are colleges racist?

[bovertine]

<p>^^^
Two percent of 5000 is 100 kids. So if you take 100 kids from the 1000 URMs, they go down to 900/5000 or 18%. Their overall enrollment drops 10% (obviously)</p>

<p>hopefully I got that right, but there’s no guarantee :)</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

I don’t think the campuses of Ivies would be 60% Asian in the absence of racial preferences as between whites and Asians. I think they’d be somewhere between 12% and 19% Asian, because of various “soft” and demographic factors. I think if you eliminated racial preferences for URMs, the percentage of Asians would go up by a couple of percent, as would the percentage of whites.

</p>

<p>So in other words, things would look much the same even if we had no racial preferences? If that is what you are saying, well, why don’t we just eliminate them?</p>

[Bay]

<p>

I don’t think so. Look like they are holding the report long enough so nobody can remember what the fuss is all about.

</p>

<p>Ongoing federal investigations are not required to be divulged to the public. An unresolved case can remain open indefinitely. We will probably never know the outcome of Jian Li’s claim, unless Jian Li is willing to tell us. So far, he has not done so. That suggests something.</p>

[siserune]

<p>

@fabrizio

Concerning the data table in the study, I posted some calculations in an earlier thread, which at the time silenced the vociferous remarks from the usual suspects (the calculations have not been challenged since the posting).

Ah, siserune self-promoting again.

</p>

<p>No, just observing (in not so many words) that in these discussions fabrizio has been more prone to run his mouth than to run the numbers. But hey, if you think any poster here has been self-promoting, running some self-citation counts would show where you rank by that measure compared to others. Everybody is #1 at something!</p>

<p>

You know, the last time we discussed, which was on the massive Race VIII thread, you referred to some labor studies which apparently proved your points.

</p>

<p>There are maybe a dozen I had in mind. Which one did you want? Was it the one where “glass ceiling” effects for Asian male PhD’s disappear when controlling for country where credential(s) were earned? The review paper explaining that in the unusual case where negative Asian effects on earnings are found, they tend to be endogenous (such as Asians choosing to live in areas with higher housing costs) rather than exogenous (such as externally imposed discrimination or a glass ceiling) and that no non-endogenous effect has ever been demonstrated with data from the past 20 years? Or was it just the studies documenting the large earnings advantage of being an Asian woman, after controlling for other factors? </p>

<p>

But when I asked you to tell me the names of these studies, you…disappeared.

</p>

<p>It is dishonest to present nonresponse (so far) to your various lazy and bad-faith requests, as evidence of inability to respond. Your rate of posting is 10 to 100 times that of others – this is my third or so posting of the current thread versus 200+ error-riddled postings from you – so one-for-one replies or a correction of your every mistake is just not mathematically possible.</p>

<p>If that weren’t enough, not all of us are grad students on summer vacation. </p>

<p>By the way, I limit my participation in the Race part N threads given (among other reasons) their use as a dump for multiple unrelated discussions, and I encourage everyone else to do the same. I have posted and will post more specific data analyses such as the Berkeley NMF data, Putnam competition numbers and so forth in their own shorter threads when time allows, rather than drowning those conversations in a flood of off-topic material every time a high school kid asks how to fill out a form.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

There are maybe a dozen I had in mind. Which one did you want? Was it the one where “glass ceiling” effects for Asian male PhD’s disappear when controlling for country where credential(s) were earned? The review paper explaining that in the unusual case where negative Asian effects on earnings are found, they tend to be endogenous (such as Asians choosing to live in areas with higher housing costs) rather than exogenous (such as externally imposed discrimination or a glass ceiling) and that no non-endogenous effect has ever been demonstrated with data from the past 20 years? Or was it just the studies documenting the large earnings advantage of being an Asian woman, after controlling for other factors?

</p>

<p>So you can describe them, but you can’t (or won’t) tell me their titles so I can judge for myself? Hmm. Oh that’s right, it’s “bad faith” of me to ask that!</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

I have posted and will post more specific data analyses such as the Berkeley NMF data…

</p>

<p>Have posted? Really? That’s funny. Because as I recall it, not only did you not post the Berkeley NMF data, you did your usual trick: you made up a number, assumed it was right, and then told me that I was wrong based on your made up number.</p>

<p>To be fair, in this case, your made up number was Berkeley’s freshman enrollment in academic year 2003-2004, but it remains that you did not post the correct “per capita” denominator to be used. So please, do not claim that you “have posted” something you did not.</p>

<p>(And besides, by 2003-2004, Berkeley didn’t even participate in the National Merit program!)</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

So in other words, things would look much the same even if we had no racial preferences? If that is what you are saying, well, why don’t we just eliminate them?

</p>

<p>If things would look much the same, then really, what do you care - what skin is it off your back if a handful more black students show up on campus? One might think you don’t particularly desire to hang around them or that you find their presence undesirable.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

If things would look much the same, then really, what do you care - what skin is it off your back if a handful more black students show up on campus?

</p>

<p>If things would look much the same, then don’t use racial preferences. The policy is divisive and yet produces no benefit. Of course you can’t see that because to you, the default (and correct) thing is to have racial preferences.</p>

<p>

One might think you don’t particularly desire to hang around them or that you find their presence undesirable.

</p>

<p>Right. I advocate for treatment of all INDIVIDUALS without regard to racial classification. That means I hold some prejudice against blacks. Exactly. Why didn’t I think of that earlier? It all makes sense now! The real racists are those who treat people as individuals. No, the anti-racists are those who treat people as members of groups. Silly me!</p>

<p></p>

[Bay]

<p>

I would just add that all three groups are economically disadvantaged with respect to the white subgroup. The Asians are economically similar to the Latinos,

</p>

<p>That is interesting. It could contribute to an admissions decision to “displace” an Asian rather than a higher-income White with a URM (assuming this is happening).</p>

[soomoo]

<p>Fabrizio</p>

<p>You seem to be intentionally clouding the issue again. I believe posters are contending that things would look much the same for Asians and Whites without racial consideration. I don’t believe anyone is saying things would look the same for URMs.</p>

[Shrinkrap]

<p>“Two percent of 5000 is 100 kids. So if you take 100 kids from the 1000 URMs, they go down to 900/5000 or 18%. Their overall enrollment drops 10% (obviously)”</p>

<p>Ahh! So in that hypothetical scenario, to get an increase of two percent of white students, you need to decrease by 10 percent the URM’s? It would have to decrease by how much more, to increase Asians from say 16 to 18 percent? That would closer to, but not one for one.</p>

[mokusatsu]

<p>

I think if you eliminated racial preferences for URMs, the percentage of Asians would go up by a couple of percent, as would the percentage of whites.

So in other words, things would look much the same even if we had no racial preferences? If that is what you are saying, well, why don’t we just eliminate them?

Because it would scram the reactor. Wasn’t this proven at U of Chicago?</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

Ahh! So in that hypothetical scenario, to get an increase of two percent of white students, you need to decrease by 10 percent the URM’s? It would have to decrease by how much more, to increase Asians from say 16 to 18 percent?

Well actually the white population goes up by 100/2500 or 4%, but their representation went up by 2%.</p>

<p>Again, I think that’s right.</p>

[spurster]

<p>A story explaining racial “preferences”.</p>

<p>Consider college C (Creme de la Creme College). Consistent with its name, college C only wants the best of the best students. College C has applicants from many groups, but let’s consider two groups: A and B. For whatever reasons, group A does better on the S score (the Standard Student Smartness Selectivity score) than group B. However, C believes that the best of the best of group B are just as qualified as the best of the best of group A. C believes that the S score is biased, imperfect. This is based on C’s past experience as well as the best of the best scholarship. [Well, C also knows that if not enough students from group B are accepted, a situation that C is very close to, C will get into so much trouble that C would have to change its name.] As a result, C first accepts the best of the best from group B before deciding on second best from group A.</p>

<p>Is it unfair? Probably. However, whatever C does will be unfair in some sense. Accepting the best of the best from each (equivalent) group combined with accepting the best of all the rest may be about as fair as C can be.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

I believe posters are contending that things would look much the same for Asians and Whites without racial consideration. I don’t believe anyone is saying things would look the same for URMs.

</p>

<p>Things wouldn’t “look the same” for "URM"s but would “look much the same” for whites/Asians.</p>

<p>So we’re assuming that the slight increases for whites/Asians come at significant decreases for the "URM"s because halving significant is slight?</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>Re: <a href=“http://www.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/mismatch.pdf[/url]”>http://www.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/mismatch.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>That paper is also an example of why social studies majors should not completely avoid university level math (calculus and statistics).</p>

[soomoo]

<p>

So we’re assuming that the slight increases for whites/Asians come at significant decreases for the "URM"s because halving significant is slight?

</p>

<p>I am referring to the population of Asians vs. Whites in college admissions. That would not change significantly is what is being purported. I thought the whole point of this thread was for you to show everyone that Asian are discriminated against vs. Whites. Both Whites and Asians face discrimination vs. URMs.</p>

<p>Am I wrong Fabrizio in stating that this is what you are trying to show us all? Again, I have no opinion, but I am looking for clarity in these posts.</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

Re: <a href=“http://www.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/mismatch.pdf[/url]”>http://www.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/mismatch.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>That paper is also an example of why social studies majors should not completely avoid university level math (calculus and statistics).

</p>

<p>Hey, I cry foul! How come you were able to get this thing and I wasn’t? Are they censoring my ability to view content :)</p>

<p>j/k
Maybe I’m doing something wrong. Thanks.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

So in other words, things would look much the same even if we had no racial preferences? If that is what you are saying, well, why don’t we just eliminate them?

Because, if we’re talking about preferences as between white and Asian students, we don’t need to eliminate them because, according to the Ivies, they already do not exist. Which is why, I guess, the discussion keeps going back to URMs.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

Is it unfair? Probably. However, whatever C does will be unfair in some sense. Accepting the best of the best from each (equivalent) group combined with accepting the best of all the rest may be about as fair as C can be.

</p>

<p>Yet when that happens - and you find the SAT scores of the admitted students are different among different groups – there’s an outcry. Why, that’s like “making” Asians have to add 100 points to their SAT! Not fair, jump through hoops, etc.</p>