<p>
</p>
<p>How about you provide some sources for your SAT claims, xiggi?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Stop playing your silly games. </p>
<p>How hard is it really to repeat your cogent position if it is clear? Why complain about the use of “straw men” when it is easier to eradicate the practice with a simple answer? </p>
<p>Again, and for the last time, what is the basis for your claims of discrimination against Asian students in higher education.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope. It was accurate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Apparently it’s not silly at all when people can claim to have represented my position “100% accurately” with a statement that is 0% accurate. Or when people can claim to “understand” me and then proceed to argue as if I believe that the SAT is everything.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Forgive me for possessing a modicum of logical reasoning ability, but those two are not the same.</p>
<p>Again, Fabrizio, stop playing games. </p>
<p>What is your position? You now say that you believe that the SAT is not everything? Is that all? </p>
<p>/sigh</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ironic coming from someone whose self-proclaimed “understanding” of my position a few pages back was based on complete, and I would say, willful misrepresentation of my position.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Now”? I’ve been saying that. It’s not new.</p>
<p>Can someone please explain to me why being uneasy with the use of race in selections for colleges, is equated with being slavish to the SAT?</p>
<p>I don’t see that in Fabrizio’s posts. </p>
<p>This feels like a strategic “talking point” quite frankly among those on the same page in this discussion. The sarcasm and attempts to characterize your “opponent” in the argument as stupid or disingenuous are not working. Not at all. It just seems very strange.</p>
<p>Again, I’m fine with Hunt’s approach to this. I’m not fine with the insistence that the bias against Asians does not exist. And I’m definitely not fine with the characterizations of Asians by some here as science/math drones who prep for the SAT 24/7. That’s stereotyping and it’s not attractive.</p>
<p>Finally, I don’t like bullying and the tone on here is definitely approaching that. If Fabrizio offends you with his perspective and his steadfast defense of it then move on. If you use the best arguments you can muster and you do not sway your debate opponent then you should not resort to the tone I’m seeing here.</p>
<p>
I don’t see that in his posts either. But I can also see the point these people are trying to make without judging them, calling them bullies, and ordering them to move on because you disagree with them. </p>
<p>Here is their point -
- fabrizio claims (I think) that Asian’s with superior overall qualifications are regularly rejected in favor of applicants (in this case I’ll use white applicants) with inferior qualifications.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>People ask him not to rely on a few anecdotes from posts on this website. I don’t think that’s unfair, since there are very few posts on this website compared to the vast number of admissions, there is no way to validate the posts on this website, and there is no way to take each admissions decision on a case by case basis and look at all the rationale. A “feeling” is not evidence.</p></li>
<li><p>THese people also ask fabrizio to produce a study which is based on something other than SAT statistics, because SAT statistics are merely one element of admissions decisions. I believe some people question whether the SAT statistics even prove his point, but that’s another issue. </p></li>
<li><p>He is unable to provide any such comprehensive studies (at least I haven’t seen them) because I don’t believe they exist. SAT data is the only comprehensive data available, which is why he refers to it, as do many others, including professional journalists and policy makers making this same claim. Is it a valid proxy? Again, don’t know.</p></li>
<li><p>He does produce relevant information about the increase in Asian admission’s at the top UCs after Prop 209. I believe that information does support his point. But I also don’t offhand dismiss other people and their explanations and analysis of it. </p></li>
<li><p>I have no idea where this thing about SAT supremacy came from. I don’t think fabrizio believes it’s supreme, but I do think many people, certainly Golden who wrote the “Price of Admission” relies on it extensively to make his point. He gives some anecdotes in the chapter called “The New Jews”, - he reports details on about 5 or 6 admissions results from some Asian students. But the only real studies he quotes are based on the SAT.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I don’t see why that is so difficult to understand, if you actually care to understand the other side. If I have mistated anybody’s position I’m glad to read clarification.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks, bovertine. I just don’t see why others can’t do the same.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, that is not correct. The concept of “negative” action, set forth by an Asian-American law professor who supports “affirmative” action, is that Asians should not be treated differently from whites with equal qualifications.</p>
<p>The professor, Jerry Kang, along with fellow law professor Frank Wu and William Kidder, disputed Espenshade and Chung’s 2005 conclusion that ending racial preferences helps Asians the most. They did not, however, dispute Espenshade’s infamous “-50 finding,” which they claimed was evidence of “negative” action.</p>
<p>I again reiterate that if racial preferences were the minor thing its supporters claim it is, then the enrollment of Asians at the “top” UCs should not have changed, percentage-wise, following Proposition 209. But they did change; they increased.</p>
<p>
Okay. I stand corrected.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with this statement as would many others here I think. </p>
<p>This issue is whether or not they ARE being treated differently.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But Berkeley and UCLA both claim to have “holistic” admissions policies. [Berkeley’s</a> CDS](<a href=“http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2010-11.pdf]Berkeley’s”>http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2010-11.pdf), for example, shows that the essay is “very important” while ECs, talent/ability, character/personal qualities, volunteer work, and work experience are all “important.” Moreover, standardized test scores are NOT more important than the aforementioned subjective criteria. That seems pretty “holistic” to me, though I know some would strongly disagree because racial classification is not considered by law.</p>
<p>Edit</p>
<p>Berkeley received 50,393 applications for academic year 2010-2011. 10,844 of those were admitted (21.52%). That’s about how selective Duke, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins et al. were when I was in high school. Perhaps lower-ranked UCs can be more stats driven, but I think Berkeley simply receives too many applications for a pure stats driven system to work.</p>
<p>soomoo’s point about generalizability nevertheless is a good one.</p>
<p>I just compared the “URM”, white, and Asian stats at the University of Michigan for the academic years 2004-2005 through 2010-2011. I must say that fears of not having the fabled “critical mass” at Ann Arbor were greatly overblown.</p>
<p>Michigan, if you will recall, passed Proposal 2 in 2006 by a sixteen-point margin. So 2006-2007 was the last year before Proposal 2, the initiative was passed during the 2007-2008 admissions cycle (i.e. Fall 2006), and 2008-2009 was the first year after it was passed. The figures are fairly interesting. If anyone here is from Michigan, perhaps some light can be shed.</p>
<p>“URM” enrollment dropped noticeably the year before Proposal 2 was passed (i.e. students who applied during Fall 2005 / Spring 2006); it went from 812 to 656. But enrollment from whites and Asians dropped as well, from 4038 to 3401 and from 788 to 618, respectively. I have never lived in Michigan, and I do not know if the state’s financial situation was particularly dire that year.</p>
<p>“URM” enrollment slightly decreased in the year of Proposal 2–Fall 2006 / Spring 2007–from 656 to 651. But white and Asian enrollment rebounded from 3401 to 3818 and from 618 to 757, though the numbers were still lower than they were two years earlier.</p>
<p>Enrollment across the three “groups” dived in the year after Proposal 2–Fall 2007 / Spring 2008. "URM"s went from 651 to 604 (the sky fell!), whites went from 3818 to 3796, and Asians went from 757 to 686. Hmm, maybe the pro-racial preference side is right; without that overt “commitment” to “diversity,” students will find other schools that cater to their “diverse” needs.</p>
<p>Except enrollment among whites and Asians increased in the admissions cycle for academic year 2009-2010; whites went from 3796 to 4321 and Asians went from 686 to 821. “URM” enrollment decreased from 604 to 534 but increased from 534 to 569 the following year (i.e. academic year 2010-2011). White and Asian enrollment also increased, and the university as a whole finally went back to (and exceeded) its 2005-2006 level in terms of total undergraduates.</p>
<p>Apparently, 10.86% “URM” is “critical mass,” but 8.78% “URM” means "URM"s won’t feel comfortable because there aren’t enough of their “peers.” Moreover, that “URM” enrollment increased in 2010-2011 relative to the previous year, even though racial classification was no longer considered, tells me that “URM” students will walk on their own just fine if you stop patronizing them with crutches (excuse me, a “feather” on the scale).</p>
<p>^Fab</p>
<p>I deleted the post you quoted. After posting it, I realized that we hadn’t really discussed UC admissions in much detail, I am not personally familiar with the system and I wasn’t comfortable enough with my statement to let it stand.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In other words, the only admissions model we can use to support Fabrizio’s hypothesis is one that was perilously close to the several that have already been struck down by the Supreme Court and was in fact struck down by Constitutional amendment in its home state. Fabrizio is basically asserting, MIT, Yale, Princeton and the adcoms of other high profile destinations for Asian and Asian American are utilizing systems that are – in essence – no different morally and operationally than those used by the previously outlawed decision-making systems. Is that a fair summation of his position?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Too many applications” is not usually an argument in favor of switching to a more holistic method of evaluating apps. The holisitic method is actually more labor intensive, not less.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I need to correct Xiggi’s mispresentation here.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I never attacked any minorities and please go back to check my posts. I actually are in favor of helping URMs in college admission, but with shared sacrifices by other racial groups. </p></li>
<li><p>I never claim any college discriminating against Asians except Stanford. Yes, I repeat the claims against Stanford many times because I haven’t seen any convincing evidence to the contrary on this board. My case against Stanford is based on a holistic evaluation of quantitative and qualitative data. You can go back to check my posts about the case against Stanford.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Based on the way Xiggi talks, I suspect that he harbors animosity toward certain racial groups.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fair enough. I stress again that your point about generalizability is good. California’s demographics certainly are not the same as the rest of the nation, so I took a look at Michigan and saw that “URM” enrollment did not disappear (far from it) following Proposal 2. There was a decline, yes, but in the most recent year for which we have data, “URM” enrollment increased relative to the year before. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>johnwesley, I’m open to reading your explanation as to why non-selective universities do NOT use “holistic” admissions while selective universities do.</p>
<p>I’m honestly beginning to think there’s a language barrier, here. When did I say anything about non-selective universities? The original quote (which you snipped) was about Berekeley. Or, is Berkeley not slective enough for you?</p>
<p>I agree the discussion here is probably futile, but it’s a good mental exercise and one can practice debate skills. Sometimes, you can also observe peoples’ intellectual capacity. (maybe Stanford Admission officer should be here to look for “Intellectual Curiosity”!)</p>