are colleges racist?

[glido]

<p>Perhaps when Sewhappy’s D and her peers a running America’s universities, we will see and end to these injustices.</p>

[siserune]

<p>

siserune claimed that “in the old thread after I first mentioned this, a few CC diehards spent enormous numbers of pixels trying to make the statistical case that US East Asian representation was not dropping at the highest echelons of the national math competition.”

</p>

<p>Do you have any specific disagreement with the quoted statement? Those Chinese-American CC personalities were not claiming the US East Asian representation has a tendency to increase along the USAMO-to-IMO selection echelons, were they?</p>

<p>

He argued that based on the selection path USAMO —> Top 24 —> IMO, Asians were “decimated” (his word) in the following table:

</p>

<p>Fabrizio is fudging the data. I never based my arguments on NCL’s table of 4 years of USAMO data ; my assertions were posted before the table appeared, and were based on the entire academic pipeline. NCL’s table conveniently excludes most of the data on which I did base my remarks, by cutting down the pipeline from 15+ years (that is, ages 13 to 30+) to a few months (the time each year between the AIME and the IMO selection) so that the stark declines from 8th grade to high school to college to PhD are necessarily replaced by a smaller drops (and, it being a statistical phenomenon, occasional increases). In any case, the only attempt to base anything on those tables was when NCL attempted a refutation of my arguments based on the tables, which he/she had compiled for that purpose.</p>

<p>What I did post concerning those tables were statistical arguments that: (1) NCL’s data were mis-counted and mis-analyzed, (2) after correcting the data and the analysis, the table corroborated my assertions (that is, the intented refutation was actually evidence in favor of what I had claimed). NCL has not contested the correctness of any statistical assertion or calculation that I made, including the assertion that he/she manipulated the statistical significance calculations (by excluding data, cutting the sample down to single years when four are available, and so on) and the assertion that the table corroborates my points.</p>

<p>

Given “US East Asian representation [is dropping] at the highest echelons of the national math competition,” we would think that the percentages are [always] monotonically decreasing.

</p>

<p>If “we” means “people who understand basic math” then no, we would not think that. Given that husbands are generally taller than their wives, we would not think that in every married couple we see, the husband has to be taller than the wife.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>2006: 50% - > 52.4% - > 50% [increase -> decrease]
2007: 49% -> 41.6% -> 50% [decrease-> increase]
2008: 55% -> 21.7% -> 17% [decrease -> decrease]
2009: 57% -> 47.8% -> 50% [decrease -> increase]

</p>

<p>The fallacy in your reasoning has been refuted several times now. </p>

<p>If the weather is generally getting colder from summer to winter, and we write down the daily temperature readings for that period (broken into one-week blocks), it will be true that the temperature tends to decrease within each week. However, we will see many day-to-day increases, as well. These increases do not refute the “decrease of temperature within the week” theory. Do you get it by now?</p>

<p>The correct (and standard) statistical interpretation of “underperformance” here is not that the ordering is always A > B > C, but that some orderings are likelier than others, with decreases preferred over increases. For example, out of 4*3 = 12 possible increases and decreases, there are twice as many declines (8:4). The magnitude of the declines is also higher than that of the increases. The specific statistical significance calculations for the table showing a “decline” pattern rather than a “random” pattern can be found in my postings from the earlier thread. If you have a concrete numerical objection to anything that was computed there, let us know.</p>

<p>

Moreover, as I’ve repeatedly stated to siserune, 2008 was the year that “low hanging fruit” guy Alex Zhai scored a perfect 42/42 on the IMO.

</p>

<p>Back to the “denominator of one”. Try a larger sample size and a longer pipeline. Here are the years since 1997 listing the no.1 winner of the Mathcounts (grade 8 and under) national competition and the no.1 and no.2 scorers on the US IMO team four years later (that is, in the same age group):</p>

<p>2006 D. Yim 2010 Evan O’Dorney 39 G (X. He 28 G)
2005 N. Wu 2009 John Berman 35 G (E.Larson 34 G)
2004 G. Gauthier 2008 Alex Zhai 42 G (C. Sandon 32 G)
2003 A. Hesterberg 2007 Sherry Gong 32 G = (A. Zhai 32 G)
2002 A. Ni 2006 Arnav Tripathy 30 G (Z. Brady 29 G)
2001 R. Ko 2005 Brian Lawrence 42 G (E. Price 41 G)
2000 R. Jia 2004 <a href=“T.%20Liu%2038%20G”>*Oleg Golberg 40 G</a> Aaron Pixton 37 G
1999 Po-Ru Loh 2003 Po-ru Loh 36 G (D. Kane 35 G)
1998 R. Liu 2002 Po-Ru Loh 36 G (T. Liu 32 G)
1997 Z. Liu 2001 R Barton 42 G (G. Carroll 42 G)</p>

<p>East Asian mathcount champions: 8 of 10 (80%)<br>
East Asian US IMO champions: 8 of 20 (40%), or 5/17 (30%) if you count unique individuals. You can decide whether or not to include Golberg who came from Russia later than grade 8, but he would be replaced by another non-Asian (Pixton).</p>

<p>Even this tiny calculation is significant at p=4.46% or p=1.5% (unique individuals).</p>

<p>

And the table can be updated. Though siserune claimed USAMO –> Top 24 –> IMO was the selection path, it appears that the IMO team is chosen from the Top 12.

</p>

<p>The IMO team is not chosen from the top 12. Obviously if you are choosing the top 6 and using the USAMO as part of the selection, the IMO team will strongly resemble the top 12 but exceptions occur.</p>

<p>

In 2010, 7 of the 12 winners were East Asian (58.3%) and 4 of the 6 IMO team members were East Asian (66.67%). I don’t know what percentage of the USAMO qualifiers was East Asian, but siserune’s monotonically decreasing prediction did not hold.

</p>

<p>My statistical prediction is pretty likely to hold if you add the 8th grade and certainly the Putnam data. At best your argument is that the pattern is:</p>

<p>grade8 > [up-down pattern] > Putnam </p>

<p>where the up-down during high school is noisier than the other two transitions.
However, if grade8 > Putnam (and by a huge margin) for each cohort, year after year, that is a very strong and statistically significant pattern. Recall that there was already a 1-in-1100 p-value for the permutation test of NCL’s within-cohort data – another statistical finding neither you nor he have contested.</p>

<p>There are also major anomalies in the 2010 and 2011 data that are unlikely to repeat in later years. For instance, the 2010 exam had a problem that nobody came close to solving plus four easy problems. In both cases the specific effect would have been to jack up the number of Asian USAMO top12, top24 and/or IMO qualifiers.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

…my assertions were posted before the table appeared, and were based on the entire academic pipeline.

</p>

<p>That you never posted. Hmm, 15+ years of data “from 8th grade to high school to college to PhD.” You must’ve had to hand collect all that data, no? We don’t hand collect just for fun, siserune, so where’s your working paper explaining Asian underperformance?</p>

<p>

The correct (and standard) statistical interpretation of “underperformance” here is not that the ordering is always A > B > C, but that some orderings are likelier than others, with decreases preferred over increases.

</p>

<p>Correct and standard according to whom? Source(s) please.</p>

<p>And the names of the labor studies and the “Berkeley NMF” data would be nice too. Or do you only remember the results of the papers you’ve read but not who wrote them or what they were called?</p>

<p>Edit</p>

<p>

It’s not because the math tests are culturally biased against Asians, and it’s not because Asian competition winners are radically likelier than whites to switch their interests to other subjects.

</p>

<p>So it’s because…Asians are inferior to other “groups” with “more sophisticated educational strategies,” right?</p>

<p>You seem to have SO MUCH data on this issue, and the answer is SO OBVIOUS to you, but where’s your paper?</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

Perhaps when Sewhappy’s D and her peers a running America’s universities, we will see and end to these injustices.

</p>

<p>What injustices are there to correct? The injustice that our admission system failed to recognize that it could be gamed and manipulated by subgroups where the cultural definition of cheating is slightly different, and that underrepresented group became massively overrepresented? The injustice that the squeaky wheels get the grease and that the constant whining by certain subgroups STILL pays dividends? </p>

<p>Or that our education system creates more have nots than have? Or, the injustice that our society still NEEDS to use a system of preferences to ensure that our schools maintain a modicum of similarity to the racial distribution of the country.</p>

<p>Take your pick!</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

And no agreement on who is whining and whose arguments are trite.

</p>

<p>It is nice to see people showing a sense of humor. Unless the post was meant to be taken seriously. </p>

<p>How could there be an argument about who is whining and bludgeoning this forum to death with repetitive cuts and pastes?</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

What injustices are there to correct? The injustice that our admission system failed to recognize that it could be gamed and manipulated by subgroups where the cultural definition of cheating is slightly different, and that underrepresented group became massively overrepresented? The injustice that the squeaky wheels get the grease and that the constant whining by certain subgroups STILL pays dividends? </p>

<p>Or that our education system creates more have nots than have? Or, the injustice that our society still NEEDS to use a system of preferences to ensure that our schools maintain a modicum of similarity to the racial distribution of the country.</p>

<p>Take your pick!

</p>

<p>This post demonstrates exactly why “the same whining voices will continue to seize every opportunity to repeat the same trite arguments” is all in the eye of the beholder (i.e. “no agreement on who is whining and whose arguments are trite”).</p>

<p>The injustice that our admission system failed to recognize that it could be gamed and manipulated by subgroups where the cultural definition of cheating is slightly different, and that underrepresented group [sic] became massively overrepresented?</p>

<p>First, I do not condone the practices of New Oriental Education and others. Second, the way you write this suggests that Asians became “massively overrepresented” BECAUSE of cheating. Or did I misread that, xiggi?</p>

<p>Third, I take issue with the tone that sentence is written in. It exudes an attitude of “Oh, if foreigners’ kids are playing the game better than our own kids are, we need to change the rules of the game!”</p>

<p>The injustice that the squeaky wheels get the grease and that the constant whining by certain subgroups STILL pays dividends?</p>

<p>So "URM"s are squeaky wheels. Good to know, xiggi.</p>

<p>Or, the injustice that our society still NEEDS to use a system of preferences to ensure that our schools maintain a modicum of similarity to the racial distribution of the country</p>

<p>Why is it a big deal that “our schools maintain a modicum of similarity to the racial distribution of the country”? Sounds like a pretty trite argument to me, but then again, we have very different biases, don’t we, xiggi?</p>

<p>Edit</p>

<p>

It is nice to see people showing a sense of humor. Unless the post was meant to be taken seriously.

</p>

<p>The blind lead the blind…</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>There is no “injustice” that smart qualified students get turned down from Ivies / elites. It’s unfortunate and disappointing, but it’s not an injustice.</p>

<p>Parents and / or cultures that push students into certain fields regardless of their interest, or who continue to chase after the same old group of schools and don’t consider other excellent schools that are looking to increase diversity, perpetuate an injustice too.</p>

<p>Whatever background produces students like those on CC who whine about not sweeping their college list (which is basically 1-10 of USNWR with zero creativity or desire to find fit) and who have to “settle” for Teh Horrorz of a Vanderbilt or Tufts – ugh.</p>

[sewhappy]

<p>xiggi,</p>

<p>You’re too fervent and opaque for me. What is your position on this in terms for the simple minded?</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>"Why is it a big deal that “our schools maintain a modicum of similarity to the racial distribution of the country”? Sounds like a pretty trite argument to me, but then again, we have very different biases, don’t we, "</p>

<p>That’s a strongly held American value, at least here in 2011. If we in the US wanted to build a college system in which people were rewarded for achieving x test scores, and x test score translated into an admissions ticket – we would have built that.</p>

[sewhappy]

<p>Pizzagirl,</p>

<p>I think you lose some of us with your tone of contempt toward very smart and very, very hardworking kids not making it into an Ivy. You know it is an “American Dream” and you know that for a lot of kids it has been a dream they have absorbed and lived throughout their conscious lives. The sarcasm toward such kids makes it really hard for me to evaluate your posts objectively. These are kids, remember. And our “system” in America is very much one about winning the prize. It is not a trivial life moment for many of these kids to have to process a big disappointment, oftentimes very publicly with family, extended family and school community all watching . . . just a bit of compassion, please. </p>

<p>I’ve seen this enacted a few times, up close and personal and it’s very rough.</p>

[Canuckguy]

<p>Hello, siserune. If we are going to lose (a hockey game), lose graciously; rioting is uncouth. I am embarrassed.</p>

<p>

The Duke study was not about group admissions comparisons…

</p>

<p>I know. If it is about group admissions comparison, it would never see the light of day. We can only get glimpses of what is really going on behind the scene, but it is better than nothing.</p>

<p>

the admissions effect of legacy status, early admission and such as virtual SAT points added to an applicant’s actual score.

</p>

<p>Interesting that some posters are arguing that legacy status is admission-neutral (by simply comparing the qualification of the legacy admits to the average admits). Don’t you think they should be compared to the unhooked admits instead?</p>

<p>That link brought back fond memories. Your duel with StillGreen (and to some degree fabrizio) was particularly stimulating, but I think it left too many posters on the sideline. I guess we don’t live in Lake Wobegone.</p>

<p>None of these affect my thesis, however, that the elites are bastions of privilege. I see legacy, athletic admits in obscure sports, early admission as affirmative action for the rich, by stealth, the equivalent of baseball’s intentional unintentional walk.</p>

[sewhappy]

<p>^ Think my rising hs senior might agree with Canucky. She says without AA we will have a Shay’s Rebellion, or something along that line. She says diversity at the symbolic top is necessary to keep the proletariat in line, or something to that effect.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

That’s a strongly held American value, at least here in 2011.

</p>

<p>So strongly held that you’ve lost five out of six ballot initiatives outlawing the use of racial classification in the respective states’ public sectors?</p>

<p>

If we in the US wanted to build a college system in which people were rewarded for achieving x test scores, and x test score translated into an admissions ticket – we would have built that.

</p>

<p>Oh for the love of God, are you kidding me? You again prove that there is no agreement on “whose arguments are trite.” Even when you are responding to people who do not believe the SAT is everything, all you can say is “The SAT is not everything” because you think I secretly believe that.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>I think you lose some of us with your tone of contempt toward very smart and very, very hardworking kids not making it into an Ivy."</p>

<p>Maybe it’s because I now live in the Midwest, though I grew up in the East. This fetishization of 8 schools (all of which are great schools!) as the Meaning of Life just doesn’t happen out here. And a kid who does get into an elite school is met with “hey, great, good for you” not “OMG I am so jealous, you have just won the golden ticket to a life on easy street.” Anyone can drive down the street and find oodles of successful people who went to other colleges – it’s just not that hard.</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

These are kids, remember

Yes, like that kid you reflexively compared to an “Uncle Tom” because he wasn’t up in arms over his admissions decisions. Let’s not get all sanctimonius.</p>

[Canuckguy]

<p>This is for you, bovertine:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.mckinsey.com/app_media/images/page_images/offices/socialsector/pdf/achievement_gap_report.pdf[/url]”>http://www.mckinsey.com/app_media/images/page_images/offices/socialsector/pdf/achievement_gap_report.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>What is interesting is that this gap exist not just in the US, but I see it here as well despite a fine, fine public school system. I gather it exists even in Sweden, many liberal’s version of paradise.</p>

<p>As I said before, it is downright impossible to proof something conclusively, especially when it is seen as a crusade and not a search for truth. Let’s be honest, if I am a devout Christian, no amount of empirical data will convince me He did not walk on water. I don’t know if I can be more frank than this.</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

This is for you, bovertine:

Thanks. Somebody already posted it a few pages back. I don’t know why I was unable to open the first link.</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

Thanks. Somebody already posted it a few pages back. I don’t know why I was unable to open the first link.

</p>

<p>Actaully, now that I read it, what someone reposted earlier was the Duke study which I could always get. So thanks for posting this.</p>

[lake42ks]

<p>

I do not see many families from Western Europe. They are overwhelmingly from East, West, and South Asia, Africa, and parts of Latin America.

</p>

<p>Depending on where we live, we may see many from Eastern Europe. But, we cannot tell from the children, only when we meet their parents which is not very often.</p>

<p>

Pizzagirl,</p>

<p>I think you lose some of us with your tone of contempt toward very smart and very, very hardworking kids not making it into an Ivy.

</p>

<p>Tone aside, she often questions whose American Dream that is, a great question IMO.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

xiggi,</p>

<p>You’re too fervent and opaque for me. What is your position on this in terms for the simple minded?

</p>

<p>Fervent and opaque? Interesting comment. </p>

<p>Do you want me to rewrite what I wrote in my post 1399? I am afraid I cannot make it much clearer or less fervent and … opaque. </p>

<p>My position is that people will never reach a consensus about the issues debated in this thread.</p>