<p>
</p>
<p>Alumni donations seem inconsistent and are only a small part of the school’s endowment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Has Berkeley become less relevant since proposition 209?</p>
<p>Re #560</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See, in my opinion, that one can make statements like this and “get away with it” is indicative of a problem. If you can’t say that universities should control for the admissions of blacks but you can say it for Asians, there’s a double standard.</p>
<p>Anyone who thinks universities are placing some emphasis on the ethnic backgrounds of their applicants subconsciously is naive. Remember, in America we have the First Amendment right to free association. That means the right to discriminate for private universities that are willing to decline some federal funds. Public universities are agents of the state and should not be permitted to do it. The problem is that many individuals in state and federal power will not enforce anti-discrimination laws because personally agree withthe outcomes. Universities do not want their campuses to be filled with too many whites or Asians. They do ot care enough to look at each applicant as an individual a allow the chips to fall where they may. Public and most private colleges want the student body to look racially diverse, so some individuals suffer.</p>
<p>Not all asians are overrepresented in elite colleges. In fact if you break it down into sub groups, the Chinese, Koreans and Indians are over represented while Filipinos are under represented. This is exactly the reason why California do not include Filipinos in the Asian category.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The whole “I do not represent the colleges” is a red herring. As I’ve mentioned before, I do not believe that one has to represent colleges for one to be expected to define oft-used vocabulary. I consider it a massive cop-out for one to employ jargon and then claim no responsibility for defining said jargon because one either did not coin the terms or is not an agent for a principal. Indeed, I was taught to never use words that I was not able to define. I don’t believe it is unfair to hold everyone to this standard. Simply put, I am not holding anyone responsible for things beyond his control; I am merely holding individuals accountable for their own posts.</p>
<p>In effect, the quoted paragraph voices support for systems that are quotas in spirit but not letter. Apparently, it is necessary to ensure that there is a “core group” that is “more than a handful.” That is the very attempt “to assure within [a] student body some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin,” which Justice Powell dismissed as “facially invalid” in Bakke.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See, here’s a thing that I can’t help but chuckle at. This paragraph implies that without the use of race as a factor in admissions, “underrepresented” minorities can’t make it. I have always found it funny that the people who claim to be helping “underrepresented” minorities actually believe that they aren’t strong enough to make it on their own. By contrast, the opponents of racial preferences believe that “underrepresented” minorities can make it on their own. Yet, for some reason, we’re the ones who are supposedly against the interests of “underrepresented” minorities. Go figure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought we had established that the Arcidiacono et al. study (ie. “the Duke study”) provided evidence against the oft-repeated “Asians could be weaker in certain subjective criteria”? I don’t think there’s anything wrong with continuing to argue in favor of this possibility, but any such argument would be much stronger if it referred to a study that challenged the results from Arcidiacono et al.</p>
<p>I repeat once more that “racial balanc[ing]” is “patently unconstitutional,” as Justice O’Connor wrote in Grutter. I recommend finding a euphemism that isn’t proscribed by Supreme Court jurisprudence.</p>
<p>omg this thread is monstrous! stop debating…the answer is YES</p>
<p>
Nope. It has nothing to do with weakness or strength. It has to do with distribution across ECs, areas of interest, etc. If Asians do not possess, for example, well-rounded ECs including various sports, that hurts them. They may have very excellent achievements in the ECs that they do, and they may be very competitive applicants to the fields that interest them.
Come now. You’re confusing making it into the college with making it at the college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As Arcidiacono et al. reported, on average for “personal qualities,” whites scored the highest at 3.57 whereas Asians were second at 3.52.</p>
<p>I would argue that Asians’ ranking second in “personal qualities” does provide evidence against your claim. If Asians did in fact fail to “possess…well-rounded ECs,” that should hurt them quite a bit on the “personal qualities” dimension. I’m sure we’ve all heard about Mr. Henry Park, whom the disgraced Marilee Jones referred to as a [textureless</a> math grind](<a href=“http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2007/03/11/official-mit-opinion-on-korean-americans/]textureless”>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2007/03/11/official-mit-opinion-on-korean-americans/) no different than “a thousand other Korean kids.” </p>
<p>Gee, if I were a biased individual like Ms. Jones and I thought that lots of Asians were “textureless math grinds,” I probably wouldn’t be rating them very highly on “personal qualities,” would I?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sorry, can you elaborate on this? It seems like you’re stating that not only do “underrepresented” minorities need racial preferences to gain group presence on campuses, but they also need preferences to help them survive once they’re there?</p>
<p>With respect to certain users’ claims of “no smoking gun,” perhaps an old article from [Inside</a> Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/10/asian]Inside”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/10/asian) can enlighten us.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>siserune - Not all Asians take the same viewpoint on affirmative action. In fact, many Asians fully support the practice. Therefore, the presence of a token Asian admissions officer means nothing in the context of this discussion; presumably the admissions office would not hire people who disagree with their policies and principles.</p>
<p>I would very much like to see the studies on Asian career achievement (my memory is that Asians still hit a glass ceiling in management, but I have no evidence for that), UMich, TJHS, and UVA. The one study I’ve read re: TJHS was a scathing critique of its race-related admissions policies (linked to previously in this thread).</p>
<p>epiphany - I respectfully disagree with your assertion that the tone of your posts on this thread have been “not anti-Asian.” I agree that some posters have a “superiority complex” and/or have simplistic views of the issue, but you have largely attacked Asian posters who do present rational arguments that clearly involve background research and prior thought. Moreover, you have attacked their arguments in the consistent context of their being Asian and wrong, not just wrong. That appears, to me, to be racist and certainly “anti-Asian.”</p>
<p>GUYS… please.
Lets look at pure numbers.</p>
<p>How many rice eaters are there in US: 4.4% of US citizens are asian.</p>
<p>How many rice eaters are there in HYPSM: 15-20%. (MIT goes to like 25%).</p>
<p>How much more do Asian Americans earn than White Americans? about $15000 Think about all those asian doctors.
[US</a> Census Press Releases](<a href=“http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/005647.html]US”>http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/005647.html)
Thats the government census. Can’t argue that.</p>
<p>What does this say about asians? Of course they are disciminated against; they are the smartest people in America. YOU CANNOT ARGUE WITH NUMBERS. They have best education, best earnings, and best acceptance rates into top tier schools.</p>
<p>^^^ to all above posters: maybe asian americans have superiority complexes because they are… superior?</p>
<p>If the “no disadvantage for Asians (U Michigan)” study referred to earlier is [the</a> William Kidder study](<a href=“http://www.advancingequality.org/files/kidder_pr.pdf]the”>http://www.advancingequality.org/files/kidder_pr.pdf), I can only shake my head.</p>
<p>For a long time, whenever people invoked the Espenshade and Chung 2005 study, opponents would quickly retort by flashing the Kidder article as evidence of a published refutation of Espenshade and Chung. During this time, I made the mistake of not actually reading Kidder’s paper carefully enough and assuming that it was not a true refutation as it studied the effects of ending racial preferences at the law school level, not the undergraduate level.</p>
<p>It turns out that Kidder’s paper didn’t really refute Espenshade and Chung’s 2005 paper at all! Kidder took the Princeton researchers to task by arguing that they had conflated “affirmative” action with “negative” action. He disputed only their conclusion that ending affirmative action helps Asians; he had no problems with the methodology or the results.</p>
<p>Of course, since siserune did not mention the title or authors of said “U Michigan” study, it could be a different one. But if it’s not, then tsk tsk.</p>
<p>
Why would you assume that? Just because somebody doesn’t play baseball, doesn’t live in Iowa, and doesn’t want to major in Classics doesn’t mean he lacks in personal qualities. It might mean that he’s competing for only a portion of the slots at Harvard, though.</p>
<p>
No, I’m saying that you seem to think these are the same. It should be obvious to most people that URMs need preferences to gain group presence at selective campuses. That doesn’t mean that they can’t perform adequately once there, however. But again, this is a very different issue than the issue of admission for Asians. Personally, I would be much more troubled by a Harvard with only 0.5% black students than I would be about whether there are 15% or 20% Asians.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I reask my question: if I were a biased individual like Ms. Jones and I thought that lots of Asians were "[textureless</a> math grinds](<a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2007/03/11/official-mit-opinion-on-korean-americans/]textureless">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2007/03/11/official-mit-opinion-on-korean-americans/)," I probably wouldn’t be rating them very highly on “personal qualities,” would I?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not “obvious” to me as I don’t believe that “underrepresented” minorities need racial preferences.</p>
<p>
Whoopie, adequate performance is awesome! </p>
<p>
I actually find this humorous. In hard majors it’s already the case. EECS at UCB is below a ~1% admit rate for blacks. But then again, in majors that are massively quantitative and very hard to game in terms of GPA, it’s much closer to a meritocracy.</p>
<p>
Time to control them Jews!</p>
<p>I’d like to ask a serious question, because in the midst of discussion of college admission policies there are from time to time references to “underrepresented” groups without explaining how “underrepresentation” is demonstrated.</p>
<p>If a medium-size privately operated national research university takes applicants from all over the country, and indeed all over the world, but has a plurality of its applicants living within 500 miles of the university (a fairly common pattern), should the university</p>
<p>a) balance “representation” by the world population of all college-age young people?</p>
<p>b) balance “representation” by the national population of all college-age young people?</p>
<p>c) balance “representation” by the regional population–within a specified distance from the college–of all college-age young people?</p>
<p>d) balance “representation” by the world population of all college-age young people who have completed secondary education?</p>
<p>e) balance “representation” by the national population of all college-age young people who have completed secondary education?</p>
<p>f) balance “representation” by the regional population of all college-age young people who have completed secondary education?</p>
<p>g) balance “representation” by the world population of all college-age young people who are as academically qualified–determined by that college’s rules–as the least qualified admitted students from the year before?</p>
<p>h) balance “representation” by the national population of all college-age young people who are as academically qualified–determined by that college’s rules–as the least qualified admitted students from the year before?</p>
<p>i) balance “representation” by the regional population of all college-age young people who are as academically qualified–determined by that college’s rules–as the least qualified admitted students from the year before?</p>
<p>j) balance “representation” by the actual group composition of that college’s applicant pool that year?</p>
<p>k) simply admit students based on the college’s judgment of academic qualifications, as long as its admission procedures admit some representatives of every major ethnic group officially recognized in the United States?</p>
<p>There are quite a few possible standards here, with different possible results, and it’s not usually clear to me which standard participants in the discussion are appealing to when they call one group or another “underrepresented.” Underrepresented by how much? Which students actually apply to which colleges?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem with the "what if " type of questions is its “blue sky” nature and possibilities are limited only by your imagination. It is a brainstorming technique. It is far more useful to use available data, quantitative and qualitative, to piece together the puzzle. </p>
<p>One way I test the validity of an argument here is to simply apply my “Jewish filter”-IE replace every “Asian” with “Jewish”. Try it. You will like it. Here is an example:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There must be a lot of Jewish baseball players that lives in Iowa and major in Classics in the elites. That is easily verifiable by simply checking their rosters. You have evidence of that?</p>