Do Elite Colleges Discriminate Against Asian Students?

[epiphany]

<p>

What I means is that there is no over-supply of talents for the elite colleges. The screening standard has been set too low.

</p>

<p>Again, you do not know what “the screening standard is.” You know what some of the 4-year-later products are - and to reduce that sample even more: the products that apply to positions in your lab vs. positions in other labs. </p>

<p>It’s also true that in one study, high-income ELC admits to Berkeley who were overqualified upon entrance, grossly underperformed after admission vs. low-income ELC admits. And btw ELC is strictly a quantitative, merit-only admissions stratum. One might conclude based on these laboratory findings, that AP/Honors-weighted gpas as a factor in admission are an inversely proportional indicator for college performance when combined with high SES. (And note that Elite U’s do not select candidates narrowly based on such an indicator.) </p>

<p>Psst: UC Berkeley is a “big state university.”</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

The entire gist of the analysis in Grutter was that the admissions program at issue there focused on each applicant as an individual, and not simply as a member of a particular racial group. The classification of applicants by race upheld in Grutter was only as part of a “highly individualized, holistic review,” 539 U. S., at 337. As the Court explained, “[t]he importance of this individualized consideration in the context of a race-conscious admissions program is paramount.” Ibid. The point of the narrow tailoring analysis in which the Grutter Court engaged was to ensure that the use of racial classifications was indeed part of a broader assessment of diversity, and not simply an effort to achieve racial balance, which the Court explained would be “patently unconstitutional.” Id., at 330. (emphasis added)

All the Court does here is tell the schools what to say (and to some extent, what to do) if they want classes that are more or less racially balanced: look at the students as individuals in the “context” of ethnic diversity. So, nobody in the admissions office is going to write down how many Asians are “too many.” Instead, the number of Asians will just float around some level that the school is comfortable with. (I note that this assumes that this is happening at all; something of which I am still not convinced.)</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

All the Court does here is tell the schools what to say (and to some extent, what to do) if they want classes that are more or less racially balanced: look at the students as individuals in the “context” of ethnic diversity. So, nobody in the admissions office is going to write down how many Asians are “too many.” Instead, the number of Asians will just float around some level that the school is comfortable with. (I note that this assumes that this is happening at all; something of which I am still not convinced.)

</p>

<p>Are you saying that it doesn’t assert that “achiev[ing] racial balance…[is] patently unconstitutional”? Or are you saying that it simply tells schools, “This is what you need to do to achieve racial balance, but don’t use that phrase!”</p>

[harvardfan]

<p>“It’s also true that in one study, high-income ELC admits to Berkeley who were overqualified upon entrance, grossly underperformed after admission vs. low-income ELC admits. And btw ELC is strictly a quantitative, merit-only admissions stratum. One might conclude based on these laboratory findings, that AP/Honors-weighted gpas as a factor in admission are an inversely proportional indicator for college performance when combined with high SES. (And note that Elite U’s do not select candidates narrowly based on such an indicator.)”</p>

<p>Can you link to website of the study? If the comparison is not made in the same major, it would be meaningless.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>^I’ll find the actual link later today.</p>

<p>The study did not limit by major, or differentiate by major, for either the high-SES or the low-SES ELC group. It included an entire enrolled ELC segment, all majors combined. A key feature of the study were the acknowledged (self-reported) study habits of the high-SES students, which were defined by minimum academic output and maximum recreational output, in sharp contrast to the low-SES students, whose pre-college-enrollment and post-college-enrollment study habits remained constant.</p>

[chaosakita]

<p>

@ephiphany

The study did not limit by major, or differentiate by major, for either the high-SES or the low-SES ELC group. It included an entire enrolled ELC segment, all majors combined. A key feature of the study were the acknowledged (self-reported) study habits of the high-SES students, which were defined by minimum academic output and maximum recreational output, in sharp contrast to the low-SES students, whose pre-college-enrollment and post-college-enrollment study habits remained constant.

</p>

<p>What does this have to do with Asians in admissions? I think part of this could be explained that poor students have to work harder to get admitted under the merit-only ELC program. Also, it would be fair to think that since the largest racial group of Berkeley is Asian, most of the poor students are too.</p>

[Keilexandra]

<p>epiphany - A book called 100,000 ADMISSIONS DECISIONS AT STANFORD or something along those lines, written about a decade ago by a Stanford admissions dean upon his/her retirement, specifically used the phrase “special consideration.” (The author was absolutely in favor of affirmative action.) All URMs, regardless of other attributes, were marked as such–given “special consideration,” in the adcom’s own words.</p>

<p>If there’s a “tell-all” book you particularly recommend, do name it; I believe I’ve read all of the major ones and several of the more obscure ones (though I admit I never finished THE SHAPE OF THE RIVER). </p>

<p>

@epiphany

To believe that considering factors in Elite college admissions in addition to academic qualifications is not necessary

Sigh. We just went over this, yet again, upthread. Few of the consistent debaters in this thread are opposed to holistic admissions. I challenge the implication that holistic admissions - racial preferences = non-holistic admissions. Another “holistic” factor used by many colleges is the amount of FA requested; the elite colleges claim, at least, to ignore this factor, and yet they still practice holistic admissions. Clearly no one attribute determines how “holistic” a process is deemed.</p>

<p>

@epiphany

When you get to such a degree of oversupply of the equally overqualified, decisions have to be made on additional and on some cases even ‘arbitrary’ grounds.

I absolutely agree. This is why holistic admissions is necessary. But removing racial preferences, or removing gender preferences, does not render a holistic process magically non-holistic.</p>

<p>(FYI, I started the gender discrimination thread. Be sure to look at the latest posts for an updated data list with a new % column.)</p>

<p>Hunt - Let me modify my statement, since you’re taking it out of context.

@Alexandrite

I believe that explicit special consideration policies on the basis of legally protected attributes are unjustifiably discriminatory.

</p>

<p>3togo - While I can’t speak for elite university admissions, I have reasonable evidence to conclude that the Telluride Association, in admitting a diverse group of students to TASP (a comparably “elite” summer program with a ~7% acceptance rate in 2009), does quantitatively rank the finalists. In particular, the waitlist is gender-separated and numerically ranked. Telluride deals with a much smaller volume of applications than HYP, so I doubt that the elites actually use such a granular process… but I do challenge the implication that “highly qualified” is the only distinction made. Another piece of evidence to support my view is the use of “likely letters” for non-athletic recruits.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>

What does this have to do with Asians in admissions?

</p>

<p>It’s important, when reading comments on a thread, to follow arguments logically, in sequence. The carrot icon (^) indicates a response to a particular comment, as does a quote from that commentator.</p>

<p>The poster in question challenged the worth of college admissions methodology in general, in his comments. His personal experience, however, is from a limited pool rather than a statistically significant or projectible pool, either from the point of view of college graduates in general or from Elite college graduates in particular.</p>

<p>So your question should apparently be directed to the author of those posts, not to me.</p>

<p>

Also, it would be fair to think that since the largest racial group of Berkeley is Asian, most of the poor students are too.

</p>

<p>Again I’ll have to locate the study, which I bookmarked on a computer in storage, not currently in my household but still may be able to retrieve through other means. However, my memory of it was that the low-income ELC students consisted of at least some SE Asians and I don’t know if some low-income whites, blacks, Hispanics were included (but I believe so), whereas the upper-income students consisted of mostly white students (possibly some wealthy Asian students but I cannot swear to that). It was clear to me that the wealthy group was quite cynical, assuming that there were other paths to success than a college GPA, through family connections. There was certainly a considerable overconfidence factor not shared or presumed by the poor ELC faction. As I recall, the study was done prior to the overturning of Prop 209 in CA.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

Are you saying that it doesn’t assert that “achiev[ing] racial balance…[is] patently unconstitutional”? Or are you saying that it simply tells schools, “This is what you need to do to achieve racial balance, but don’t use that phrase!”

Well, the latter, in effect. The problem with all of these decisions is that they are mushy. They say, in effect, that race can be used as part of a decision, but it can’t be too specific (although, at the same time, it must be carefully tailored). You can’t really look at those decisions and predict with any accuracy what the Supreme Court would do if faced squarely with the question of a school that was crafting its class to “reflect” the diversity of the population.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Well, the latter, in effect.

</p>

<p>OK, but what makes you think that it doesn’t say, “achiev[ing] racial balance…[is] patently unconstitutional”?</p>

<p>

The problem with all of these decisions is that they are mushy. They say, in effect, that race can be used as part of a decision, but it can’t be too specific (although, at the same time, it must be carefully tailored). You can’t really look at those decisions and predict with any accuracy what the Supreme Court would do if faced squarely with the question of a school that was crafting its class to “reflect” the diversity of the population.

</p>

<p>I couldn’t agree more with the “mushy” part. Justice Scalia mentioned this problem in his dissent to Grutter. As one who prefers bright lines to discretion, Justice Scalia commented that he would prefer that affirmative action either be always acceptable or never acceptable rather than sometimes acceptable, as was the case in the split Grutter-Gratz rulings.</p>

<p>Though I think highly of Justice Powell, I do fault him for creating this problem in Bakke. Had he simply sided definitively with either bloc, the issue could very well have been settled. But, he sided with both, thus creating the confusing and aggravating status quo of “quotas are illegal, but race as a factor is not, unless its use results in a de-facto quota.”</p>

<p>Now, I disagree that you can’t predict with any accuracy what the Supreme Court would do. Does anyone here honestly believe that Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito would ever vote in favor of affirmative action? I suppose it’s possible - after all, Justice Stevens changed his mind on the issue - but I don’t think it’s very probable.</p>

<p>In fact, with respect to this issue, the composition of the Court has not changed at all since 1978. Then, you had four Justices who thought affirmative action was de facto always constitutional, four who thought it was never constitutional, and one who thought it could be constitutional if done properly. (The 4-4-1 division is why Bakke really only has three implications: (1) quotas are illegal, (2) race as a factor is not illegal unless you use it improperly, and (3) racial classifications must be subject to strict scrutiny.) It’s basically the same in 2009: the Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito think it’s never constitutional; Justice Ginsberg, Justice Breyer, Justice Stevens, and Justice Sotomayor think it’s de facto always constitutional; and Justice Kennedy thinks it can be constitutional if done right.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

OK, but what makes you think that it doesn’t say, “achiev[ing] racial balance…[is] patently unconstitutional”?

It does say this, but what it means isn’t so clear, especially in a case in which it wasn’t really the issue.

Now, I disagree that you can’t predict with any accuracy what the Supreme Court would do. Does anyone here honestly believe that Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito would ever vote in favor of affirmative action? I suppose it’s possible - after all, Justice Stevens changed his mind on the issue - but I don’t think it’s very probable.

I was imagining a case in which an Asian student was complaining that less qualified whites were being admitted over more qualified Asians because of a desire to create racial balance (or “broad diversity”). I think you might be disappointed in how the conservative justices might approach a case like that.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

I think you might be disappointed in how the conservative justices might approach a case like that.

</p>

<p>How so, given that the four “conservative” Justices are resolutely against the use of racial classifications in admissions?</p>

[tokenadult]

<p>^ ^ Of course a “legal realist” would say that the way to know how a case will turn out is to litigate it and observe what the judges do, but is there any guidance from the published opinions that suggests an Asian plaintiff would be any less likely to win a case of overt discrimination than some other plaintiff? I don’t see any such distinction in the case law.</p>

[tokenadult]

<p>Informational question for epiphany here: </p>

<p>Is it your custom to use one caret ^ to point to the immediately preceding post as you post, and two ^^ to point to the second-to-last post, and so on? One CC participant told me that that was her custom. I never used to notice the difference. Sometimes when a thread receives a lot of comments, and I try to follow that custom, I have to edit to adjust the number of carets.</p>

[Keilexandra]

<p>^ That’s the custom I’ve always followed (adjusting the number of carets as necessary to point upward to the proper post), though I’m not sure whether it was personal logic or subconscious imitation.</p>

[monstor344]

<p>

At the heart of the argument is whether one believes that racial diversity in the college setting adds value. All of the elites believe that it does. All of you believe that it does not.

But you cannot just end there.</p>

<p>Why is it valuable to the elites? Do they care about the enhancement of education through racial diversity? If so, how exactly have they determined that racial diversity directly enhances the college experience? Or do you think it is done for political reasons or perhaps pragmatic, attracting-students reasons? Wouldn’t that then indicate that the greatest issue at hand is society’s still very segregated approach to dealing with issues? And wouldn’t affirmative action only be serving to hinder society’s progression away from that?</p>

<p>And for that matter, do you simply believe in racial diversity because elite colleges use it as a basis for admissions?</p>

<p>I’m genuinely curious. I myself am unsure on my stance; the only thing I’m sure is about is that while the last thing I would want is an exclusion of any ethnicity, I don’t think artificially maintaining a racially diverse environment would be a proper solution.</p>

[monstor344]

<p>

Also, this is a tautology. Of course these policies are discriminatory, in that they discriminate in favor of certain characteristics. The question is whether they are justifiable.
Let’s take a simple case. Imagine that Harvard has a policy that it wants to at least accept one student from each of the 50 states each year. Let’s imagine it has multiple reasons for doing this, including (a) a genuine desire for geographical diversity and (b) the desire to avoid bad PR and alumni giving problems if no applicants from a particular state are admitted. So if Harvard accepts an applicant from Wyoming who would not otherwise have been admitted, is that discriminatory? Sure. But is it justifiable? You tell me.

I would consider something truly discriminatory only in the sense that it accounts for something that cannot be altered; something genetic. Geographic location? Nobody is born with a permanent geographic location. Sure, one might be disinclined to move just for the purposes of college admissions, but it is always a possibility and they are not born literally incapable of living in another state. Can an Asian man get what South Park astutely called a negroplasty? No. Discrimination in this sense is wrong the vast majority of the time; the only instance I think where discrimination of the sort can be contested (and this is open for debate on another thread) is gender discrimination for the purpose of maintaining a close to 1:1 M/F ratio.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>Post 914:</p>

<p>Cute. (It wasn’t my habit to “double,” but now that I know that trick, I’ll try to employ it next time. Sorry if I didn’t this time. And now I know that when people do that, their keyboards aren’t stuck.;))</p>

[StillGreen]

<h1>849, Deng is well-read in Chinese philosophies and Tai-chi came from Tao. I don’t suppose anything would really happen at their border, unless either China or India wants to instigate a conflict. Even their troops are scheduled to patrol the disputed regions on alternative days in avoiding any confrontation. Regarding UK finally acknowledging China’s sovereignty over Tibet, the UK foreign secretary even apologized for not changing their position earlier. This was a vivid illustration of what money could buy. :-)</h1>

<p>I would say the Wall St. firms are very rational. They are awarded bonuses for using other peoples’ money to take risks. And they, personally, have minimum down side, then what would discourage them from taking maximum risks on somebody else’s assets (I suggested an answer in my earlier message #771)? It is their clients who are irrational to give them the money for such high-risk ventures. I hope your friends may eventually realize soon enough, that it is a Ponzi scheme, i.e. the projected gains can only be sustained with an ever-increasing money-flow. Let me ask a question: why do stocks go up? For the most part, it is because of increasing money-flow toward the market. Then what would happen when there is a liquidity crunch, due to (any reasons, doesn’t really matter; baby-boomers passed earning peaks, de-leveraging of high-risk ventures, overwhelming commercial, government, and personal debts…)? :-)</p>

[Canuckguy]

<p>^The history of Tai Chi is quite complex, but this is for another day. I agree with you on everything else.</p>

<p>I think my friends simply made the mistake of holding too much equity- somewhere around 80%. This is too much for folks nearing retirement.</p>

<p>

The screening standard has been set too low. In addition, I do not detect major differences in quality of graduates from some of the big state universities versus those from the top 10 schools. Foreign graduates are actually performing better.

</p>

<p>Your experience fits my hypothesis neatly. Since the elites function as finishing schools for the scions of the rich and famous, they can not operate as meritocracies.This “diversity” thing is only there to serve as a smokescreen to conceal this reality. On the other hand, they want the world to think of them as bastions of intellectual vigour. IOW, they want to have their cake and eat it too.</p>

<p>Your experience with foreign graduates is consistent with what I see here in the Great White North as well.</p>

<p>You are being ignored because your experience does not fit the world view of many here on CC. You do know that, right? :)</p>