Mismatch caused by racial preferences

GMTplus7 · November 2, 2012, 2:29am

@NewHope,

Then the issue came about that if having a “critical mass” of African Americans is important, the shouldn’t that same logic apply to Asian subgroups, because do Pakistanis really have the same life experience as Pacific Islanders even though the 2 ethnicities are lumped together?

JUSTICE ALITO:

MR. GARRE:

JUSTICE ALITO:

MR. GARRE:

JUSTICE ALITO:

Beliavsky · November 2, 2012, 2:33am

One’s opinion of affirmative action may depend on one’s view of the research of Arthur Jensen, who recently passed away.

[Arthur</a> R. Jensen, Who Set Off Debate on I.Q., Dies - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/science/arthur-r-jensen-who-set-off-debate-on-iq-dies.html]Arthur”>Arthur R. Jensen, Who Set Off Debate on I.Q., Dies - The New York Times)

Arthur R. Jensen, an educational psychologist who ignited an international firestorm with a 1969 article suggesting that the gap in intelligence-test scores between black and white students might be rooted in genetic differences between the races, died on Oct. 22 at his home in Kelseyville, Calif.

Philovitist · November 2, 2012, 2:41am

Semantics.

GMTplus7 · November 2, 2012, 2:46am

Philo,

Aren’t you a student? Shouldn’t you be asleep?

Beliavsky · November 2, 2012, 2:51am

The NYT surveys the views of Asian-Americans at UT Austin of affirmative action:

[Asian-Americans</a> in the Argument
by Ethan Bronner](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/affirmative-action-a-complicated-issue-for-asian-americans.htm]Asian-Americans”>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/affirmative-action-a-complicated-issue-for-asian-americans.htm)

I fear that if affirmative action is overthrown by the Supreme Court, our elite capuses will look like U.C.L.A. and Berkeley, Mr. Burgarin said. That wouldnt be good for Asians or for anyone else.

<hr>

I find this offensive.

Pizzagirl · November 2, 2012, 3:00am

It’s immaterial to me if, indeed, blacks’ IQ or SAT scores are lower on aggregate than whites or Asians. (I don’t knw if Jensen is right or not.) I think diversity is a worthwhile goal in and of itself and as a “client” of top schools (via my kids), a school with diversity is simply more appealing than one without.

Philovitist · November 2, 2012, 3:14am

Rough draft of extended essay is due tomorrow. I don’t sleep tonight. V.v

ucbalumnus · November 2, 2012, 3:25am

Re: #1245 and <a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/affirmative-action-a-complicated-issue-for-asian-americans.htm[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/affirmative-action-a-complicated-issue-for-asian-americans.htm</a>

The linked article is not present, and the URL looks like it refers to a date in the future.

GMTplus7 · November 2, 2012, 4:07am

The U.S. Census is going to recognize Arabs as another racial category. 
[Finally</a>, Arab Americans to be counted in the US Census | NJ.com](<a href=“http://blog.nj.com/dr_aref_assaf/2012/08/finally_arab_americans_to_be_counted_in_the_us_census.html]Finally”>Finally, Arab Americans to be counted in the US Census - nj.com)

More work for the college admissions people to ensure proportionate representation of another group

sally305 · November 2, 2012, 7:17am

Don’t expect much sympathy from those of us who have found your posts about “catty women” and “not very smart” blacks offensive.

PCHope · November 2, 2012, 8:14am

I fear that if affirmative action is overthrown by the Supreme Court, our elite capuses will look like U.C.L.A. and Berkeley, Mr. Burgarin said. That wouldnt be good for Asians or for anyone else.

I find this offensive too, because it has an anti-Asian undertone. For or against AA, I find any statement that is explicitly or implicitly anti certain race/culture offensive.

lookingforward · November 2, 2012, 10:12am

Grutter uses the phrase “compelling state interest” and says “the Court endorses Justice Powell’s view that student body diversity is a compelling state interest in the context of university admissions. Pp. 9—13.” 
“Not every decision influenced by race is equally objectionable…”

And in the greater context of both the summary and the efforts put into reaching it: “Because the Law School’s use of race in admissions decisions is not prohibited by Equal Protection Clause, petitioner’s statutory claims based on Title VI and §1981 also fail.”

One should watch how the word “discriminate” is used. The petitioner alleged discrimination.

Enrolling a “critical mass” of minority students **simply to assure some specified percentage **of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin would be patently unconstitutional. E.g., id., at 307. But the Law School defines its critical mass concept by reference to the substantial, important, and laudable educational benefits that diversity is designed to produce, including cross-racial understanding and the breaking down of racial stereotypes. The Law School’s claim is further bolstered by numerous expert studies and reports showing that such diversity promotes learning outcomes and better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce, for society, and for the legal profession.

This makes a difference- not “ok, you can discriminate,” but “we do not see this as arbitrarily based on race.”

What’s interesting is many posters here DO see it as arbitrary and based on race.

absweetmarie · November 2, 2012, 10:53am

Thank you for your post, lookingforward. I skimmed the amicus brief filed by the Jesuit schools. They point to a constitutional consideration that hasn’t been directly addressed on this thread; that is, the 1st amendment rights of the schools. The authors of the brief are very deferential to the court and certainly do not make light of the 14th amendment.

Pizzagirl · November 2, 2012, 11:10am

Well, that’s because they’re deliberately misinterpreting and treating race as a wild card that gets to resurrect the dead - that this student isn’t really qualified, but oh-look-he’s-black so let him in. It’s amazing how people are unable, really, to understand that race is considered along with a whole host of other factors, including but not limited to geography, first-gen, SES and so forth.

Then again, some people like to look for the bad. Tell me, when an elite college looks twice at a student from North Dakota since hardly anyone ever applies from North Dakota, and they’d rather have that student that yet-another-kid-from-suburban-New Jersey, is that “discrimination” against people from New Jersey?

ucbalumnus · November 2, 2012, 11:56am

Here is a link that actually works:
[Affirmative</a> Action - A Complicated Issue for Asian-Americans - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/affirmative-action-a-complicated-issue-for-asian-americans.html?pagewanted=all]Affirmative”>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/affirmative-action-a-complicated-issue-for-asian-americans.html?pagewanted=all)

More context (at the end of the article):

Hmmm, never see this argument with respect to Latino students at places like UTEP, CSULA, and FIU, black students at HBUs, or white students at probably most colleges in the US. Indeed, suggesting an HBU that matches a white student’s stated criteria often gets a rather negative reaction here, as if white students should not have to be members of a minority group in whatever college they attend. Perhaps this is what bothers some people about the demographics of prominent universities like Berkeley and UCLA – not necessarily about Asian students in particular, but that white students are no longer the majority, or even the plurality.

In terms of URMs, the lists of “most difficult” to gain admission schools on [CollegeData</a> - College 411 - College Match](<a href=“http://www.collegedata.com/cs/search/college/college_search_tmpl.jhtml]CollegeData”>http://www.collegedata.com/cs/search/college/college_search_tmpl.jhtml) indicates that URM percentage at many of them is lower than that of Berkeley’s 17.8%:

14.4% CMU
12.5% Chicago
17.5% Brown
11.1% Caltech
16.8% Cornell
14.7% Wellesley

Note that the quoted person had worked in admissions at Brown and Wellesley, as well as Columbia (30.8% URM, highest in the list of “most difficult” schools).

Harvard is at 18.4% URM, Princeton 17.9%, and Yale 18.5%. So not a lot different from Berkeley in total URM percentage, though Berkeley has a higher Latino to black ratio than most.

Once again, what is appears to be different from what people think is (i.e. people are basing their positions on inaccurate information).

texaspg · November 2, 2012, 12:34pm

Going back to Beliasky’s MIT link - [Admissions</a> Statistics | MIT Admissions](<a href=“http://mitadmissions.org/apply/process/stats]Admissions”>Admissions statistics | MIT Admissions)
I find the distribution of reading and writing scores lot more interesting than the math scores. If people have lower scores than 700, it is probably hard for them to manage GIRs at MIT. However, the rejection rates seem to be much higher when you look at reading and writing scores below 700 and there are a lot more people falling in this category. So people tend to assume they should apply to MIT if they have good scores in Math but do not necessarily need to be good at reading and writing. It is surprising to see 2400 people fall below the 600 mark for reading and writing.

Distribution of SAT Reasoning Test Scores (Critical Reading)

Applicants Admits Admit rate
750-800 3,666 633 17%
700-740 3,329 399 12%
650-690 2,691 211 8%
600-640 1,910 121 6%
< 600 2,412 68 3%

Distribution of SAT Reasoning Test Scores (Writing)

Applicants Admits Admit rate
750-800 4,077 732 18%
700-740 2,985 340 11%
650-690 2,721 218 8%
600-640 1,880 101 5%
<600 2,345 41 2%

Bay · November 2, 2012, 1:29pm

I think you mean something more specific, as Asians are not currently being prevented by AA from attending college.

I think it is worth pondering whether the top colleges which currently use race as a factor, would maintain their appeal and place in the hierarchy if their campuses became devoid of URMs, and/or composed of an overwhelming majority of one race. Even if one believes they would, the campuses would certainly offer fewer activities of a cultural variety, if that matters to anyone.

bovertine · November 2, 2012, 2:02pm

I think Asians represent around 5% of the population. The projection for 2050 is still less than 10%. I’m not sure, but I’d bet their average SAT scores are maybe 10% higher than whites, if that.

My guess is that as they assimilate their scores are more likely to revert to the mean, and as everyone intermarries these racial distinctions are likely to become less apparent.

So they’d better get going if they want to overwhelm the US college system.

xiggi · November 2, 2012, 2:07pm

That is an interesting suggestion.

Where would you find that supernatural and omniscient creature that knows what is on … everyone’s mind?

Beliavsky · November 2, 2012, 2:25pm

SAT scores are not reported on a ratio scale, so statements about ratios of scores should be avoided. No mean reversion has occurred in recent years. Instead, Asians pulled away from 2006 to 2011, according to Fairtest <a href=“http://fairtest.org/sites/default/files/SAT_Scores_2011.pdf[/url]”>http://fairtest.org/sites/default/files/SAT_Scores_2011.pdf</a> , increasing their scores by 40 points while white scores fell by 3 points, blacks fell by 19 points, and Hispanic groups (Mexican, Puerto Rican, other Hispanic) fell in the 9 to 14 point range.

Mismatch caused by racial preferences

CONNECT WITH US