are colleges racist?

[fabrizio]

<p>

…the argument Epiphany was making that they don’t want their campus a majority-ANYTHING because they want to create a diverse soup?

</p>

<p>Context appreciated. Thank you. Now, if you please, would campuses be 60% Asian in the absence of racial preferences? If not, then…we don’t need racial preferences to ensure diversity. We can get it by, what did you say? “Cleans[ing] [our] palate with a student who has a different set of interests.”</p>

<p>

Because I’m really tired of arguing this straw man with you - that the desire to ensure a diverse community (and potentially give a URM boost as part of that) is the same thing as “keeping undesirables in their place.”

</p>

<p>That’s not a straw man. That’s a fundamental disagreement. Throughout our discussions, I have seen a consistent refusal on your part to acknowledge what, exactly, the “other” side’s position is. Apparently, you are well aware that I’ve said 108 times that I don’t believe the SAT is everything. You simply feel that I don’t really believe that, or to put it more bluntly, you think I’m lying. So instead of arguing with the knowledge that I don’t think the SAT is everything, you create a real straw man–“fabrizio thinks the SAT is everything”–and argue against that instead of me.</p>

<p>Likewise, you refuse to recognize that we have a fundamental disagreement here, calling my position a “straw man.” I acknowledge that you see “positive” discrimination in a completely different light than “negative” discrimination. I do not call your position “wrong” or a “straw man,” but you don’t extend the same courtesy to me.</p>

[k_amp_s]

<p>

…the argument Epiphany was making that they don’t want their campus a majority-ANYTHING because they want to create a diverse soup?

</p>

<p>No, but they would like the biggest group to be white.</p>

<p>But really, why would a school made up of say, 35% blacks, 25% Asians and 25% whites and 15% other not be considered diverse?</p>

<p>The general pop./the media is white-dominated. Would “only” having 25% of the student body made up of white students really be less diverse and make students incapable of dealing with the “real world”?</p>

<p>Heck, one of the UCal chancellors who initially was against admissions policies (which would have and did result in an increase in Asian students) for the sake of “diversity” says he was wrong and that UCal is now more diverse (as in meaning more Asians from diff. ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds, including generation of immigration, as opposed to be dominated by the more well to do Chinese, Korean and Indian Asian-Am students).</p>

<p>Having a bunch of “bananas” or “twinkies” at a school (say Colgate) doesn’t really make it more diverse.</p>

[Professor101]

<p>

It appeared that by your statement on Stanford SAT scores, that a higher score should play a large part in acceptance (not the only thing or count for everything). Your interpretation is that the scores are lower so as to be biased against Asian. I thought it maybe due to Stanford going after the athletic scholar way more than the IVY League.

Athletic scholars may affect its 25 percentile, but not the 75 percentile. Even that is not a given. Some people would argue HYPC being in Division one recruit as hard as Stanford. Stanford’s scores are lower than HYPCs and that is a fact. Stanford’s Asian number dropped from ~27% to 16% is also a fact. As you said, we can believe what we want to believe, but fact is fact.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>

No one believes SAT is everything, but eveyone probably agrees it counts for something as top schools tend to have top scores. Stanford can use this “something” to reduce the number of Asian students.

</p>

<p>“Can” does not equal “Does” or “must” or “should” or even “probably will.” And Stanford (and HYP et al.) “Can” “use” anything to “reduce” the number of any students based on any criteria, but they’re not interested in using a single criterion to “reduce” the class on any dimension. This is all about **them<a href=“the%20university”>/b</a> and not about any individual student and the student’s needs, wants, desires, or “reward” for a job well done. This is called self-interest. You still don’t get this. It’s also called a Buyer’s Market, and the Buyers are the ‘elite’ universities who have an over-supply of talent and brains, which are by no means limited to Asian-American students. :eek: And because they can limit the number of dancers, they will (if one more dancer doesn’t make the cut based on a lower SAT score than what is needed --in the eyes of Stanford-- for that student’s academic ambitions. Doesn’t matter whether that student is white, Asian, etc. Too many dancers? You’re out. And they can admit extra students for a particular major or activity, in a particular category (say, more Southern Californians than they would like to admit this year) because one or two of those has rockin’ good leadership in an area of institutional initiative. And. They. Will. They will admit whomever they want to admit, based on the best possible combo of talent, ethnic/racial/religious/ geographic / economic diversity, academic ability, – and with one overall question: who is at our doorstep this year? How does each of these students compare with the others in terms of the mutually complementary feast we would like to make available for all of them (and for ourselves) for the next 4 years?</p>

<p>And make no mistake about it: after the hooked categories such as academically-well- performing athletes, big donors, and competitive URM’s who can do Stanford’s work (whom Stanford is reasonably sure will be retained & graduate), the first and foremost thing they are seeking is quality students. That quality is measured only partly by SAT; it’s an important factor, but by means the only – or even necessarily the most important factor. The other academic factors are what I described in an earlier post about the demontrated comprehensive ability across both humanities and the sciences, the strength of the previous coursework and level of it. And that’s not limited to “how many AP’s were taken,” either (for those who might think that way). It could be the known quality of the public or private high school in terms of the academic challenge within it, historically; it could be what is detailed about the coursework – and what is left unsaid – in letters of recommendation. It could be that competing students took a boatload of community college and 4-year college courses before h.s. graduation, but others have no idea about that, because they’re myopically looking at their own (or their student’s) record, having no idea about the crack applications coming over the admissions committee’s desk, which make their own app look tame in comparison. Ultimately, these are qualitative measures in addition to quantitative, and frankly when assessing academic measures, the U is more interested in the former than the latter. (That has nothing to do with holistic admissions, which is a combination of academic measures and extracurricular achievement, community service, leadership, probable field of study, region, economic status, previous challenges, ethnicity, race.) </p>

<p>Finally, again, every year every ‘elite’ university in this country rejects students with SAT’s of 2400 – students who include white Anglos and Asian-Americans. I know for some of you it’s not possible to wrap your head around the indisputable fact that any non-Asian student could ever score 2400, but that’s your problem. And if you believe that it’s not possible (or improbable), it’s also your racism.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

The one school where the % of Jewish students lags behind is Princeton, the Ivy League school known for having the most “holistic” application process (Princeton is the one IL school where the % of Asian and Jewish students are similar).

</p>

<p>Oh dear, my nephew at P is both Jewish AND Hispanic! How did that happen? LOL.</p>

[k_amp_s]

<p>

Finally, again, every year every ‘elite’ university in this country rejects students with SAT’s of 2400 – students who include white Anglos and Asian-Americans. I know for some of you it’s not possible to wrap your head around the indisputable fact that any non-Asian student could ever score 2400, but that’s your problem. And if you believe that it’s not possible (or improbable), it’s also your racism.

</p>

<p>Considering that Jewish students outnumber their Christian white counterparts at many Ivies (despite not even making up 2% of the US pop.) - one would have to surmise that (1) these schools reject a lot more “white Anglos” w/ top SAT scores than Jewish applicants with top scores or (2) Jewish applicants disproportionately score better than their white Anglo counterparts.</p>

<p>The exception being Princeton (and maybe Dartmouth).</p>

<p>

Oh dear, my nephew at P is both Jewish AND Hispanic! How did that happen? LOL.

</p>

<p>And the whole Hispanic thing also has to do with “gaming the system.”</p>

<p>I and my friends know a no. of people who are fully white, but part Hispanic (having a parent or grandparent who is from Spain), but they checked the Hispanic box on their applications.</p>

<p>Needless to say, they got into more places than would be typical of applicants with their nos. (and we’re talking about applicants who would be the among the last to be considered underprivileged).</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

Now, if you please, would campuses be 60% Asian in the absence of racial preferences?

</p>

<p>Depends what the admissions criteria is, doesn’t it? Is it SAT-scores-only or primarily? Is it public service? Is it EC’s? Is it essays? </p>

<p>

If not, then…we don’t need racial preferences to ensure diversity. We can get it by, what did you say? “Cleans[ing] [our] palate with a student who has a different set of interests.”

</p>

<p>Do you agree or disagree with either or both of these statements below:

• a) Many Asian students tend to cluster in STEM majors (and their associated extracurriculars) as well as in the same EC’s (piano, violin and tennis) - more “tightly” than whites, blacks, etc. do in various majors and activities.
• b) (If a is true) Such a strategy may disadvantage Asians in the admittance process because they may run the harm of not being meaningfully differentiated vs one another.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

Stanford’s Asian number dropped from ~27% to 16% is also a fact. As you said, we can believe what we want to believe, but fact is fact.

</p>

<p>What if that was driven not by “we dislike Asians and wish the cap their numbers,” but a widening of the pool of Stanford applicants as Stanford became a more national university? After all, the more you move away from California in your applicant pool, the less Asian the pool will be - just by definition. </p>

<p>Put another way, if all of a sudden Stanford receives an influx of applicants from Montana, N Dakota, S Dakota, Idaho and Wyoming, and the Asian acceptance rate / % of the class drops, does that prove “discrimination” or simply a different pool?</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

I know for some of you it’s not possible to wrap your head around the indisputable fact that any non-Asian student could ever score 2400, but that’s your problem.

</p>

<p>One of the worst straw mans in this thread.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

Considering that Jewish students outnumber their Christian white counterparts at many Ivies (despite not even making up 2% of the US pop.) - one would have to surmise that (1) these schools reject a lot more “white Anglos” w/ top SAT scores than Jewish applicants with top scores or (2) Jewish applicants disproportionately score better than their white Anglo counterparts.

</p>

<p>And yet there isn’t an outcry that “the Jews took our spots.” Merely that “the blacks / Hispanics took our spots.” Why do you suppose that is?</p>

<p>Likewise, both Jews and Asians are overrepresented in elite universities relative to their size in the college-age-going population – yet I don’t hear Jewish students complaining that it still isn’t enough. Why do you suppose that is?</p>

[k_amp_s]

<p>^
Stanford in the past had already admitted to putting an artificial cap on the no. of Asians admitted - when the % of Asians in the student body stayed the same while the no. of Asian applicants rose sharply as the no. of Asians in the US rose.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Depends what the admissions criteria is, doesn’t it? Is it SAT-scores-only or primarily? Is it public service? Is it EC’s? Is it essays?

</p>

<p>How about if the ONLY change that was made was removing racial preferences (i.e. all else constant)?</p>

<p>This is another thing that I’ve long laughed at. It’s not a straw man to say that the same people who insist that race is of minute consideration are the same ones who think that if you stop using race, you must be using “SAT-scores-only” admissions.</p>

<p>

• a) Many Asian students tend to cluster in STEM majors (and their associated extracurriculars) as well as in the same EC’s (piano, violin and tennis) - more “tightly” than whites, blacks, etc. do in various majors and activities.
• b) (If a is true) Such a strategy may disadvantage Asians in the admittance process because they may run the harm of not being meaningfully differentiated vs one another.

</p>

<p>Oh *if<a href=“a”>/i</a> is true, I’ve no problems with colleges “cleans[ing] [their] palate with a student who has a different set of interests” in a race-blind system, even if it meant fewer Asians were admitted.</p>

<p>I’ve frequently read, both elsewhere and on this thread, justifications for racial preferences by metaphors to sports and orchestras. A basketball team on court should have a point guard, a shooting guard, a small forward, a power forward, and a center; it can’t be all shooting guards! Fine. Where does race come into play there? An orchestra can’t be all violinists. You need violists, cellists, bassists, and so forth. Fine. Where does race come into play there?</p>

<p>In other words, why don’t you literally DO what you claim race is the same as?</p>

[k_amp_s]

<p>

And yet there isn’t an outcry that “the Jews took our spots.” Merely that “the blacks / Hispanics took our spots.” Why do you suppose that is?

</p>

<p>Yeah, b/c there was never such a thing as quotas for Jewish students. lol</p>

<p>And the Ivy League schools, most notably starting with Princeton, started to recruit outside of their NE stronghold (such as recruiting the “Southern gentleman” student) exactly b/c they wanted to avoid the “Jewish problem.”</p>

<p>The Ivy League schools went “national” b/c of an anti-Semitic bias.</p>

<p>Also, unlike blacks and non-white Hispanics, the Jews (w/ a few exceptions) don’t have the problem of “looking different.” </p>

<p>Not to mention the whole affirmative action-thing (same reason there hasn’t been the same outcry about Asian students “taking our spots” at UCal schools; can’t really b!!ch about it when Asian students beat them fair and square).</p>

<p>

Likewise, both Jews and Asians are overrepresented in elite universities relative to their size in the college-age-going population – yet I don’t hear Jewish students complaining that it still isn’t enough. Why do you suppose that is?

</p>

<p>Uhm, maybe it’s b/c of the actual nos.?</p>

<p>Pop.-wise., the college age Jewish applicant pool is less than HALF of that for college-age Asian-Am students.</p>

<p>And yet, Jewish students make up 25% or even 30% of certain Ivy League schools, while the Asian % has been hovering in the high teens.</p>

<p>Also, why are Jewish students so overrepresented at the Ivy Leagues (funny how people don’t rag on all the Jews who need to go to an IL school, as they do Asians; more Asian students attend community college than they do state universities or private colleges; don’t think you can say that about Jewish students)?</p>

<p>Better scores/grades.</p>

<p>Can’t be having a more complete and “holistic” application than their “white anglo” counterparts (doesn’t seem to work for Princeton).</p>

<p>It’s the reason why schools like Vandy and USC were actively recruiting Jewish students; they want to get the academic stats for their student body up so they can do better in the rankings.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Likewise, both Jews and Asians are overrepresented in elite universities relative to their size in the college-age-going population – yet I don’t hear Jewish students complaining that it still isn’t enough. Why do you suppose that is?

</p>

<p>Probably because Jews are as “overrepresented” as they can be whereas Asians are not?</p>

[Professor101]

<p>

What if that was driven not by “we dislike Asians and wish the cap their numbers,” but a widening of the pool of Stanford applicants as Stanford became a more national university? After all, the more you move away from California in your applicant pool, the less Asian the pool will be - just by definition. </p>

<p>Put another way, if all of a sudden Stanford receives an influx of applicants from Montana, N Dakota, S Dakota, Idaho and Wyoming, and the Asian acceptance rate / % of the class drops, does that prove “discrimination” or simply a different pool?

</p>

<p>What you said is plausible, but not probable. Like other top universities, Stanford still has a regional (local) bias and its region is heavily populated with Asians.</p>

<p>I should also point out that Stanford’s region is also heaviley populated with Latinos. Stanford has increase it Hispanic population to 18%. I laud them for doing that, but not at the expense of Asians alone. White folks should chip in too. If you look at the numbers, while Asian dropped by more than 10 percent, White dropped very little. This again proves my theory of using low scores as a means to lower Asian enrollment. By lowering scores, Whites are also hurt, but not nearly as much as Asians.</p>

<p>Bottom line: some folks at Stanford don’t want to lose plurality, which is understandable.</p>

[k_amp_s]

<p>

I think it is valuable for my son, as it was valuable for me, to interact with people of all different ethnicities so he can see how they are the same as him, not how they are different.

</p>

<p>Unfortunately, that’s too often the case.</p>

<p>All too often, “diversity” is a one-way street, w/ the token minority (or 2) accepted into a largely white group b/c they are, as it is commonly said, “whitewashed.”</p>

<p>Not really diverse in my opinion.</p>

[glido]

<p>“But none of this was my point anyway, assuming you are even interested in anybody else’s point. My point was to respond to a poster who implied that diversity has been achieved in this society”</p>

<p>The goal of the Civil Rights movement was not “diversity,” but a society that judges its citizens not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.</p>

<p>“I also think judging people by the amount oif pigment in their skin is silly. If you believe this does still not go on, if you do not believe many people in many parts of this country still look twice when they see a mixed race couple, I think you are fooling yourself.”</p>

<p>We see some judging others by the color of their skin everyday . . . on the streets, the workplace, the corridors of power and in the admissions offices of our finer universities.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>“Probably because Jews are as “overrepresented” as they can be whereas Asians are not”</p>

<p>How does one define “overrepresented”? Is it relative to % of the country, the state / region, the applicant pool as a whole, the applicant pool scoring over x on their SATs? </p>

<p>In any case, I certainly would agree that Jews are overrepresented in the elite schools - but then so are Asians.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>“And yet, Jewish students make up 25% or even 30% of certain Ivy League schools, while the Asian % has been hovering in the high teens.”</p>

<p>If Jews are what, 2-3% of the pop but 25% or so of top schools – then why is it the URM admissions that upset you so?</p>

[Bay]

<p>

In any case, I certainly would agree that Jews are overrepresented in the elite schools - but then so are Asians.

</p>

<p>Yes, there is a perception in some circles that Harvard is a college for Jewish liberals, CA Asians and nerds. See, e.g., [Where</a> are the Baptists at Harvard?](<a href=“http://www.baptiststandard.com/1999/3_10/pages/harvard.html]Where”>http://www.baptiststandard.com/1999/3_10/pages/harvard.html)</p>

<p>

“This huge sleeping monster, the Christian right, is the most underrepresented group and they don’t know it,” he said. But, Hu added, it is now only a matter of time until the least represented begin sounding the mantra of diversity.

</p>