are colleges racist?

[epiphany]

<p>More from June postings on CC <a href=“Asian%20Admissions%20Results”>i</a>*:</p>

<p>

Espenshade’s data (reported in his 2009 book, though actually from 1997) as well as his statistical models of that data showed working-class and lower-middle-class Asians doing better in admissions than whites with the same credentials. He also found that in comparison to whites, Asians overprepared academically (which would inflate their credentials) and then underperformed their credentials after admission to college. All this has been known informally for a very long time.

</p>

<p>and in response to this objection:</p>

<p>

When UC Berkeley stopped using affirmative action policies, the percentage of Asians admitted rose dramatically in comparison to all other groups, including whites.

</p>

<p>This reply:</p>

<p>

The UC after prop.209 also got a population that has more National Merit Scholars per capita for whites than Asians. Whereas under an Ivy League anti-Asian discrimination theory, there should have been a lot of extra Asians with National Merit designations (this is somewhat above the Ivy qualification threshold) pushed into the UC system because Stanford and the Ivies had unfairly rejected them. Instead there was an Asian deficit of about 150-180 National Merit scholarships relative to whites. That’s from data around 2003-4.</p>

<p>(added: ) Also, UC is not a guide to what is true for the Ivy League, due to the much higher Asian/white ratio in California, and the lower admission standard compared to the top national universities.

</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>fireandrain is right; I cannot for sure that "URM"s who get into the Ivies are more likely to be those who went to a “BS with $40K tuition, $70K tutoring cost, and a 2330 on the SAT” than those who went to an “inner-city public school, works 20 hours a week to help the family, and gets only 1950 on the SAT.”</p>

<p>So let’s let the figures tell the story for us.</p>

<p>[Campus</a> Life and Learning Project](<a href=“http://www.soc.duke.edu/undergraduate/cll/final_report.pdf]Campus”>http://www.soc.duke.edu/undergraduate/cll/final_report.pdf)</p>

<p>On page 24, we see the racial/ethnic composition of Duke students’ high schools by racial classification. It looks like only a tenth of the black students came from high schools that were “all or nearly all non-white,” which I assume are the ones most likely to be in inner-cities, or to use Pizzagirl’s phrase, “from the 'Hood.” (Even fewer Latinos went to high schools that were “all or nearly all non-white.”)</p>

<p>Moreover, for both blacks and Latinos, around a fifth went to high schools that were “all or nearly all white.” Were those students “from the 'Hood”?</p>

<p>Again, I cannot say what the incomes of those students were, but to me, it doesn’t look like the "URM"s are coming “from the 'Hood.”</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

The UC after prop.209 also got a population that has more National Merit Scholars per capita for whites than Asians. Whereas under an Ivy League anti-Asian discrimination theory, there should have been a lot of extra Asians with National Merit designations (this is somewhat above the Ivy qualification threshold) pushed into the UC system because Stanford and the Ivies had unfairly rejected them. Instead there was an Asian deficit of about 150-180 National Merit scholarships relative to whites. That’s from data around 2003-4.

</p>

<p>I could tell siserune wrote these as soon as you quoted him, epiphany. As always, he is loose with the facts.</p>

<p>Here is the truth. In 2003-2004, there were 1,153 students who received National Merit scholarships. 522 of them, or 45.3%, were Asian. By contrast, 459 (39.8%) were white. 522 > 459 and 45.3% > 39.8%</p>

<p>But wait! siserune said per capita. OK, in that year, there were 58,583 Asians and 59,401 whites across the entire UC system. You don’t even need to perform division to see that siserune is wrong; the numerator for Asians is larger than that for whites and the corresponding denominator is smaller.</p>

<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/nmsp.efm.background.pdf]Source[/url”>http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/nmsp.efm.background.pdf]Source[/url</a>]</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

Here is the truth. In 2003-2004, there were 1,153 students who received National Merit scholarships.

Not sure what difference any of this makes, but the quote says National Merit Designations, and your stats are about National Merit Scholarships.</p>

<p>Is semifinalist or finalist a designation? What are those stats?</p>

<p>Edit: I think the “per capita” is a little clearer after re-read.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Not sure what difference any of this makes, but the quote says National Merit Designations, and your stats are about National Merit Scholarships.</p>

<p>Is semifinalist or finalist a designation? What are those stats?

</p>

<p>No, your question is good. siserune referred to both “Scholars” and “designations.” I too am unsure if there is a difference. All I know is that Table 5 and his post appears to be in conflict.</p>

[20more]

<p>“A few years ago, however, when I worked as a reader for Yale’s Office of Undergraduate Admissions, it became immediately clear to me that Asians - who constitute 5 percent of the US population - faced an uphill slog. They tended to get excellent scores, take advantage of AP offerings, and shine in extracurricular activities. Frequently, they also had hard-knock stories: families that had immigrated to America under difficult circumstances, parents working as kitchen assistants and store clerks, and households in which no English was spoken.
But would Yale be willing to make 50 percent of its freshman class Asian? Probably not.”</p>

<p>Boston dot com
02/08/2010</p>

[k_amp_s]

<p>

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

</p>

<p>Asians aren’t nearly overrepresented to the extent of Jews.</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>

<p>When did I ever state that URM admissions upset me?</p>

<p>And Jews make up less than 2% of the college age population.</p>

<p>

Also, I have been thinking about the argument put forth on this thread that the fact that Asians tend to concentrate in STEM majors and have similar extracurriculars (piano, tennis, math team) is working against them. If this were true then we should find the non piano, tennis, math team kids doing much better in admissions.

</p>

<p>Are many Jewish applicants really any different?</p>

<p>The world’s symphonies and orchestras are full of Jewish musicians.</p>

<p>And the whole tennis thing is overplayed. The vast majority of Asians in the US are low income and can’t afford to play tennis (don’t have the time, much less finances).</p>

<p>The Asians who do play tennis (not necessarily their primary sport) are those who grew up in upper class “white suburbia” where pretty much everyone belonged to a tennis/golf club.</p>

<p>

Based on the anecdotal evidence at my sons’ private high school, I have not seen this. Even the artsy, theater, humanities loving Asians seem to do worse.

</p>

<p>Those things don’t matter if the Asian applicant doesn’t have the high scores to beat out the other Asian applicants.</p>

<p>

They tended to get excellent scores, take advantage of AP offerings, and shine in extracurricular activities. Frequently, they also had hard-knock stories: families that had immigrated to America under difficult circumstances, parents working as kitchen assistants and store clerks, and households in which no English was spoken.</p>

<p>But would Yale be willing to make 50 percent of its freshman class Asian? Probably not."

</p>

<p>Yep, they have all the issues covered with many also having “hard-knock stories”, but that’s not enough since these schools are afraid of the tipping point when it comes to “white flight.”</p>

<p>But the funny thing is, at the same time, many of these same schools are chasing Asian students from China, Korea and India (with a no. of top 20 schools even paying recruiters).</p>

<p>

</p>

<br>

<p>Tell me, how come Asians don’t apply to a bunch of midwest rural LAC’s that offer excellent education?</p>

<br>

<p>Maybe because it wouldn’t give their parents bragging rights in a peer group where no one ever heard of the school?

</p>

<p>Uhm, more Asian students attend community college than state universities or private colleges; praytell what “bragging rights” all those parents of Asian kids attending CCs have?</p>

[k_amp_s]

<p>

are thousands of Asians at the Ivies + MIT + Stanford. Many are obviously getting in. Many are being rejected – but many whites, blacks, Hispanics and Jews are being rejected, too.

</p>

<p>Considerably less % of blacks and Hispanics (and to a lesser degree whites) get rejected with the highest scores/grades and good ECs.</p>

<p>And considering that college age Jews make up less than 2% of the US pop. and as high as 30% at some Ivies, Jewish applicants get rejected at a considerably lower rate as well.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

If you had one or two super-wealthy black families who sent their children to Duke, the average income could be pulled up quite substantially.

</p>

<p>I do want to point out that in the Duke link, they indicate that they used $550,000 if the income was over $500,000, so as to wipe out any “super gazillionaire” effect, so the numbers should be taken at reasonable face value.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

And considering that college age Jews make up less than 2% of the US pop. and as high as 30% at some Ivies, Jewish applicants get rejected at a considerably lower rate as well.

</p>

<p>So what’s more troublesome?</p>

<p>URM’s get a boost (that barely brings them up to their level in the population, if I recall correctly) …
Or that Asians are overrepresented, but not as overrepresented as Jews?</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

Also, I have been thinking about the argument put forth on this thread that the fact that Asians tend to concentrate in STEM majors and have similar extracurriculars (piano, tennis, math team) is working against them. If this were true then we should find the non piano, tennis, math team kids doing much better in admissions. </p>

<p>Are many Jewish applicants really any different?

</p>

<p>You’ve got to be kidding. While expectations for education may indeed be high, there is no comparable “Tiger Mom” development among Jewish parents that dictates only certain extracurriculars.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

I do want to point out that in the Duke link, they indicate that they used $550,000 if the income was over $500,000, so as to wipe out any “super gazillionaire” effect, so the numbers should be taken at reasonable face value.

</p>

<p>Thank you for pointing that out. Though the authors of that study claimed that it was generalizable to Duke’s peers throughout the country, to be fair, one could argue that Duke might have more students from “well-to-do family backgrounds” than HYP et al.</p>

<p>I still probably cannot claim “'URM’s who get into the Ivies are more likely to be those who went to a ‘BS with $40K tuition, $70K tutoring cost, and a 2330 on the SAT’ than those who went to an ‘inner-city public school, works 20 hours a week to help the family, and gets only 1950 on the SAT’” with absolute certainty. But to the extent that the year those researchers studied at Duke was “normal” and thus can be generalized to other highly selective schools, I think it is fair to claim that there aren’t many "URM"s “from the 'Hood.”</p>

[Kali22]

<p>"I think it is fair to claim that there aren’t many "URM"s “from the 'Hood.” "</p>

<p>That was very off putting and certainly not fair… to say.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

That was very off putting and certainly not fair… to say.

</p>

<p>First, “from the 'Hood” was a quote from Pizzagirl.</p>

<p>Second, why did you find it “off putting and certainly not fair… to say”?</p>

[Professor101]

<p>

Aren’t you mixing admission and enrollment data to support your allegations of racial manipulation by Richard Shaw? From the above post, one might conclude that there are more Hispanics than Asians in the October 2010 student body … something that is not the case, unless one would pretend that all the “race unknown” student happen to be Hispanics.

I don’t know what you are talking about and the numbers I quoted are enrollment numbers. No matter how you see the numbers and how I see them, they are all circumsantial evidence. The only smoking gun would be for the schools to release the admission rate by race, but no body is doing it and for good reason.

One reality is that the academic loopholes and gamesmanship that so favored special minority groups have ceased to deliver the same benefits, as they moved from URM to ORM.

I thought you can do better. You call people’s hardwork loopholes and gamesmanship? If you can find a loophole so that people can get to the Mar, you’ll be a genius! Again, you don’t even have manipulated data to support your point and all you are doing is ranting.</p>

<p>

Repeating the same arguments ad nauseam will not change the reality that there is no basis to support the allegations of RACiSM and DISCRIMINATION.

Again, I thought you can do better. Do you think that the OP is serious when he asked whether Colleges are racist? </p>

<p>

As this thread, just as the ridiculously high number of similar threads on CC that are fueled by the same individuals, demonstrates clearly, the allegations of discrimination rely on extremely self-serving and narrow definitions of qualifications and on the lack of understanding of the holistic process.

Get off your high horse! aren’t you one of those people who already had more than 10,000 posts?</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

I still probably cannot claim “'URM’s who get into the Ivies are more likely to be those who went to a ‘BS with $40K tuition, $70K tutoring cost, and a 2330 on the SAT’ than those who went to an ‘inner-city public school, works 20 hours a week to help the family, and gets only 1950 on the SAT’” with absolute certainty. But to the extent that the year those researchers studied at Duke was “normal” and thus can be generalized to other highly selective schools, I think it is fair to claim that there aren’t many "URM"s “from the 'Hood.”

</p>

<p>Would you feel differently if, indeed, there were incontrovertible evidence that the URM’s being recruited were indeed from low socioeconomic backgrounds?</p>

<p>In other words, would you support efforts to increase URM representation from low socioeconomic backgrounds as long as it was guaranteed only to reach them and not be applied to the son-of-two-black-physicians who is already on third base? That is, the goal is worthwhile, but the means to get there is inefficient and too blunt? Or do you disagree with that as a goal?</p>

[Kali22]

<p>The choice of words was off putting.</p>

<p>Personally, it also came across as if URM with a better socioeconomic standing have it a lot easier than their counterparts. Not really the case…</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

In other words, would you support efforts to increase URM representation from low socioeconomic backgrounds as long as it was guaranteed only to reach them and not be applied to the son-of-two-black-physicians who is already on third base?

</p>

<p>Yes and no. I’m not in favor of these efforts if they ONLY target "URM"s. Why not target students of ALL racial classifications from low socioeconomic backgrounds? But yes, I am absolutely against preferences that disproportionately benefit "URM"s who are already on “third base.”</p>

<p>

That is, the goal is worthwhile, but the means to get there is inefficient and too blunt? Or do you disagree with that as a goal?

</p>

<p>I’m fine with efforts to increase “URM” representation, just not through racial preferences! To the extent that epiphany is right that all you have to do to get the “UR” out of “URM” is encourage more to apply, I am ALL for that. But just to clarify, I mean that I am in full support of getting more "URM"s to be CONSIDERED for admission. Once they are CONSIDERED, I am not in favor of any differing treatment based on racial classification.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Personally, it also came across as if URM with a better socioeconomic standing have it a lot easier than their counterparts. Not really the case…

</p>

<p>Counterparts as in still “URM” but from lower socioeconomic backgrounds? Or counterparts as in whites/Asians from the same socioeconomic backgrounds?</p>

<p>Either way, I am surprised that you got that from what you quoted, as all I was saying was that "URM"s at elite institutions most likely are not, to quote Pizzagirl, “from the 'Hood.” They indeed may not all be super wealthy, but given the family incomes of blacks at Duke and the racial breakdowns of the high schools they went to, very few would qualify as the hypothetical student “from the projects” who is often referred to as an example of why we should have racial preferences.</p>

[fireandrain]

<p>

“A few years ago, however, when I worked as a reader for Yale’s Office of Undergraduate Admissions, it became immediately clear to me that Asians - who constitute 5 percent of the US population - faced an uphill slog. …
But would Yale be willing to make 50 percent of its freshman class Asian? Probably not.”

</p>

<p>That’s one comment from an anonymous reader, not even an admissions officer. He doesn’t sit in on admissions decisions. Even he says “probably.” Still no hard statistics. In fact, the only facts we have, from MIT, totally disprove the idea that Asians are disadvantaged, at MIT at least.</p>