"Race" in College Admission FAQ & Discussion 11

Applying to College
1901

@Ali1302

“And finally, I’m not going to go into a debate about IQ, since obviously a URM has a lower IQ since they are more likely to be socioeconomically disadvantaged, less likely to graduate from highschool, more likely to be incarcerated and less likely to have good healthcare. When you look at all of these factors they are likely to have a negative effect on IQ since IQ is highly variable during adolescence when the environment becomes the major factor.”

I’m going to need some proof on this.
IQ can be affected by the environment during adolescence, but its effects go away as you approach adulthood. In other words, no matter how much you try to make yourself smarter, you will always fall back to the IQ determined by your genetics.

Now, I have my doubts about IQ being molded by the environment during adolescence. I feel that the easier IQ tests given to children may have influenced results.

Traits become progressively more genetically controlled from birth through age four, as well as later.
Source: P. Vernon (editor), Biological Approaches to the Study of Human Intelligence, 1993, pp. 123-6

At birth identical twins correlate with each other in height and weight by only .62 and .63. But when they are eight years, most identical twins correlate .99.

Similarly, when mental ability of infants is measured by the Bayley Scale of Infant Development, at three months the correlation between identical twins is .66, at six months the correlation is .75, at eighteen months .82.

Source: Pages pp. 215-16 of R. S. Wilson, “Twin Growth: Initial Deficit, Recovery, and Trends in Concordance from
Birth to Nine Years”, Annals of Human Biology 6, 1979, pp. 205-20; page 304 of R. S. Wilson, “The Louisville
Twin Study: Developmental Synchronies in Behavior”, Child Development 54, 1983, pp. 298-316

The 60% genetics argument for IQ is from politically correct academics who averaged out the .4 correlation for small children with the .8 correlation for adults.

In the Rising Curve, pages 16-17, Neisser observed, “It is now widely agreed that h^2 [heritability] for IQ lies between .4 [for smallchildren] and .8 [for adults] in the U.S. White population. … When biologically unrelated children are raised in the same home (as in many casesof adoption), the correlation between their IQ scores is unimpressive in childhood and near zero as they grow up!”

The 20% that is not genetic is determined prenatally, by the intrinsic variability in developmental processes, especially in the formation of the nervous system in the early stages of its development in the mother’s uterus.

Source:C. E. Finch and T. B. L. Kirkwood, Chance, Development and Aging, 2000, Oxford University Press, New
York; P. C. M. Molenaar, D. I. Boomsmsa, C. V. Dolan, “A Third Source of Developmental Differences”,
Behavior Genetics 23, 1993, pp. 519-24

IQ is not influenced at all by the environment.

1902

@IQTrumpsEffort I can tell by your user name that clearly summarizes your views on IQ that you believe gaps in achievement are inevitable. I’m familiar with the twin studies done on IQ and I’m familiar with the results. Genetics is definitely a major factor in IQ as it is in all human characteristics, the question is whether genetics causes the “difference” in IQ between people of different races or whether this difference is largely attributed to the environment. A lot of studies prove that IQ is highly variable during adolescence and is largely affected by the environment, I wouldn’t call such studies politically correct. IQ is also a standardized test so whether the IQ tests are easier for kids is irrelevant here.

Also the IQ of people of all races keeps increasing from one generation to another with the African American and White IQ gap closing. What’s interesting is the African American IQ that decreases during adulthood.
The IQ for African American children is 98 for 5 year olds but decreases to 89 during adulthood according to this recent article:
https://robertlindsay.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2009/05/24/secular-rise-in-black-iq-and-head-size-evidence-for-a-eugenic-effect/

It’s interesting that this IQ decrease only occurs with African Americans on not other races were there is hardly a difference. This generational increase in IQ proves the Flynn effect right, that over time a populations IQ increases. According to the article above the white-black IQ gap has decreased by a third. If this is the case then African americans may not be doomed due to their IQ.

1903

@IQTrumpsEffort "Also, no one here is suggesting we rely only on test scores. The uncomfortable reality is that Asians dominate not only in test scores, but also extracurricular activities and leadership positions. Duke did a study on this; try googling it. That’s why prestigious colleges that have a race-blind but holistic admissions process have 40+% Asians.
Compare that with a population of 16% at colleges that aren’t race-blind. The obvious fact is that it DOES harm Asians no matter how much you deny it.

Also, you should be rewarding Asian families who sacrifice, not punishing them"

I’m going to address your points here. First of all the Asian-White test score gap is so trivial that I doubt Asians have a major or even minor advantage over whites in the admissions process. Also, I doubt that Asians dominate extracurriculars or leadership positions as these are very subjective factors that are almost impossible to measure. How would one go about measuring extracurriculars factors? Also you ignore the fact that colleges take into account socioeconomic factors and the opportunities offered to you in highdchool aswell.

The reason Asians are overrepresented in colleges that aren’t race blind like UC’s is mainly due to demographics. For instance, Asians make up 38% of applicants to UC Berkeley so are vastly overrepresented in the applicant pool, the Asian applicants outnumber whites by a factor of x1.4 since whites only make up 27% of applicants to the school. Since Asians make up 38% of applicants, they end up making 41-42% of those admitted while whites make up 29%-30% of those admitted. Both groups have a slight overrepresentation from the applicant pool but this is very small ranging from 2-5%. Therefore the vast majority of the overrepresentation is a result of Asians overpopulating the applicant pool and demographic rather than a test score or achievement gap.

Just to disprove your point further. Other universities with no affirmative action have a lot lower Asian percentages in comparison to UCs. The university of Michigan is only around 12% Asian, the university of florida has only 7.6% Asians after the state outlawed affirmative action. This disproves your +40% estimate of Asians dominating universities without affirmative action and proves my point that demographics and application rates matter the most when it comes to overrepresentation.

Finally, I don’t want to punish Asian families I’m just pointing out why poor Asian kids have an advantage over poor URMs since their families sacrifice a lot more of their income on their education. They are pressured to do well and still end up attending good highschools regardless and have access to the resources they need to succeed and an overall better environment with more opportunities. This explains the high application rates of Asians in comparison to other races especially URMs with a similar low income that are less likely to apply to top universities.

1904

You two really are both largely correct and not that far apart. The biggest issue is the predominate genetic factor in IQ that many people still refuse to accept even though it’s now widely accepted as fact in academic circles as long as severe nutritional deprivation/disease is eliminated(western countries vs Africa). You are both wrong however when you assert that UCB doesn’t use AA to admit students. It’s true it’s against the law but they have just found softer more hidden ways to achieve the same goals. If you ever go look at a UBC application they ask all sorts of questions that give them a good idea about the applicants race and use “holistic admissions” to achieve their goals. It is commonplace to have students admitted with 300-400 point differences in SAT scores.

1905

@SAY UCB doesn’t use affirmative action, “holistic admission” doesn’t equal affirmative action. The fact that you keep referring to test score gaps between URMs and Asians demonstrates you know little about the admissions process to top universities. The majority of black admits to UCLA and UCB are recruited athletes that are likely to score less on the SAT then other students as high as +70% of all black students on campus are in this category. That is why a lot of URMs get admitted with lower test scores. Hispanics on the other hand make up a large % of the applicant pool and there are enough talented students with high enough test scores to gain admission that they can have a representation of over 10% of admits. I’m tired of hearing the same flawed argument based off of test score differences when Asian overrepresentation is mainly due to demographics and % of Asians in the applicant pool.

Addressing your IQ point, the black-white IQ gap in the united states has decreased by a third and the Flynn effect is in full action as black 5 year olds now have IQs as high as 98 while black adults have IQs of 89 demonstrating the generational split. Soon the black-white IQ gap is going to be reduced by half.

Source:https://robertlindsay.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2009/05/24/secular-rise-in-black-iq-and-head-size-evidence-for-a-eugenic-effect/

So I guess this means that the gap could possibly not be simply determined by genetics and their are other main factors that cause the difference in IQ of people of different races.

1906

@Ali1302

Representation of applicants doesn’t prove your point, as different races have vastly differing stats.
I’d be willing to bet there are FAR more Asians with high test scores and better EC activities than there are URM candidates with similar credentials.

Also, the Flynn effect is nonsense. On a pure intelligence scale, we are far below where our ancestors were at. The reason for the increase in IQ scores is the inclusion of knowledge-based questions in modern intelligence exams.
However, in questions that measure raw brain power (Matrices questions), our results have actually declined.

I suggest you reread one of my earlier posts. Intelligence, like all human traits, becomes more genetically-controlled as we age. Stop bringing up IQ scores for children. What matters is what your intelligence is as an adult.
As an adult, 80% of your intelligence is determined genetically and 20% is determined by prenatal development variances. 0% of your intelligence is determined environmentally.
Adding a few general knowledge-based questions on the IQ exam (Questions like “Who is the President of the US”?) to fudge the results doesn’t change your raw intelligence.

1907

Ali many of your statements are factually wrong. You clearly are totally unfamiliar with the UC admission process if you believe it is race neutral. All of this has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere so I’m not going to get into it again. Just because you make a statement doesn’t make it true. You are a high school student who is in way over your head in this type of discussion.

1908

@SAY I would disagree with you here, I use statistics and evidence to back up my points while you use pure speculation and make assumptions on how decisions are made. Over 70% of African American students are recruited athletes that means atleast 70% of black students admitted every year fall into this category. Less than 30% of black students are admitted due to pure academics, these students make up the minority of black students on campus. To emphasize my point African American applicants make up 7% of all applicants to UC Berkeley but only make up 3% of each entering class. That is major underrepresentation from the applicant pool that could be explained by lower test scores. It means that the African americans that do manage to get in who aren’t recruited athletes actually have high enough tests scores and gpa to be considered competitive.

Now on Hispanic applicants that make up 18%-19% of the applicant pool are also majorly underrepresented in each entering class. Hispanic(including Mexicans) only make up 12% of each entering class at UC Berkeley. Again major underrepresentation from the applicant pool to the entering class that can be explained by differences in test scores. This means that the Hispanic students that get in actually have competitive test scores and gpa.

Tell me exactly which point I make that doesn’t make sense in your view? Also note that there are a significant percentage of Asians that happen to get in with lower than average test scores and gpa who are less competitive in this category then other students so “holistic” admission applies to Asians too.

1909

@IQTrumpsEffort “I’d be willing to bet there are FAR more Asians with high test scores and better EC activities than there are URM candidates with similar credentials.”

I don’t bet and make assumptions, also how exactly do you measure EC activities and decide which are better?

“Also, the Flynn effect is nonsense. On a pure intelligence scale, we are far below where our ancestors were at. The reason for the increase in IQ scores is the inclusion of knowledge-based questions in modern intelligence exams.
However, in questions that measure raw brain power (Matrices questions), our results have actually declined.”

I have a feeling this debate is going to last several lifetimes. Just because you don’t like how the IQ test results have changed doesn’t mean they’re not accurate. The black-white adult IQ gap has in fact decreased by a third and the African American IQ has in fact increased from 85 to 89. Solid proof for the Flynn effect and weak proof for any of your assumptions.

“As an adult, 80% of your intelligence is determined genetically and 20% is determined by prenatal development variances.”

I’m not buying into the prenatal development variances that you base off of the genetically identical twin studies. Simply stating that it’s true doesn’t make it true doesn’t make it true that 20% could be due to the environment.

“Adding a few general knowledge-based questions on the IQ exam (Questions like “Who is the President of the US”?) to fudge the results doesn’t change your raw intelligence.”

IQ is standardized so if the majority of questions test raw intelligence then it wouldn’t matter. Also I feel like IQ is a measure of useful intelligence and only certain types of intelligence as opposed to intelligence perceived as useless intelligence that isn’t measured at all.

1910

Over 70% of African American on college campuses are NOT RECRUITED ATHLETES! I am an IVY LEAGUE Alum who was a recruited athlete.

1911

@Mayihelp I’m sorry for the slight error, the actual statistic is 65% of the 660 African American undergraduates and graduates are athletes at UCLA. Does this make any difference at all?

Also I’m not talking about all universities but mainly UCLA and UC Berkeley?

1912

Ali I do not want to be overly critical because you are a young student but this debate has been going on for many years. The data on this has been carefully and thoroughly reviewed in many books and articles. There really is no controversy here among knowledgeable people. Being black or hispanic is a major hook at every top school and especially at UCB. The fact you don’t know this only proves my point. You are also in way over your head when discussing the IQ data. I would refer you to the Bell Curve for this data. It was highly criticized when published but since then many studies have proved the authors to be correct. The Longitudinal Minnesota Twin Study ended the nature nurture debate about IQ. Once deprivation is removed IQ is largely based on genetics and people from different backgrounds have widely varying average IQ’s. I refer you to the book to explore just how different the average Ashkenazi Jew(average IQ 115) from most third world people(average IQ 75-85). This discussion is difficult but it makes no sense to ignore the truth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/education/edlife/lifting-the-veil-on-the-holistic-process-at-the-university-of-california-berkeley.html

1913

@SAY The fact that you reference IQ averages on a global scale, the identical twin study and an article based on an anecdote of a person claiming to have been an admissions officer demonstrates your level of ignorance and incompetence.

First, the IQ averages in third world countries and sub-saharan Africa is irrelevant to the united states, the IQ average of an African american on a recent study was shown to be 89 and African american 5 year olds have an IQs as high as 98. Your data here is completely irrelevant and doesn’t apply to the united states.

Second, the article you referenced was based on a personal anecdote based on a first generation immigrant from india being rejected for engineering a very competitive course. Now even African American first generation immigrants are highly educated and tend to do very well in terms of tests scores as this is the case with all first/second generation immigrants of all races. The hispanic student is noted as having gone out a school that offers no APs, coming from a poorer background and having written an essay about his struggles as a student, he barely made it to the score of 2.5 and in my opinion any student of any other race would have probably gotten a similar boost. A student considered white wrote a sob story about being from an alcoholic family and coming from a very poor background with similar scores and managed to get in with similar scores. These anecdotes and news article don’t count as solid evidence in the real world and aren’t reliable or valid whatsoever.

Also note if Berkeley didn’t have a holistic admissions process and didn’t take into account socioeconomic factor and it was purely merit based then anyone with a score below a 2200 would be automatically rejected and it would fill it’s class simply with students scoring a +2200. The admissions process would be completely random and disordered with one year being 60% asian and another year being 60% white since they wouldn’t be able to tell an applicants race and simply admit applicants with the right set of test scores and gpa.

I would like to provide my evidence proving that race is not a factor what so ever at most if not all UCs. First of all African american applicants make up 7% of applicants to UCs and most of the time 3% of those admitted and matriculated to each entering class. We already see an underrepresentation of 4% upon admission. Now lets factor in the percentage of African Americans that are recruited athletes around 60% of those admitted. This means only 40% are admitted due to pure academics so infact only 1.2% are African american students are admitted due to academics. Basically what your saying is that in order for you to be satisfied that there is no affirmative action african american academic students have to make up less than 1% of those admitted?? Listen the numbers don’t lie you are seriously delusional if you think 1.2% African american academic students is due to any type of affirmative action, basically in your opinion it should be close to 0%.

“Ali I do not want to be overly critical because you are a young student but this debate has been going on for many years. The data on this has been carefully and thoroughly reviewed in many books and articles.”

Based on your previous uninformed comments, I’d like to hear the highly critical side of your argument, you might come up with at least some credible evidence to prove your point. Although, I doubt that you will.

1914

You have the strong opinions of youth and inexperience. You are welcome to your own opinions of course but this data is voluminous and irrefutable. To claim that UC doesn’t consider race to be a major hook only exposes yourself as new to this subject. They just don’t do it overtly and instead call it “holistic admissions” and invite personal essays where the student can “explain their hardships”. At any rate your arguments are not with me but rather the objective facts. I am not arguing for any position but simply stating the facts as they exist. This site was created to present the objective facts rather than be the NYT Editorial Page. I make no arguments about how schools should or should not admit students but only to present the situation as it exists today.

1915

@SAY You state that your opinion is a fact without presenting evidence, you say it’s a well known fact because a lot of paranoid deluded people believe this happens. Also stop using the word “fact” when your whole argument is baseless conjecture. I present you with statistics and actual student numbers proving my position while you present me with your opinion. You haven’t presented me with anything, Zero, Nada. You have zero credible evidence backing up your point yet you insist that this is a well established fact? Why do I bother arguing with ignorant, delusional,incompetent imbeciles.

1916

Ali as I said this is not my opinion. The topic far too complex to begin to discuss on a CC thread. I’m sure you are a very bright fine young person but it is up to you to search out these facts. As I have said you are trying to create an argument where none exists. The facts about elite admissions and the various hooks(recruited athlete, URM,national awards, family donations, etc) have all been discussed in excruciating detail in many books such as the Price of Admission and many many others. There really is no debate. All elite schools except Cal Tech(to a lesser extent a couple others) consider URM to be a major hook. The UC’s use holistic admission as a way to get around race but URM with similar stats get admitted to UCB and UCLA at a much much higher rate than non-URM’s. You want to talk sociology when this tread is about the true facts of elite admissions. The facts you seek are all contained in numerous threads on this site and quite frankly it only shows your lack of knowledge when you think a serious debate exists on this topic.

1917

@SAY I’m not going to bother debating anymore, I’m not going to be searching for evidence that is non-existant or take the word someone unwilling to form a logical argument or present any credible evidence while stating ehat he believes to be facts. This is much like a conspiracy theory that goes around that mainly delusion, gullible and paranoid individuals are likely to believe, well tell a lie often enough and it becomes a truth. Also donors and recruited athletes aren’t in the same category of URMs and I don’t get what national awards have to do with anything?

" UC’s use holistic admission as a way to get around race but URM with similar stats get admitted to UCB and UCLA at a much much higher rate than non-URM’s."

You state these points without presenting any credible evidence at all, you know these are very serious accusation?
First of all 60% of African American students at UCLA are athletes and African Americans only make up 3.3% of all students while making up 7% of applicants. This means non- athlete African Americans only make up 1.32% of all students at UCLA. Here there is even a youtube video involving a group of students in rhyme protesting for better representation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEO3H5BOlFk

Hispanic students make up over 25.7% of applicants to UC Berkeley but only 17.7% of those admitted, while only making up 12%-13% of those matriculated. First, you see the major underrepresentation from the applicant to those admitted then the underrepresentation from those admitted to the class profile. How can you given this data even raise the question of race being considered?

Let me give you even a stronger example here is a link showing the class profile of the school of optometry at UC Berkeley. Now the school has an average of 66 entering students each year, Asians make up 44 average of those 66 students that’s a representation of 67%. URMs on the other hand don’t fare so well. For starters African Americans at most make up 2 students and in most years 0 students. Hispanics at most make up 5 students, while whites make up only 15 students and in one year(2011) only made up 5 students. With these kinds of numbers and Asians completely dominating the school of optometry can you really say that race is major hook?

Here’s a link to the profile of the school of optometry where I got my data: http://optometry.berkeley.edu/admissions/applicant-profiles

1918

OHMomof2: “Your point earlier that “father in prison” or “single parent household” etc are used as a stand-in for race is absurd.”

As distasteful as it is, I have never had a conversation with anyone, Black or white, who did not think such phrasing was code for racial assignation. That the UCs place no such value to the terms, and therefore, aspects of race are not (erroneously or not) attached to an applicant where these obstacles and conditions are in place, would mean the admissions officers divorce themselves from the cultural values and norms of the society in which they live. They walk in the room without that baggage.

I am curious to know how this is done. The sort of professional training they must have, if these normatives are not at work…

1919

Ali as I have told you many times this is not a debate. You are a high school student who is new to this subject. My children have all managed to get accepted to elite colleges partially because of good credentials but also because I took the time to learn how the admission decisions were determined. You have no life experience as a very young person and have never been through the process. You equate your feelings about the process to being meaningful about how it really works. You have no idea what you are talking about and sound like the young person you are believing this is a discussion about fairness or sociology. The bottom line is that URM’s are accepted at fair higher rates than whites or Asians with identical statistics at all the top UC’s. This is common knowledge and known to everyone in California who has been through the process. Year after year less qualified by(class rank and test scores) URM’s are disproportionately accepted to the top UC’s and every other elite college. This is a fact that is well beyond debate. However it is also true at the very elite colleges the best hook is to be a recruited athlete or child of a major donor. At HYPS there are so many very qualified URM’s that simply being a qualified URM is certainly far from a guarantee of admission but the admission rates for URM are far higher at all the top schools. I’m not making any statements about changing the process or unfairness but only clearly discussing the process that exists today at all the top schools(except Cal Tech). There are many exhaustive sources you can find on this topic bedsides the ones I have linked. I also suggest that you refrain from using data from the UCB Website since they hardly are going to admit to breaking/bending the law. Did it ever enter your mind that the optometry school might want to just accept the best students? Do you want the best optometrist working on your glasses or the one who got in by AA. How about your surgeon or anesthesiologist? At any rate good luck on your own admission.

http://www.amazon.com/Cheating-Insiders-Report-Race-Admissions/dp/1457528290

1920

While the first round of admissions consideration is handled fairly, African-American students are nearly three times as likely to make it out of the “maybe” pile than equally-qualified white students, and more than twice as likely as Asians, according to Tim Groseclose, a political science professor at the school and author of a new book titled, “Cheating: An Insider’s Report on the Use of Race in Admissions at UCLA.”

“UCLA is using racial preferences in admissions,” Groseclose, who made his case using data from 2006-2009."

After a first look results in most applications being either accepted or rejected, a handful of senior university staff sift through those marked for further consideration, according to Groseclose. That’s where the alleged bias happens. He found black applicants were accepted at a 43 percent rate in the second round, while whites were accepted at a 15 percent rate and Asians at an 18 percent rate.

"All of the cheating was done by the senior staff,” Groseclose said.And race outweighs socioeconomic status, according to Groseclose. For instance, black applicants whose families had incomes exceeding $100,000 were about twice as likely to be accepted in round two as Asian and white kids whose families make just $30,000 and had similar test scores, grades and essays.

http://timgroseclose.wpengine.com/UCLAadmissions/