Do Elite Colleges Discriminate Against Asian Students?

[fabrizio]

<p>^</p>

<p>I don’t; hence, “up to four mistakes.”</p>

<p>Now, absent additional information, is an O’Brien more likely to be white or an adopted / mixed / married Japanese woman? Is a Rosal more likely to be Hispanic or an adopted / mixed / married Japanese woman? Is a Shobeiri more likely to be Arab or an adopted / mixed / married Japanese woman? And is Rumeysa more likely to be a Turk or an adopted / mixed / married Japanese woman?</p>

<p>Considering that the number of Japanese Americans is around 1.2 million out of a population that exceeds 300 million, I think the answers are clear.</p>

<p>

It seems to me you are the one making the assumptions.

</p>

<p>Is this a “you are [also]…” or a “you are…[and we are not]”?</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

…clearly part Asian.

</p>

<p>I don’t contest the “clearly Asian” part, but I’m far more wary of this claim. A previous co-worker of mine was “clearly part Asian,” except she wasn’t. She acknowledged that she was frequently mistaken for “part Asian,” but she stated that to her knowledge, she had Cajun, French, and Scots-Irish heritage, but nothing from Asia.</p>

<p>Edit</p>

<p>Even if she is in fact “part Asian,” Hunt’s hard and fast “if you’re a member of X ethnic interest group, you’re probably ethnic X” rule would still be wrong. What if Mme. O’Brien were part “underrepresented” minority? There goes your diversity, all thanks to “it works most of the time.”</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

The report shows just how limited these “wide-spread observation[s]” really are. With varying degrees of vigor, numerous parents here have claimed that on average, Asians are more likely than other groups to concentrate in certain fields and more likely than other groups to apply to a narrow range of schools. Yet, the report linked above does not confirm that for AAPIs as a whole. We see that 54.9% of all AAPIs major in either business or social sciences/humanities. The so-called “Asian” majors of engineering/CS/math does not even garner a plurality among all AAPIs. We also see that an overwhelming majority (87.6%) of AAPI students attend public institutions, and a plurality of AAPIs attend public two-year colleges (44.36%). Only 12.41% of all AAPIs attend private four-year institutions.

Please stop comparing apples to oranges. We are talking about admission to selective schools, not all schools. I just did a little rough data mining for Yale that confirmed exactly what I’ve been saying. The observations we’re talking about are for students seeking admission to selective schools–if the observations are accurate, they are not biased. You have shown nothing to show that the observations are biased. I understand that you don’t like them, of course.</p>

<p>And by the way, there are 23 names on that Japanese Student Association page, not just 5. 18 of them are clearly Asian names. You cherry-picked the data to support your position. And I can also see why you chose to look at a Japanese Student Association, because the first three Chinese Student Associations that come up on Google have all Asian officers.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>^</p>

<p>Did I cherry pick, or did you not read my complete post?</p>

<p>

…From there, most of the remaining officers have Japanese surnames, but the point was made: if you simply assume that everyone of X ethnic interest group belongs to X ethnicity, you will make lots of mistakes.

</p>

<p>Edit</p>

<p>The five I focused on happened to be in the positions of greatest responsibility (i.e. President, VP x2, Secretary, Treasurer). As I said, if you were to employ your hard and fast rule, you’d make up to four mistakes.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>And here’s some more data that might be relevant. Below are a bunch of schools, followed by the percentages of white, Asian, URM, international, and unreported ethnicity in the fist year class, according to College Board:</p>

<p>School, white, Asian, URM, international, unreported
Harvard, 41, 19, 16, 10, 15
Yale, 35, 14, 19, 10, 22
Princeton, 49, 17, 14, 11, 8
Stanford, 31, 21, 28, 7, 13
MIT, 34, 25, 24, 9, 7
Caltech, 41, 39, 6, 11, 3
Berkeley, 28, 42, 14, 8, 7
Brown, 40, 17, 16, 10, 17
Dartmouth, 52, 15, 21, 7, 5
Columbia, 36, 17, 26, 10, 11
Cornell, 46, 18, 10, 10, 16
Penn, 38, 18, 16, 10, 18
Duke, 48, 22, 17, 7, 6
Rice, 44, 21, 19, 8, 7
Emory, 49, 20, 12, 10, 8
Vanderbilt, 53, 8, 14, 5, 21
UVa, 62, 11, 12, 6, 9
UT Austin, 52, 19, 26, 3, 0
Carnegie Mellon, 39, 22, 12, 12, 16
Georgia Tech, 63, 18, 9, 7, 3
Georgetown, 70, 10, 12, 5, 3
Chicago, 41, 16, 19, 9, 15</p>

<p>Asians are about 5% of the U.S. population, African-Americans are 13.5%, Hispanics are 14.8%, non-Hispanic whites are 68%, Native Americans about .8 %. So all URMs together are about 29%. </p>

<p>One thing I note from the list above is that the composition of the unreported ethnicity group could have a pretty significant impact on the overall percentages. It’s generally thought that not very many URMs are in that group, although there are probably some.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Please stop comparing apples to oranges. We are talking about admission to selective schools, not all schools. I just did a little rough data mining for Yale that confirmed exactly what I’ve been saying. The observations we’re talking about are for students seeking admission to selective schools–if the observations are accurate, they are not biased. You have shown nothing to show that the observations are biased. I understand that you don’t like them, of course.

</p>

<p>Riddle me this: what is the difference between your “wide-spread observation[s]” and the racist stereotypes some white Americans used to have of black Americans? Oh, that’s right; their stereotypes were “evil” but you’re not evil. You’re just telling it like it is. Riight.</p>

<p>Had you read the two paragraphs that followed, you would have seen that I acknowledged the possibility that the major distribution didn’t apply to private institutions, but apparently you missed that.</p>

<p>Moreover, I hope you aren’t seriously trying to argue that your “rough data mining” has any statistical significance.</p>

<p>

It does not surprise me that the “wide-spread observation[s]” are so inaccurate and biased. Most of the parents justifying them probably live in well-to-do neighborhoods populated by well-educated neighbors. They probably have not met many of the 360,000+ AAPIs who attend public two-year colleges because of lack of face-to-face meeting opportunities.</p>

<p>In fairness, is it possible that these overall statistics do not apply to AAPI students attending elite private universities? Sure, very possible. Still, my point remains: these “wide-spread observation[s]” are heavily biased. You observe only what you see, but if what you see isn’t representative of the whole, I’d take your “wide-spread observation” with a huge grain of salt.

</p>

<p>Edit</p>

<p>I have to say that it is a bit funny that so many users are upgrading the veracity of observation to near-truth.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

And I can also see why you chose to look at a Japanese Student Association, because the first three Chinese Student Associations that come up on Google have all Asian officers.

</p>

<p>Actually, I was going to cite my school’s Chinese Student Association, whose current Secretary is white. But then I figured you might retort like you did last time when I pointed out that close to half of my school newspaper’s editorial board is East Asian. (By the way, you never refuted my example of the Crimson having significantly more East Asian officers than South Asian officers. Maybe your “wide-spread observation” about South Asians’ being more interested in writing than East Asians is not generalizable?)</p>

<p>If you’re going to play this, though, remind me which school shows up first when you google Japanese Student Association?</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>If anything, the last five pages demonstrate why tokenadult’s proposal of encouraging people to identify as ‘human’ is such a good one.</p>

<p>These pages have seen angry posts that devolved into the perverse “my ancestors were discriminated against more than your ancestors” argument or insisted on the accuracy and applicability of “wide-spread observation[s]” despite published evidence suggesting the contrary.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

Riddle me this: what is the difference between your “wide-spread observation[s]” and the racist stereotypes some white Americans used to have of black Americans? Oh, that’s right; their stereotypes were “evil” but you’re not evil. You’re just telling it like it is. Riight.

Have it your way, fabrizio. The ONLY explanation for the disparity between Asian stats and Asian admissions at the most selective schools is racism. There just couldn’t be any other explanation, and any attempt to investigate the possibility can be shot down by looking at the ethnic makeup of the first five officers of the Japanese Student Association at the University of Washington. When the absurdity is pointed out to you, resort to suggesting that any suggestion that is contrary to your concept is the same as anti-black racism. Classy. And persuasive!
By the way, the Espenshade data are 12 years old, and the overall admissions rate of the 10 schools in that study was 23.5%. I wonder how many, if any, of the really selective schools we are usually talking about here were included?</p>

[mokusatsu]

<p>

@fabrizio

As for ethnicity proxies, let’s take a look at the officers of the Japanese Student Association at the University of Washington. The President appears to be white; the Vice Presidents appear to be Hispanic and Arab, respectively; and the Secretary appears to be Turkish. Among the “key” officer positions, only the Treasurer is undisputably Japanese.

Are you trying to show that Asians are lacking when it comes to leadership?</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Have it your way, fabrizio. The ONLY explanation for the disparity between Asian stats and Asian admissions at the most selective schools is racism. There just couldn’t be any other explanation, and any attempt to investigate the possibility can be shot down by looking at the ethnic makeup of the first five officers of the Japanese Student Association at the University of Washington. When the absurdity is pointed out to you, resort to suggesting that any suggestion that is contrary to your concept is the same as anti-black racism. Classy.
By the way, the Espenshade data are 12 years old, and the overall admissions rate of the 10 schools in that study was 23.5%. I wonder how many, if any, of the really selective schools we are usually talking about here were included?

</p>

<p>I am a firm believer of [Gladwell’s</a> hypothesis](<a href=“Getting In | The New Yorker”>Getting In | The New Yorker): it’s not necessarily “racism” but rather a desire to preserve brand image. As I have consistently stated, if these schools care about their brands so much, that’s their right. I’m just asking for them to give up federal funding. If it’s really worth that much, I think their endowments can take care of it.</p>

<p>I pointed out the ethnic makeup of the five primary officers of UW’s JSA to point out that your hard and fast “mostly works” rule can break down pretty easily. I cherry picked nothing; I fully acknowledged that the remaining officers were almost all Japanese, and I picked UW because it was the first google result, not the last one on the twentieth page.</p>

<p>I see that my question was unanswered. That is fine; the truth hurts, sometimes.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

As for ethnicity proxies, let’s take a look at the officers of the Japanese Student Association at the University of Washington. The President appears to be white; the Vice Presidents appear to be Hispanic and Arab, respectively; and the Secretary appears to be Turkish. Among the “key” officer positions, only the Treasurer is undisputably Japanese.

Are you trying to show that Asians are lacking when it comes to leadership?

</p>

<p>No, I was providing a counterexample to the “mostly works” rule.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

I pointed out the ethnic makeup of the five primary officers of UW’s JSA to point out that your hard and fast “mostly works” rule can break down pretty easily. I cherry picked nothing; I fully acknowledged that the remaining officers were almost all Japanese, and I picked UW because it was the first google result, not the last one on the twentieth page.

Um, my “mostly works” rule does work, since at least 18 out of 23 in that group were clearly Asian. You’re the one who, for some odd reason, calls it a “hard and fast” rule. My point was that even if you don’t identify your ethnicity, and hide your name, for many students it will be pretty clear what ethnicity they are. How will you prevent adcoms from using this information, if you think they are secretly trying to protect the brand? Note that Princeton, at least, already claims that it doesn’t consider ethnicity in making admissions decisions.</p>

[tokenadult]

<p>

@Hunt

Asians are about 5% of the U.S. population

</p>

<p>I haven’t checked that figure, but anyway that may not be the most relevant figure. What about the percentage of high school seniors who have taken classes that get them ready for genuinely college-level academic work? </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.act.org/news/data/09/pdf/three.pdf[/url]”>http://www.act.org/news/data/09/pdf/three.pdf&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p>It is, of course, fine in a free country for young people in high school to do things other than to prepare for academically rigorous college study. (It is deplorable, on the other hand, if a young person aspires to college but the local high school doesn’t offer adequate preparation. More definitely needs to be done to offer genuinely college-preparatory classes to all high school students.) Another recent thread </p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/803753-selectivity-myth-most-colleges-less-selective-not-more.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/803753-selectivity-myth-most-colleges-less-selective-not-more.html&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p>says, surely correctly, that there are quite a few colleges that will admit young people who are not well prepared for college study. Pretty nearly anyone can get into some accredited four-year college. Hundreds of colleges have explicit open-enrollment policies. But if a college purports to be selective on ANY academic ground (I am especially referring to what courses a student has taken in high school, but one could just as well look at participation in academically oriented extracurricular activities), it might not find that its applicant pool, or its group of enrolled students, would be likely to have the same ethnic distribution as that of the overall United States population. The college would, on the other hand, be very likely to have some students from every which ethnic group, as long as those students come forward to apply, as has long been the case at many universities in the United States. </p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063462243-post1002.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063462243-post1002.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[fabrizio]

<p>

Um, my “mostly works” rule does work, since at least 18 out of 23 in that group were clearly Asian.

</p>

<p>Elite colleges supposedly look far more favorably on presidents of clubs than lower-ranked officers. If you’re going to insist that this discussion be restricted to applicants applying to elite colleges, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t dismiss the “overall” picture for AAPI major distribution and then say it’s OK to focus on the eighteen minor officers. Applying your rule results in up to four false positives out of the five big leadership roles.</p>

<p>

My point was that even if you don’t identify your ethnicity, and hide your name, for many students it will be pretty clear what ethnicity they are.

</p>

<p>First off, as tokenadult has repeatedly said, admissions officers are discouraged from inferring ethnic origin based on proxies.</p>

<p>Second off, if it were alleged that admissions officers did not do that and still attempted to deduce ethnic origin based on extracurriculars, do you really think Asian applicants wouldn’t adjust to that?</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

Second off, if it were alleged that admissions officers did not do that and still attempted to deduce ethnic origin based on extracurriculars, do you really think Asian applicants wouldn’t adjust to that?

When I see the number of students who don’t report ethnicity at some of the most selective schools, it may be that they already have.
I also feel that I have to point out that the University of Washington is not a high school.</p>

<p>But look, your whole theory is that schools are deliberately manipulating the number of Asians they admit in order to protect the brand, right? If that’s true, efforts to hide ethnicity won’t work, because it’s not hard to find it out if you want to. Are you going to do away with interviews? Your problem is that the only proof you have that the schools are doing what you think they are is the disparity of results itself. There’s really nothing else; indeed, the schools explicitly deny that they are doing what you think they are. I posit that this is why you have to react so strongly to any suggestion that there might be other explanations for the stats/admissions disparity–because the disparity itself is all you have to support your position.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

I haven’t checked that figure, but anyway that may not be the most relevant figure. What about the percentage of high school seniors who have taken classes that get them ready for genuinely college-level academic work?

That’s certainly so. I provided those numbers just for some context. I also think they show that the issues of affirmative action for URMs and the concern that there is “negative action” against Asians have some very different implications. This conversation has mixed them up a bit too much, in my opinion.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

But look, your whole theory is that schools are deliberately manipulating the number of Asians they admit in order to protect the brand, right? If that’s true, efforts to hide ethnicity won’t work, because it’s not hard to find it out if you want to. Are you going to do away with interviews? Your problem is that the only proof you have that the schools are doing what you think they are is the disparity of results itself. There’s really nothing else; indeed, the schools explicitly deny that they are doing what you think they are. I posit that this is why you have to react so strongly to any suggestion that there might be other explanations for the stats/admissions disparity–because the disparity itself is all you have to support your position.

</p>

<p>Interviews aren’t offered to just anyone who wants one; they take time, and time is money. Did you consider the possibility that a guy who hid his ethnicity may not have gotten an interview had he revealed it? I redirect you to the experiences of actor Kalpen Modi, who wanted to prove to his friends that in the twenty-first century, one didn’t need to anglicize one’s name in order to find success. His friends ended up proving him wrong; when Modi started going by Kal Penn, his audition callbacks rose by 50 percent.</p>

<p>As for “explicit den[ials],” you don’t really think Lowell ever admitted publicly to doing anything wrong, do you? I would imagine that at your age, you would have met your fair share of “those people” who resolutely refuse to admit responsibility even for things that they have been caught red-handed in.</p>

<p>There could be “alternative explanations.” But so far, the only ones I’ve read in the last twenty pages have been ranged from unconvincing (e.g. the myriad “I’ve seen it with my eyes, it has to be true!”) to the ridiculous (e.g. one user’s suggestion that East Asian parents encourage their children to pick “low hanging fruit”).</p>

<p>And, I’m curious as to how consistent you are. The “disparity of results” here doesn’t seem to convince you of anything. Fine. What was your position on Ricci v. DeStefano?</p>

[mokusatsu]

<p>

@fabrizio

First off, as tokenadult has repeatedly said, admissions officers are discouraged from inferring ethnic origin based on proxies.

Who discourages them?</p>

[Canuckguy]

<p>Hunt,</p>

<p>I can not help but notice the difference in standard (of proof) you demanded for Chinese female gymnasts last year and Asian applicants to elites right now. It is like day and night. Why the double standard?</p>

<p>For #1025, can you get Jewish numbers as well? I have a strong feeling a lot of the disagreements here would disappear if we have Jewish numbers for comparison.</p>