit of a “Good Mother” and a little bit of a “Tiger Mother”. I have told my kids the same thing when they have told me they think they want to go to a top school – “Well, Dear, you have no legacy, no athletic or musical ability and you are an affluent white kid so you better really push the GPA and test scores . . . and focus on some safeties.” My 100% “Good Mother” counterparts seem to be telling their kids, “Find your passion! You’re so unique! This will surely shine thru in your apps.” My Asian parent friends seem to tell their kids what I tell mine but apparently have more follow-thru and actually ensure that the kids do the academic high-jinks necessary to be a serious contender for a spot. Oh, and they chain them to the piano . . . I tried but was a wus at that.</p>

<p>No, I’m sorry, but the Flanagan piece is spot on, at least for a swathe of American society right now.</p>

<p>All those “Good Mothers” out there are not to be discounted in the evolution of this issue. They are a force. And they are not happy.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

I have told my kids the same thing when they have told me they think they want to go to a top school – “Well, Dear, you have no legacy, no athletic or musical ability and you are an affluent white kid so you better really push the GPA and test scores . . . and focus on some safeties.” My 100% “Good Mother” counterparts seem to be telling their kids, “Find your passion! You’re so unique! This will surely shine thru in your apps.” My Asian parent friends seem to tell their kids what I tell mine but apparently have more follow-thru and actually ensure that the kids do the academic high-jinks necessary to be a serious contender for a spot.

</p>

<p>You know, people who are truly SMART figure out what the colleges want. And I think the colleges are MORE than clear with students that it is NOT about selecting the highest GPA / highest SAT’s, but rather than they are looking for people who are interesting, who have some sense of service to others woven through their application, who will contribute to the community in meaningful ways. And time and time again, the 2300 who plays the piano in the nursing home and brings happiness to the seniors, or composes music in his or her spare time, will be deemed a more interesting and compelling candidate than the 2400 who has won multiple contests for the technical proficiency of his or her piano playing. And there is a community that fundamentally doesn’t understand this, and keeps getting lost in the forest for the trees.</p>

<p>Look, no one is saying don’t be authentic. Adcoms all roll their eyes at the upper-middle-class-trips-to-Guatemala because they know affluent parents “buy” those experiences. But part of being smart is understanding cultural cues, and deciding whether you want to adapt / leverage those if you want the “prize” badly enough.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

just read your post disagreeing with me about the Flanagan piece. Hmmm . . . I’ve now spent nine years of parenting kids through elite college prep schools and I rarely DON’T encounter one of the “Good Mothers” at school events. Very rarely. So I guess you and I move in different circles.

</p>

<p>It’s all relative, isn’t it? I’ve parented my kids through pleasant but not extraordinary public high schools and no one really is dying to get their kids into the Ivies because it’s not seen as the meaning of life.</p>

[Bay]

<p>fab,
Going back to my previous comments, if the elites agreed that class-based admissions would achieve the same results as AA, then there absolutely nothing stopping them from using it now.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

Yes, I do believe this. I think race is mostly a social construct with no real biological meaning and I think the more we turn away from race as any sort of meaningful factor in evaluating human beings the better we will be as a society, and the more diverse in real terms.

</p>

<p>No one is talking about using race to “evaluate human beings.” We are talking about it as a factor, one of many (including socioeconomic background, including other cultural identities, geographic regions, etc.) that help bring diversity.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

The claim that there is a surplus of high achievers in all racial groups and that the 25 most elite universities could have proportionate to population URM representation is just not true. This data is somewhat old but I think the only thing that has changed since 1995 is that the number of high achieving Asian students has significantly increased while the number of high achieving black students has been at best stable. These statistics illustrate why the 25 most elite colleges have no trouble finding Asian students that meet their usual admission standards but can not possibly admit a significant number or URMs without using racial preferences.

</p>

<p>But the elite colleges aren’t necessarily looking only for high-achieving in the context of scores. They are looking for interesting, different, unique, future leaders. They are not awarding Olympic medals here, where the criteria is objective (time, scoring, etc.).</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Going back to my previous comments, if the elites agreed that class-based admissions would achieve the same results as AA, then there absolutely nothing stopping them from using it now.

</p>

<p>Do you disagree that when Kahlenberg asked Bond, Bond very grudgingly answered affirmatively that he would support socioeconomic preferences? If you saw it how I did, what does that tell you?</p>

<p>

They are looking for interesting, different, unique, future leaders.

</p>

<p>Do you NEED racial classification to find “interesting, different, unique, future leaders”?</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

Not necessarily.

Not necessarily what?</p>

<p>You’re accusing the professor of lying about his point of view, and formulating a policy he doesn’t really agree without without any real evidence.</p>

<p>Which makes this statement particularly hilarious -

This again goes back to my original point that we have this bad habit of setting different standards of proof, depending on whether the person agrees with our point of view, or not.</p>

<p>

Now a quote from Thomas Sowell constitutes proof? I agree with Dr,. Sowell on many things, but I certainly don’t consider his reflections and musings on his anecdotal experience proof of anything. </p>

<p>Since you believe Professor Karabel to be dishonest, I wonder why you bother to quote him? Or more accurately, to quote a book reviewer’s interpretation of his work.</p>