are colleges racist?

[fireandrain]

<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>Prove this. With facts, not anecdotes. Give me real numbers. And identify your source. </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>

<p>Prove this too. How many Jews apply and how many are denied? And how do you define and identify Jews? Since you don’t identify religious affiliation on college applications, and many Jews are non practicing and don’t have so-called Jewish last names and don’t have ECs that identify their religion, good luck proving this accusation.</p>

[siserune]

<p>

@fabrizio

@siserune

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.

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

</p>

<p>What is likelier is that we are seeing another Fabrizio dust storm. 200+ angry posts in a single thread is some kind of record.</p>

<p>

Here is the truth. In 2003-2004, there were 1,153 [University of California] 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>As you may have heard, Asians outnumbered whites by a ratio close to 3:2 at Berkeley (freshman enrollment) in those years after proposition 209, with higher ratios at UCLA and UCSD. In California the Asian/white ratio for National Merit semifinalist or other designations that are “above the Ivy qualification threshold” is surely higher than that; the Asian percentage just in the national high SAT score pool was already very close to 40 percent in data from the 1990’s. To make the calculation more favorable to the Asian discrimination hypothesis, disregard the higher Asian fraction at the upper UCs other than Berkeley or in the CA NMF distribution and just use the Berkeley freshman enrollment rates to quantify what “per capita” means. </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.

</p>

<p>Per capita does not mean the “entire UC system”. The latter includes a huge number of UC transfers (students who attended community college or California State Universities after high school), as well as students at lower-tier UCs. These populations are overwhelmingly white but account for zero (or an infinitesimal fraction) of the National Merit awardees. The latter go directly to the UCs after high school with 79 percent at the top three destinations, Berkeley, UCLA, or UCSD according to the tables provided.</p>

<p>Per capita for this calculation refers, of course, to the population of National Merit designees from which the UC sample of National Merit Scholars is drawn. That is, the National Merit Scholarship pool in California plus a much smaller out-of-state pool. Asian-to-white ratio in this pool is presumably higher than the 3:2 ratio for Berkeley freshman enrollment. </p>

<p>

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>The Asian Discrimination Hypothesis would predict a higher than 3:2 ratio of Asian to white National Merit scholars in the UC system. Pro-white, anti-Asian discrimination at the Ivy Leagues would noticeably reduce the number of white NMS and greatly increase the number of Asian NMS in the UC system. The actual “reduced” number of white NMS listed in the table is 459, and 1.5 times that is 688, so the “increased by discrimination” number of Asian NMS should be at least that high with all the Asians getting locked out of Stanford etc. Instead, the figure in the UC tables is 522, for an UC Asian deficit of – conservatively – 166 or more National Merit Scholarships relative to the expectations under the Elite Discrimination hypothesis.</p>

<p>That’s a large discrepancy. It is higher than the number of National Merit scholarships (124) awarded to students who declined to state ethnicity. It is higher than the total number of scholarships held at the lower tier UCs (the ones with higher white enrollments), so there isn’t a lot of room for alternative demographic scenarios to the 3:2-and-higher population ratios at the upper UCs and at Irvine.</p>

<p>Let us know if you have numerate objections to these calculations. If, for example, the Asian/white ratio among NMFs in a mostly California pool is somehow <em>lower</em> than in the Berkeley enrollment, this would tend to undercut the whole “post-209 enrollment shows national schools like Harvard would be 50 percent Asian!!” theory.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

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.

</p>

<p>Well, isn’t it obvious you do not know much about the issues you presented. As I wrote earlier, it requires a modicum of understanding of the admission process to correctly interpret published data.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

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>Ranting? Who has been ranting here? If you find pointing how repetitive and annoying the threads about asian discrimination are, power to you. </p>

<p>Fwiw, I am confused about what you and posters such as Fabrizio hope to accomplish by repeating the same trite and anecdotal “evidence” on this forum? Even if one could look beyond the obnoxious display of misguided expectations and faulty entitlements to develop some sympathy for a group of students who are vastly overrepresented in higher education, it would be hard to look with generosity on the repulsive attacks on other minority groups.</p>

<p>Discussing the issues with the obsessed posters who repeat the same unfounded and hackneyed arguments ad nauseam is simply an exercise in futility. Isn’t there a better destination for those discussions? Isn’t there an audience where you could find people who are ready to act upon your “evidence” and DO what is necessary to bring about changes? Oh wait, this actually requires a minimum of altruism and a departure from the selfish pursuit of individual benefits. </p>

<p>Quite hard for people afflicted by the ME FIRST syndrome.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<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>Who doesn’t face an uphill slog in Yale admissions?</p>

<p>And where is the evidence that Asians “should” make up 50% of the class in a perfect world?</p>

[lake42ks]

<p>

Isn’t there an audience where you could find people who are ready to act upon your “evidence” and DO what is necessary to bring about changes? Oh wait, this actually requires a minimum of altruism and a departure from the selfish pursuit of individual benefits.

</p>

<p>xiggi has a good point there. Jews and Blacks (and women) did the fight and now it’s Asians’ turn, and low income White’s, and everyone’s. The goal is equality for all. AA hurts URM too. A holistic approach doesn’t need AA (numerically code each applicant). With better holistic rules and transparency, more URM might get in.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>Better holistic rules is a bit of an oxymoron. Anyway, these are humans, selecting a class of other humans. In the absence of lining them up by SAT scores and going down the line, there will always be judgment calls. In fact, that’s a reason for diversity (not necessarily race, just diversity of life experience) on an adcom. This member may subconsciously favor hard knock life stories, this one quirky candidates, this one athletes, this one preppy boarding school kids, etc. But there isn’t one Platonic form of the “perfect class” that they are striving for – there are umpteen possible great classes. And that’s something just completely not understood by the whole “it wasn’t fair they didn’t pick me” crowd.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>And anyone trying to compare an era of explicit these-are-undesirables-Cap-them-at-x% and compare it to today needs to put down the darn STEM books and pick up a history book.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>“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.”</p>

<p>If Asians make up 26% of apps and 30% of admitted at MIT, then their acceptance rate is ABOVE MIT’S AVERAGE. This is simple math.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

As you may have heard, Asians outnumbered whites by a ratio close to 3:2 at Berkeley (freshman enrollment) in those years after proposition 209, with higher ratios at UCLA and UCSD. In California the Asian/white ratio for National Merit semifinalist or other designations that are “above the Ivy qualification threshold” is surely higher than that; the Asian percentage just in the national high SAT score pool was already very close to 40 percent in data from the 1990’s.

</p>

<p>“Surely higher than that”? Is there a number? A source? This is typical siserune: you ASSUME you are right, provide no supporting evidence (even when others do), and then proceed to act AS IF your assumptions were backed by data.</p>

<p>

To make the calculation more favorable to the Asian discrimination hypothesis, disregard the higher Asian fraction at the upper UCs other than Berkeley or in the CA NMF distribution and just use the Berkeley freshman enrollment rates to quantify what “per capita” means.

</p>

<p>Again, typical siserune: you make a statement that isn’t supported by the data, so then you say, “No, no, wait, you have to do this…”</p>

<p>Yes, everyone, if you divide 522 by 1598 and compare that to 459 by 1050, the second ratio is higher. But what do those ratios mean? Nothing. [Table</a> 5](<a href=“http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/nmsp.efm.background.pdf]Table”>http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/nmsp.efm.background.pdf) reports the figures for “All Domestic UC Undergraduates” and “National Merit Scholarship Program [Recipients]” in the academic year 2003-2004. The figures in the “NMSP [Recipients]” column were for ALL students in the UCs that year, not just the incoming freshmen.</p>

<p>My ratio is meaningful: it tells you “Of ‘All Domestic UC Undergraduates,’ how many were white/Asian “NMSP” recipients in 2003-2004?” There is NO consistency between the numerator and the denominator of siserune’s ratio, and moreover, siserune apparently forgot that by 2003-2004, Berkeley no longer participated in the NMSP.</p>

<p>Edit</p>

<p>The 1598 and 1050 numbers come from [url=<a href=“http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2003-04.pdf]here[/url”>http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2003-04.pdf]here[/url</a>].</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

The goal is equality for all.

</p>

<p>Equality of what? Of opportunity or of outcome?</p>

[fireandrain]

<p>fabrizio: Until you can produce real statistics, that show that Asians are being accepted at lower rates than other subgroups, you have absolutely no argument to make. You’ve totally ignored my questions, because you can’t answer them. Anecdotal evidence means absolutely nothing.</p>

<p>Same to k&s.</p>

<p>The only real evidence that is pretty obvious to anyone who visits a college campus or looks up their numbers online is that there are thousands of Asians attending the Ivies and other top colleges. Are you arguing that every single Asian kid in this country between the ages of 18-22 should be attending an Ivy, and every other nationality deserves to be elsewhere?</p>

<p>

Fwiw, I am confused about what you and posters such as Fabrizio hope to accomplish by repeating the same trite and anecdotal “evidence” on this forum? Even if one could look beyond the obnoxious display of misguided expectations and faulty entitlements to develop some sympathy for a group of students who are vastly overrepresented in higher education, it would be hard to look with generosity on the repulsive attacks on other minority groups.

</p>

<p>Exactly. Well said.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

You’ve totally ignored my questions, because you can’t answer them.

</p>

<p>No, it would seem that you’ve ignored my replies.</p>

<p>

Are you arguing that every single Asian kid in this country between the ages of 18-22 should be attending an Ivy, and every other nationality deserves to be elsewhere?

</p>

<p>If you feel that way, that says more about your biases than about what I wrote. You will not find a single sentence of mine that suggests that. Don’t believe me? Find the sentence then.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

You will not find a single sentence of mine that suggests that. Don’t believe me? Find the sentence then.

</p>

<p>No, Fabrizio, you would not push the envelope --or the buttons of objective observers-- THAT far. However, unless one missed the hundred, if not thousands of posts, you are adamant in your belief that Asians are discriminated in admissions by the nefarious impact of AA, and that without the “equalizing” policies, the number of Asian would increase at the top 20 or top 50 shools in the USnews reports.</p>

<p>Is one wrong to believe that the basis for such conclusion seems to find its basis in the research of Espenschade and Chung? However, since you you have also repeated that you do not believe that the “better” qualifications of Asians are not defined by standardized scores, it is a bit hard to really find the basis of your … repeated rants. </p>

<p>So, perhaps, we should ask to offer your opinion about simple facts. For started, perhaps, you could evaluate the number of Asians who score above 700 on the SAT verbal and let us know how many Asians do score at or above 700 in absolute terms. Based on that numbers, could you let us know how deep we would have to go on the USNews list if we filled every schools from HYPS down with all the Asians who scored above 700 on the SAT verbal? </p>

<p>Could be it be that you would be fill EVERY slot when reaching schools betwen Cal and Michigan (or roughly between the schools ranked 20th through 30th.)</p>

<p>Fwiw, were you to go through the exercise, you might want to repeat it with … White students, and compare the absolute numbers of students who score above 700 SAT Verbal between Asians and White. </p>

<p>Oh yes, I should remember that you do not base your claims of superior qualifications on standardized tests. Or did I misread?</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>Fabrizio, how do you react to the info that MIT’s applicant pool was 26% Asian and Asians made up 30% of their admitted pool? It’s rather hard to cry discrimination with such numbers. The admittance rate for Asians was greater than their overall admissions rate, greater than fair share. </p>

<p>The only way you can claim discrimination is if you have evidence to believe that it “should have been” an even higher % of their admitted pool. Do you have evidence to suggest that it should? And how will you find such evidence except by falling back on quantitative test scores which you claim you don’t think should be primary?</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

No, Fabrizio, you would not push the envelope --or the buttons of objective observers-- THAT far.

</p>

<p>No, xiggi, I don’t appreciate it when someone, in this case fireandrain, asks for sources (a good request) and then glosses over my replies. If he wasn’t going to read them, why did he ask me in the first place?</p>

<p>It’s only fair that I ask him to back up his claim if he’s asking me to back up mine. He doesn’t have to sift through every post I’ve ever made on the issue; he can just search in this thread. If he doesn’t find it, I expect him to admit as much.</p>

<p>

…that without the “equalizing” policies, the number of Asian would increase at the top 20 or top 50 shools in the USnews reports.
…
Is one wrong to believe that the basis for such conclusion seems to find its basis in the research of Espenschade and Chung?

</p>

<p>A basis, not the basis.</p>

<p>Suppose the racial preference advocates were right that the policy has little effect. Then we should not have seen the number of Asians at the most selective UCs increase following Proposition 209, but we did.</p>

<p>

Oh yes, I should remember that you do not base your claims of superior qualifications on standardized tests. Or did I misread?

</p>

<p>You remembered correctly, and you did not misread. Hence, I will not perform your “evaluation” as it is predicated on a belief that I do not hold.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Fabrizio, how do you react to the info that MIT’s applicant pool was 26% Asian and Asians made up 30% of their admitted pool? It’s rather hard to cry discrimination with such numbers. The admittance rate for Asians was greater than their overall admissions rate, greater than fair share.

</p>

<p>You have one school-year observation. You can say that in 2010-2011, it was unlikely that MIT practiced “negative” action against Asians. Who knows? Maybe MIT knows how to practice “affirmative” action without using “negative” action. We would have to know the corresponding figures for “HYPS et al” before we could really draw any conclusions, wouldn’t we?</p>

[Canuckguy]

<p>I see that divide et impera is working brilliantly.</p>

[johnwesley]

<p>Maybe, what this thread needs is a directory? I’m not going to search through a thousand posts to see where fabrizio shot down the notion that maybe Asians and Asian Americans are not victims of racism so much as victims of an anti-coastal bias in ivy admissions; that the easiest state from which to gain either a Rhodes scholarship or a place in the Yale freshman class is probably Kansas, not California or New York. But, I’m sure it’s in there somewhere. :)</p>

[mokusatsu]

<p>

We would have to know the corresponding figures for “HYPS et al” before we could really draw any conclusions, wouldn’t we?

This would also apply to the Duke report that you are so fond of.</p>