<p>
When it says nearly all white do you suppose that means something like over 90% white? I dont see the answer in the Duke report.</p>
<p>PG</p>
<p>I have no skin in the game. I am all for AA for URMs. I have said this repeatedly. I have been following this thread from the beginning and I can see both sides of the issue. </p>
<p>However, you seemed to claiming this statistic showed that Asians were “overrepresented” at MIT. I was just pointing out the fault in your conclusion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fair question. We’d have to ask the authors to be sure. I also grant that very few students (of any racial classification / socioeconomic status) know the EXACT racial breakdown of their high schools by heart, unless the school really is uniracial.</p>
<p>Having said that, do you find any issues with my question?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Recall that I asked that in response to “The big deal (which has been asked / answered multiple times) is that there is then not a critical mass of some sort, which leaves the school being unappealing / not welcoming to smart students of that background.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That disappoints me. It tells me that despite discussing this issue with me for some time, you really don’t know what, exactly, I’m arguing for. By contrast, as I said, I can play Devil’s Advocate. Why support racial preferences? It’s important that our college students interact with their peers from all backgrounds and all racial classifications to create a better tomorrow.</p>
<p>Tell me that isn’t what you (and company) believe.</p>
<p>But, I will try once again to state my position in a sentence or two: I am not against holistic admissions or efforts to increase “URM” representation. I am against racial preferences.</p>
<p>I’ve heard of racist stories from Syracuse University (discrimination against Black students). Then again, it’s a school that’s predominately White so I’m not surprised.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are being silly. I stated your position 100% accurately.</p>
<p>I think Fabrizio supports holistic admissions so long as race is not one of the qualities considered. I guess this is sort of what Bay was saying, but the tone of Bays post was very off putting and not really necessary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A model of civility and logic? Does CC now stands for Comedy Club? Thank you for the laugh!</p>
<p>Using the example of MIT (As well as Cal Tech) to show that Asians are adequately represented, if not over-represented, is not really valid when discussing overall Asian representation at elite universities.</p>
<p>The reason for this lies in findings that have been validated for years in the field of Psychometrics. If you were to give an IQ test, translated into their own languages, to a random sample of white Europeans and Americans you would find a mean IQ of about 100 with a SD of 15 and if you were to break that down into the various components of the type of questions asked on an IQ test you compared the results for questions that relied on mainly verbal skills and questions that relied mainly on visual-special and quantitative skills the sub-scores would be about the same, a verbal IQ of about 100 and and a quantitative IQ of about 100. If populations from other parts of the world except for East Asia are tested, the mean may be different but the same pattern of verbal and quantitative IQ being about the same would be found.</p>
<p>Now, if you were to give the IQ test in Tokyo, Beijing, Seoul or other major East Asian city and translated into the appropriate language you would find a mean IQ equal to about 107 and a SD of 15. However, for the East Asian populations when you examine the various sub-scores you find the average verbal IQ to be about 97 and the average Quantitative IQ to be about 110. This divergence in verbal and mathematical IQ is unique to East Asian populations.</p>
<p>Now when we are talking about people admitted to MIT, Cal Tech and the Ivies we are considering people, White or Asian, that are at least two full SD above the mean for the general population but it is reasonable to assume the differences in Verbal and Mathematical IQ between the two populations persist into the extreme right hand tail of the distributions. MIT and Cal Tech place a great deal of importance on the Math SAT score of applicants and very rarely except an applicant with a Math SAT score of less than 700. The psychometric data indicate that a much larger percentage of the Asian than the White population will have Math SAT scores over 700 and, by a modest amount, a White student is more likely to have a Verbal SAT score over 700 than an Asian student.</p>
<p>Therefore in a fair selection process that puts a premium on Math SAT scores, MIT and Cal Tech would be expected to have higher admit rates for Asians than other groups. Whether Asians should have, in a fair process, higher or lower admit rates than Whites for colleges and universities that put approximately equal emphasis on both Verbal and Math scores is not as clear cut. Asians are probably under-represented at the Ivies since their advantage in Quantitative reasoning is considerably greater than their disadvantage in verbal reasoning.</p>
<p>“I would hold that race is an inborn trait, a factor no one can alter” and “simply being from a particular race does not at all mean that person will bring anything different in terms of perspective to the class composition” and “I just don’t think race means that much. Not at this point. There are affluent Latino and black kids who have grown up in much more privileged environments than my kids.” are also hard to resist.</p>
<p>NOT saying that university admissions is where this should be adressed, but it seems to me that a LOT of things colleges use in admissions are inborn things and/or things a student can’t do can’t do anything about. And yes, I believe at least a PART of how one does on the SAT’s, and how one sees himsself as a student are among them.</p>
<p>For the record, I also disagree with the notion that if you are black and affluent, you are not different from white.</p>
<p>Fab, where do you stand on that one? Do you think that being affluent makes an Asian persons perpcestive or experinece the same as if he were white? I gather you don’t think an optimal number of Asian students or teachers needs to exist for you or your kids to choose one school over another, but it does for me, and I am “lucky” I can put my money where my mouth is. </p>
<p>Race desn’t matter? Really? That just blows my mind. If enough parents share this view, I will have to accept a lot of parents share this view (Young people, and single adults get a pass), but I am not naive or stupid, and I don’t see it that way. Not for me, and that means not for my kids. And believe me, I have done all I could to shelter them from picking up my experiences. From my perscpective, and I spend ALL my time trying to figure out how to help kids function and succeed, it is SO much more complicated than most of us can imagine. Do I think I have it all figured out? Absolutely not. Do I try to tell folks in other settings, like university admissions what to do? Absolutely not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except that anyone who is widely read in the subject of college admissions would know that the ‘elite’ universities have specifically said that they value a higher verbal reasoning score more than a high quantitative reasoning score, given that so much of college work revolves around reading critically. That is particularly true of any ‘elite’ U with a core, or with distribution requirements.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps your question should be reworded:</p>
<p>So you’re telling me that at the NEIGHBORHOOD level, 30% of “URM” parents don’t really care that there might be less than 10% "URM"s in “the 'Hood,” but at the university level, gosh, if there isn’t that fabled “critical mass,” many "URM"s don’t want to go there?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The simplest and easiest way to stop the use of “straw men” is to present your arguments cogently and respond to the simple questions. Rather than spending your time to discuss what you did not say, why not explain why you think Asians suffer from discrimination. </p>
<p>All you do is playing games to avoid answering WHY you think Asians are discriminated against. Many have asked you why you think they have superior qualifications and why they should be rewarded with higher admissions. </p>
<p>I hope you realize that, despite adding hundred of posts in this thread, you have yet to formulate a cogent position.</p>
<p>Like Shrinkrap I also believe that the experience of a wealth Black or Mexican is NOT the same as that of a wealthy white. </p>
<p>Therefore I support AA for URMs (even those thousands of children of black doctors out there :). I do think the tool is a bit blunt though and could certainly be sharpened. </p>
<p>This issue of Asian discrimination is a separate issue I believe. I don’t think Asians should be grouped at all. They don’t need help so what’s the point? Let the chips fall where they may.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You forgot the part where he says, " I am not against…efforts to increase “URM” representation."</p>
<p>Fab is all for the URM presence on campus, so long as they are admitted via academics, athletics, legacy, socio-economic status, development admit, or presumably singing, sculpting, playing the violin, being the world jump-rope champion, or any other possible endeavor considered in holistic review, just don’t let them in because of their race.</p>
<p>Never mind that Harvard et al. have decided that race is an important component of the holistic process and that the US Supreme Ct agrees that considering race is justified and benefits everyone. Fab just doesn’t agree.</p>
<p>Ok. It is fine not to agree with Harvard et al, and the US Supreme Ct, but you need some pretty solid reason not to, and I don’t think we’ve seen that from Fab. Have you?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is my position. Thank you, soomoo. As for Bay, if you believe that</p>
<p>“[I don’t] want anyone with ‘lesser’ holistic credentials admitted to a college because they have a different color skin than he does. [I do] not care that this practice benefits the students or society. [I think] it’s not fair”</p>
<p>is the same as</p>
<p>“I am not against holistic admissions or efforts to increase ‘URM’ representation. I am against racial preferences”</p>
<p>then no wonder it’s so hard for us to have a discussion.</p>
<p>I said I wasn’t against efforts to increase “URM” representation. I can only conclude that you think the ONLY way to increase “URM” representation is through racial preferences. If you believe that, then yeah, of course you must feel that the two statements are equivalent. It would follow that being against racial preferences necessarily means being against efforts to increase “URM” representation. (In other words, my position is self-contradictory.)</p>
<p>
How does having different experiences excuse most URMs for being less qualified? Asians are just as discriminated against, yet they are disadvantaged in college admissions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, so you do understand my position. Why, then, did you claim that </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>was a “100% accurate” depiction of my position? Because those two statements ARE NOT THE SAME.</p>
<p>Edit</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I refer to the dissents in Grutter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh I’ve formulated a cogent position. You just prefer to overlook it and argue against a straw man who believes in SAT and Asian supremacy. I question whether there’s even a point in repeating my position, as doing so engendered a reply of, “I stated your position 100% accurately,” despite the statement being 0% accurate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The psychometric data indicate … Really? Would you mind providing the source of this data, especially the data that shows a MUCH larger percentage? Do you have access to data that goes beyond the average and median scores for the various sub-groups? </p>
<p>For starters, does your data show the number of Asians who score above 700 on the SAT Verbal and Math? Percentages are meaningless in this context.</p>