are colleges racist?

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@Shrinkrap

Wasn’t that year they had more than 100 black freshman? I think it was 102.

</p>

<p>Actually, [University</a> of California: StatFinder](<a href=“http://statfinder.ucop.edu%5DUniversity”>http://statfinder.ucop.edu) says that UCLA had >100 African American matriculated freshmen every year from 2000-2001 to 2008-2009 (full year freshman admissions from all states). Matriculants/admits/applicants here:</p>

<p>2000-2001: 157/344/1624
2001-2002: 140/341/1712
2002-2003: 171/354/1931
2003-2004: 130/294/2110
2004-2005: 123/348/1955
2005-2006: 125/281/1847
2006-2007: 102/251/2176
2007-2008: 206/409/2462
2008-2009: 231/454/2828</p>

<p>2006-2007 had both an unusually low admit rate and a lower than normal yield rate for African Americans.</p>

[Shrinkrap]

<p>Ah! It was 2006-2007 I was thinking of. 2004, the year of the scandalous article, had 123 black freshman. And I’m thinking this is out of 50,000 applicant’s and 10,000 admits, right?</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@Pizzagirl

No one ever seems to have an answer for this … Where do the deserving Asians whose seats were taken away by those undeserving blacks and Hispanics wind up going? I’m serious. Where do they wind up?

</p>

<p>(Seems like no one in this discussion wants to discuss the widely believed favoring of white applicants over Asian applicants, perhaps because discussing it is uncomfortable for both sides of the argument, even though it may be a bigger effect since there are a lot more white people than black and Latino people.)</p>

<p>It should be obvious that the net overall effect of all of these admission games is to move some students to a slightly “better” university and some students to a slightly “worse” university. Of course, the effects can be much greater at an individual level (and it is not always the case that the “better” university is better for the individual student, or that the “worse” university is worse for the individual student), but the net overall effect is really not that big.</p>

[20more]

<p>“Seems like no one in this discussion wants to discuss the widely believed favoring of white applicants over Asian applicants, perhaps because discussing it is uncomfortable for both sides of the argument, even though it may be a bigger effect since there are a lot more white people than black and Latino people.”</p>

<p>I really want to see this discussion.</p>

<p>From post #46
My high school: Very competitive school with high Asian population</p>

<ol>
<li>About 9% went to Ivies during 2007-2011</li>
<li>About 18% went to Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech and Chicago during 2007-2011</li>
<li>More whites than Asians but 50-50 among top students</li>
</ol>

<p>2007-2011 (5 year stat from my HS)
Ivy League:</p>

<p>White Male: 37%
White Female: 41%
Asian Female: 15%
Asian Male: 7%</p>

<p>2007-2011 (5 year stat from my HS)
Ivies, MIT, Stanford, Cal Tech, Chicago:</p>

<p>White Male: 36%
White Female: 36%
Asian Female: 16%
Asian Male: 12%</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@Shrinkrap

It was 2006-2007 I was thinking of. 2004, the year of the scandalous article, had 123 black freshman. And I’m thinking this is out of 50,000 applicant’s and 10,000 admits, right?

</p>

<p>Total UCLA freshmen matriculants/admits/applicants:</p>

<p>2003-2004: 4274/10584/44986
2004-2005: 3946/11777/43465
2005-2006: 4429/11368/42230
2006-2007: 4815/12195/47323</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@UCLA Band Mom

The entire 5 page article is quite illuminating, and should be of interest to those participating in this thread.
[Racial</a> Games: UCLA’s Biased Admissions Process - Chapter 1](<a href=“http://www.bruinalumni.com/articles/racialgames1.html]Racial”>http://www.bruinalumni.com/articles/racialgames1.html)

</p>

<p>Just because someone with political axes to grind has his/her own web site and organization called “Bruin Alumni Association” does not mean that it is anything more than political axe grinding.</p>

<p>De-emphasis of the SAT I is due to the finding that the SAT I does not predict UC GPA very well by itself in comparison to high school GPA or SAT II, and adds little to the UC GPA prediction when added to SAT II or high school GPA and SAT II, according to [Validity</a> Of High-School Grades In Predicting Student Success Beyond The Freshman Year: High-School Record vs. Standardized Tests as Indicators of Four-Year College Outcomes](<a href=“Publications | Center for Studies in Higher Education”>Publications | Center for Studies in Higher Education) and [UC</a> and the SAT](<a href=“http://www.ucop.edu/news/sat/boars.html]UC”>http://www.ucop.edu/news/sat/boars.html).</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>Wouldn’t the “slightly worse” university be made better by the presence of all these overqualified people (make them white and Asian, it doesn’t much matter)? And wouldn’t the “slightly better” university be made worse by the presence of the under qualified? Why don’t these universities reach an equilibrium? Why is it assumed that HYPSM et al still retain “superiority” despite their watered down student bodies?</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>Bay asks, “And if diversity is such a joke, why hasn’t anyone taken the initiative to challenge it?”</p>

<p>From [url=<a href=“http://www.planethan.com/drupal/racial]Racial”>http://www.planethan.com/drupal/racial]Racial</a> Diversity Reconsidered<a href=“Rothman,%20Lipset,%20and%20Nevitte,%202003”>/url</a>:</p>

<p>

The argument that diversity enhances education and interracial understanding rests on a fairly substantial body of social science literature. In defending admissions policies designed to increase racial diversity on America’s campuses, advocates have relied on surveys of students (and sometimes faculty, administrators, and alumni) that have been designed to measure educational environments and intergroup relations.

</p>

<p>Hmm, “fairly substantial body of social science literature.” Let’s see what it has to say.</p>

<p>

In evaluating the consequences of diversity policies on campus life, it is very difficult to conduct controlled experiments and to collect data that have concrete measurable correlates. Many of the resulting studies must rely on the reported attitudes, perceptions, and memories of students, faculty, and administrators. But such evidence suffers from the subjective nature of survey responses. For example, William Bowen and Derek Bok’s frequently cited 1998 book, The Shape of the River, reports that support for campus diversity programs has been growing steadily among the alumni of elite colleges and that both blacks and whites believe that such programs help them to get along better with members of other races.

</p>

<p>Looks like Bay is right: “support for…diversity…has been growing steadily among the alumni of elite colleges…”</p>

<p>But we ought not judge before Rothman et al. have had their full say, and we should heed that these studies, by necessity, rely on surveys.</p>

<p>

But both these findings could just as easily reflect an increase in conscious or unconscious efforts to give socially appropriate answers, a result of the growing emphasis on these programs at elite schools, where they are frequently presented as highly important moral imperatives.</p>

<p>The problem can be illustrated by some of the actual questions that are asked. For example, an influential 1999 survey by Gary Orfield and Dean Whitla posed the following question: “Do you consider having students of different races and ethnicities to be a positive or negative element of your educational experience?”

</p>

<p>What the? THAT is supposed to be how research “shows” that “diversity” has educational benefits? I wouldn’t say “no,” either, but I don’t support the “diversity” agenda.</p>

<p>

The authors note, “In public opinion research it is very rare to find majorities of this size on any controversial issue.” This is quite true, and it suggests that the question is worded in a way that taps into what social scientists call a “valence issue,” an issue on which almost everyone agrees. In this sense, diversity is like free speech–almost everyone approves of it in the abstract, but its application in concrete situations can produce great controversy. In sum, the social science surveys that support the benefits alleged for diversity in college enrollment cannot preclude the possibility that favorable responses are products of a kind of indoctrination in the meaning of certain terms and concepts, rather than a valid reflection of real world effects. 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>Boom.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>But Rothman et al. weren’t just reviewing prior literature.</p>

<p>

In order to avoid such problems in testing whether enrollment diversity programs benefit academic communities, we chose a more indirect approach that does not take survey responses at face value. In addition to asking members of the university community how they felt about campus diversity programs, we also asked them to evaluate various aspects of their general educational experience and environment, with no reference to diversity. We then correlated their attitudes with a separate empirical measure of racial diversity–the proportion of African Americans in the student body.
…
Our survey addressed several aspects of campus opinion about diversity issues. While there was substantial agreement among students, faculty, and administrators on some issues, there were also important differences. There was widespread support for offering courses in multiculturalism on American campuses, but not for requiring them…There was also widespread endorsement of the ongoing discussion of minority issues at colleges and universities. Most members of the university community did not believe excessive attention was given to diversity issues.

</p>

<p>All positive signs of support among students, faculty, and administrators for “diversity.” But they are not done yet.</p>

<p>

In response to the statement, “No one should be given special preference in jobs or college admissions on the basis of their gender or race,” two-thirds (67 percent) of the students strongly agreed, compared to only one-third of the faculty (34 percent) and one-quarter (26 percent) of the administrators. An overwhelming 85 percent of students either strongly or moderately agreed with the statement, as compared to 56 percent of the faculty and only 48 percent of administrators.
…
Similar fault lines appeared when the issue was framed in terms of relaxed admissions standards for minority students, although the differences among groups were not as great. Seventy-five percent of students disagreed with the statement: “More minority-group undergraduates should be admitted here even if it means relaxing standards.” Lower percentages (though still a majority) of faculty (57 percent) and administrators (55 percent) also disagreed with the statement.

</p>

<p>Whoa. I guess students, faculty, and administrators don’t actually support “affirmative action” when you define it.</p>

[MiamiDAP]

<p>Underqualified have no impact on anybody. Many of them also do not survive in their chosen path, they fall out, maybe out of major or drop out of school. Overqualified have great positive impact, which is normally recognized with various awards, grants, scholarships, medals…etc. as a small token of appreciation. There are many kids at state schools on huge Merit scholarships that could have successfully applied to Ivy’s but for various reasons decided to go to state. They themselves benefit tremendously, sharpenning their leadership skills, having special relationships with profs/building their future network, taking advantage of all kind of opportunties that are not available to general student body…skimming all kind awrds/recognitions/honors at graduation time, getting successfully into their future place whatever it is, Grad. School, job…after practically free UG education.</p>

[glido]

<p>“No one ever seems to have an answer for this … Where do the deserving Asians whose seats were taken away . . . wind up going? I’m serious. Where do they wind up?” - PizzaG</p>

<p>UC- Irvine</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Respondents were also asked three questions on minorities and discrimination: whether minority students were treated better, worse, or about the same as white students; the extent to which racial discrimination was a problem at their institutions; and whether they personally had been treated unfairly because of their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or political views. These last three questions were asked of all groups.
…
We used the responses to these questions to test specific hypotheses about diversity on campus. These hypotheses predict that increases in the proportion of black student enrollment will be associated with favorable responses to the corresponding survey items–greater satisfaction and more favorable ratings of educational quality, higher levels of preparation and commitment of students, less racial discrimination and better treatment of minority students, and fewer reported encounters with discrimination.

</p>

<p>Now Rothman et al. are directly testing the vaunted “‘diversity’ brings educational benefits” hypotheses.</p>

<p>

It is commonly believed that increases in black enrollment will produce positive assessments from students about their educational experience. But in fact the correlations went in the opposite direction. As the proportion of black students rose, student satisfaction with their university experience dropped, as did their assessments of the quality of their education and the work ethic of their peers. In addition, the higher the enrollment diversity, the more likely students were to say that they personally experienced discrimination. The same pattern of negative correlations between educational benefits and increased black enrollment appeared in the responses of faculty and administrators. Both groups perceived decreases in educational quality and academic preparation as the number of black students increased. Faculty members also rated students as less hard-working as diversity increased.

</p>

<p>Oh noes! This, this cannot be! Why, Rothman et al. must be right-wing hacks with agendas! There’s just no way that real research could possibly question that “‘diversity’ brings educational benefits”! I know it’s true because I’ve seen it with my own eyes! </p>

<p>

Of course, correlation is not causation, and it is possible that these correlations might be masking the effects of other factors…In order to control for these possible factors, we used the statistical tool of multiple regression…[which] showed that…[on]ce again, the greater the school’s diversity, the less students were satisfied with their own educational experience. In addition, greater diversity was associated with perceptions of less academic effort among students and a poorer overall educational experience. Finally, enrollment diversity was positively related to students’ experience of unfair treatment, even after the effects of all other variables were controlled. (As the proportion of black students grew, the incidence of these personal grievances increased among whites. Among blacks, however, there was no significant correlation. Thus diversity appears to increase complaints of unfair treatment among white students without reducing them among black students.)

</p>

<p>But Rothman et al. foresaw a criticism of their approach: you measured “diversity” only in terms of black students! You can’t do that! Fine.</p>

<p>

To test this broader application of the model, we applied our statistical analysis to Asian-American and Hispanic enrollment. A few questions produced significant correlations with increasing Hispanic enrollment: Students were less likely to express satisfaction with the education they were receiving, and faculty and administrators were less likely to perceive discrimination at their schools. When these correlations were tested by the more rigorous method of multiple regression, the findings for students and administrators remained statistically significant.

</p>

<p>Same picture.</p>

<p>

Increases in the proportion of Asian-American students were associated with favorable perceptions among students, faculty, and administrators. Among students, the only significant correlation was between higher proportions of Asian-American students and perceptions of a hard-working student body. For faculty and administrators, increases in Asian-American enrollment were correlated with positive perceptions both of the work ethic on campus and of student preparation. For both samples, however, these correlations disappeared when the impact of other variables was factored in. Finally, after the effects of all other variables were controlled, faculty members were less likely to perceive discrimination on campus as the proportion of Asian-American students rose.

</p>

<p>Asians have neither a positive nor negative impact on educational benefits, in contrary to “URM” groups.</p>

[MiamiDAP]

<p>"“No one ever seems to have an answer for this … Where do the deserving Asians whose seats were taken away . . . wind up going? I’m serious. Where do they wind up?” </p>

<p>Lots go to Harvard, don’t they?..and other very selective places/programs.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>Follow along, miamidap. I’m talking about those sad cases of all the whites and Asians whose rightful spots at elite schools are being given away.</p>

<p>Glido - whatever. UC - Irvine is unknown outside of the state of CA, so try again.</p>

[kxc1961]

<p>@OP,</p>

<p>I don’t think you can change the practice to make a difference for you and folks of your generation. However, there is a hope. Just learn from the success of the Jewish people: Participate in politics. Be successful in business and contribute to political cause to change the predicament for your off-springs.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

No one ever seems to have an answer for this … Where do the deserving Asians whose seats were taken away by those undeserving blacks and Hispanics wind up going? I’m serious. Where do they wind up?

I think this is a pretty interesting question. I live in Maryland, so I took a look at the percentage of Asian students at colleges in Maryland to see where the Asians are. Obviously, this doesn’t tell you about people who go out of state, or to Ivies, etc. But it’s still interesting. The most selective school in the state, Hopkins, has 19% Asians. UMCP, probably next on the list for most Marylanders, has 14%. UMBC has 23% (a high number I can’t explain). St. Mary’s College of Maryland, the LAC-like state “honors college,” has 4%. St. John’s College, with its “Great Books” curriculum, has 1% Asians. The less selective state schools, like Towson, Salisbury, Frostburg, have 4, 3, and 2%, respectively. University of Baltimore has 6%. The Naval Academy has 4%. I didn’t look at all the community colleges, but they appear to have very small numbers of Asian students.
Maryland has about 5.2% Asians in the population.</p>

<p>What do these numbers suggest? First, they may suggest that all the angst in this discussion may only be relevant to a small number of selective schools. And maybe not all of them. What about Hopkins? Does 19% suggest that Hopkins is probably not limiting Asian admittances, or that it probably is limiting them? Compare Hopkins to Vanderbilt, which has about 6% Asians. Are there reasons, aside from discrimination, that there might be three times as many Asian at Hopkins than Vanderbilt?</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Are there reasons, aside from discrimination, that there might be three times as many Asian at Hopkins than Vanderbilt?

</p>

<p>I don’t know why Asians are only weakly “overrepresented” at Vanderbilt compared to Johns Hopkins. USNWR rank doesn’t appear to explain it fully, as Vanderbilt ranks higher than Emory, which had a recent freshman class that was 25% Asian and 16% international. Likewise, location doesn’t appear to explain it either, as Emory is in Georgia and Rice is in Texas. Rice also ranks lower than Johns Hopkins but had a recent freshman class that was 20% Asian and 12% international.</p>

<p>You can’t explain why Vanderbilt is “only” 6% Asian. Likewise, you can’t explain why UMBC is 23% Asian. I can’t either.</p>

<p>Edit</p>

<p>And those figures came from the College Board, not the Common Data Sets. With the increasing rate at which students are declining to self-identify race, you could argue that those figures UNDERESTIMATE the percentage of Asian students.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>A couple of other points about numbers. It’s notable that Berkeley now has 40% Asians, after going to a (supposedly) race-blind admissions process. But you also need to remember that California has about three times as many Asians as a percentage than the nation as a whole (13% vs. 4.6%). While the University of Virginia has 14% Asians, Virginia has 5.5% Asians.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

It’s notable that Berkeley now has 40% Asians, after going to a (supposedly) race-blind admissions process.

</p>

<p>Are you in any way suggesting that Asians are beneficiaries of racial preferences?</p>

[sorghum]

<p>So many Asian students are first generation born in US with immigrant parents. Often both parents are highly educated and had to jump through rather considerable educational hoops to end up in graduate programs in the US.</p>

<p>It would be extremely strange if the innate potential of young Asians in the US, on average, was not vastly higher than that of other minority groups [and the majority group].</p>