<p>As I said earlier, the best school that offered a breakdown of degrees conferred by racial classification was the University of Michigan. If you find a “better” school that offers a similar breakdown, by all means, tell us.</p>
<p>In 2003, only five Asian Americans earned a bachelor’s degree in Chemistry. By comparison, twenty-six whites earned a bachelor’s degree in Chemistry. Thirty Asian Americans earned a bachelor’s in biology, but that pales in comparison to the 100 degrees earned by whites. Physics was surprisingly unpopular among Asians; only one degree was conferred, eleven less than the figure for whites. Math was similarly unpopular; five compared to thirty-one. With the possible exception of biology, I don’t really see any “preponderance of Asian faces” in the science components.</p>
<p>Of course, I can already anticipate your retort. Michigan isn’t representative, &c. But, hey, I have official data, whereas you only have your observations, which may or may not be overstated in their reliability.</p>
<p>For the k-th time, no one is denying that the number of qualified applicants exceeds the available capacity at a given school.</p>
<p>An elite university can never be “100% Asian” or “100% white.” That is a terrible, terrible, terrible straw man. Even Espenshade’s highly oversimplified model did not predict classes of “100%” anything.</p>
<p>Though you posed it rhetorically, your question of “What’s ‘fair’?” actually has an answer. According to the Espenshade presentation in the opening post, under race-neutral admissions, Asian enrollment increases to about 35%. That’s the situation when there’s neither “affirmative” action nor “negative action,” thus “fair.”</p>
<p>Are you suggesting that a class that is 35% Asian is “extreme[ly] unbalance[d]”?</p>
<p>I can’t answer that, because there are too many complex factors to consider. Again, there are social considerations when it comes to the college environment. By contrast, for example, many Asians and many whites do not want to attend UC Berkeley because it’s far too homogeneous for their preferences. They want much more in the social atmosphere than the distributions they can plainly see on campus. </p>
<p>Places like Princeton (and many other elite U’s and elite LAC’s) have a residential college system that is one of the core features of student satisfaction. Each residential college is structured so that there is a wide distribution of academic majors, outside interests, geographical representation, and ethnicities. It depends on who else applies to the U, whatever variety exists in the combined academic profiles of all the capable students, that partly determines (not entirely, partly) the resulting percentages of any one ethnic group. And that is one of the reasons that the percentages vary from year to year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But it could be theoretically a possibility in a completely race-neutral admissions policy; that’s entirely the point – when the pool of the highly qualified of just two broad “racial” groups exceeds by multiple factors the number of available spots.</p>
<p>Also, the E&C “study,” for the nth time, assumed (inaccurately) that a score = a particular qualification level, when a score does no such thing. The entire premise of the E&C study is false, which is why the conclusions are nonsensical. A score range is a broad indication of an initial level or phase of qualification, after which further qualifying determinations are made, directly affecting the evaluation of that student as a scholar. There’s no predictability to a representation increasing, because scores are not rank-ordered in importance over other qualifying factors. (Refer to the CDS’ for confirmation.)</p>
but the tricky part is there is no absolute definition of fair.</p>
<p>One version of “fair” admission would be that the applicants information is in numbered vanilla folders with no clue about race, sex, economic background, home location, etc … just the raw academic info, transcripts, recommendations, etc … this was the system I argued for many a night in the hallway of my dorm 30 years ago … it certainly seemed the most fair to me. At the elite schools, with tons more qualified applicants than spots, what would be the outcome? The class, compared to current, would likely by more Asian … it also would be slightly more white, more female, more rich (less economic diversity), more local (less geographic diversity), etc … the folders picked ignoiring all these traits would tend to appear in the proportion of the applicants who are highly qualified. 30 years later I can see other systems which are as “fair” (IMO) while having other components that are superior my original thoughts 30 years ago … picking among qualified candidates picking essetially randomly is not any better (and I would claim less efficient) than using some criteria to break the ties among the qualified students. And I think many applicants agree … my oldest specifically sought out a school with geographic, economic, and yes ethnic diversity.</p>
<p>Is it a possibility? Sure. But, possible is not the same thing as probable. Espenshade’s research does not lead to such a conclusion, and the experiences of elite public universities in California and Michigan do not, either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If it’s so obviously poor, why hasn’t any social science researcher pointed this out?</p>
<p>Employing Occam’s Razor, which is more likely? Every social science researcher in our country is an idiot? Or Espenshade’s research is nowhere near as bad as you make it seem?</p>
Your fallacy is that “highly qualified” is not the most granular level of distinction made by elites. I again refer to the Telluride Association’s practice of quantitatively ranking holistic admits (in a process arguably more holistic than university admissions), as well as the elites’ practice of sending likely letters to the “top” admits. This pool of likelies includes more than just athletic recruits and URMs, btw.</p>
<p>This evidence, combined with Michele Hernandez’s detailed description of Dartmouth’s admissions process (involving subjective ratings and color-coding for "special consideration), suggests that the elites do indeed distinguish among all of the “highly qualified” admits. The very existence of a waitlist further supports having “borderline” admits and by extension “slam-dunk” admits, and similar gradations in between. There is not an overabundance of “equally qualified” applicants because for the most part, the applicants are not equally qualified. There is certainly an overabundance of “qualified” applicants, but many distinctions of “qualified” can be and are made.</p>
<p>And of course some URMs are amazingly accomplished in their own right–those are the ones who would be admitted even under race-neutral consideration. They are the obvious obstacles to an “all-Asian” elite university as some posters seem to so fear. A race-neutral admissions policy does not propose to randomly lottery among all “qualified” (or “highly qualified,” if you prefer) applicants; there will always be a human being deciding that applicant A is MORE highly qualified than applicant B. In these borderline decisions, perhaps a different admissions dean would have picked differently; but regardless, the process is not random.</p>
<p>Also, before you start throwing “scores” emphasis around again, I am defining “qualified” and variants thereof as a fully holistic process minus legally protected attributes.</p>
<p>Hunt - Thank you for the number-crunching. I took a stab at adding up the URM numbers but got stymied by classifications (is “Biopsychology & Cognitive” a science or a social science?). If you have time, I’d love to see those numbers according to the classifications you used for white/Asian; I have my own pet hypothesis regarding how they might turn out.</p>
<p>K,
I’ve read Hernandez thoroughly. I’ve read extensively about college admissions over the last 10 years from a number of authors, and I keep very current. The highly qualified are not limited to those receiving likely letters. For example, many of the highly qualified are cross admits to several and even all Ivies, and yet many of those (if not most) do not receive likely letters. When you look at rejections, it is very clear that rejections for both whites and Asians are often “arbitrary” – i.e., not based on qualification factors (including all the holistic aspects of qualifications which you do acknowledge) but rather on other balance factors and on sheer numbers and sometimes just “gut-level” responses. It is unreal and unrealistic to assume that race-neutral admissions would not result in rejections of extremely qualified, and yes equally qualified applicants as those admitted – by at minimum the hundreds, and possibly the thousands – and that those thus rejected would not include one heck of a lot of Asians (as well as whites). </p>
<p>There is absolutely no grounds for assuming a particular percentage increase of Asian admits to Elite U’s if all admissions were entirely “race-neutral” (and if candidates were assigned numbers, not names, and if somehow — not possible, really – but if it were possible – all references to ethnicity were deleted in the applications, meaning that in many cases e.c.'s would be left off entirely).</p>
<p>E&C’s study did not, btw, make the assumptions you do – that qualifications are based on many things, with scores not being prioritized or weighted in the final analysis. But whether it’s their or your reasoning, it still doesn’t compute with the reality of how the process of examining candidates and achieving balance within residential colleges, campus e.c.'s, geography, academics, and social groups actually proceeds.</p>
<p>Yet another straw man argument. No one here has denied that race-neutral admissions will not result in rejections of highly qualified candidates by the hundreds or even thousands. The argument is that race-neutral admissions will increase Asian enrollment, though “100% Asian” campuses is so improbable as to be effectively impossible.</p>
<p>Grounds were presented in the opening post of this thread! Under race-neutral admissions, only Asians post enrollment gains. Espenshade specifically found a 15.1 percentage point increase. Moreover, I’m sure you’re well aware that after Proposition 209 passed in California, Asian enrollment increased at the flagship UC campuses.</p>
<p>The only thing that has no grounds whatsoever is the “100% Asian” campus fear. It’s important to understand just why that is so unlikely as to be de facto impossible. Espenshade’s model, as I mentioned, is highly oversimplified. It essentially uses a “numbers only” admissions scheme, which we all know is not used by any selective university, and which most presume would greatly benefit Asian applicants.</p>
<p>That last part is the key. Espenshade found no evidence of a “100% Asian” campus resulting even if admissions were “numbers only.”</p>
<p>Let us put this “100% Asian” yellow peril threat to rest, where it belongs.</p>
<p>When I did I say that the “highly qualified” are limited to those receiving “likely letters”? Rather, I cited likely letters as evidence of more granular distinctions among admitted applicants than simply tiebreakers among the highly qualified. Many “balance” factors are part of being “highly qualified” (being from Wyoming, for instance, or a prospective linguistics major at MIT); “gut-level” responses are addressed in Duke’s “personal qualities” rating and in my acknowledgment that borderline decisions might be different depending on who the admissions dean is that year; I have no idea what “sheer numbers” is meant to imply.</p>
<p>Again, I assert that the number of equally qualified applicants is far smaller than you believe. The only ones who are “equally” qualified are the borderline decisions–i.e. the split committee votes–where different adcoms disagree about whether to admit or waitlist. I do agree that any type of admissions policy would result in numerous “rejections of extremely qualified” applicants.</p>
<p>In basic race-neutral admissions, applicants are free to mention or not mention possible ethnicity “tells” in their application. I would recommend anonymizing names to counteract bias, especially in the beginning. Furthermore, please see the previous discussion of “ethnic” ECs with very involved participants of a different ethnicity.</p>
<p>I’m noting for the record that this thread is now more than 1,000 posts long (I display a different number of posts per page than most users, so I have no idea how many pages long it is to most of you), and usually when a thread gets to be that long, readers begin to complain that it is too long. In other words, this thread will probably be closed soon.</p>
<p>On that, yes, we agree. Just understand that it is also inevitable that such rejections do include extremely-qualified applicants of more than one racial/ethnic group. </p>
<p>The “unfairness” is that there is not room for all such candidates, whatever their individual ethnicities. And that unfairness is spread around rather liberally. Not a grand conspiracy, as intriguing as that may be.</p>
<p>I have to correct myself: the argument addressed above is not a straw man but rather a red herring. It presents a point that is relevant to the discussion but diverts from the issue as opposed to actually addressing it.</p>
<p>Nobody is asserting that race-neutral admissions will cause Asians to obtain 100% acceptance rates to all elite institutions they apply. Rather, the argument is that race-neutral admissions will benefit Asians. That is borne out by Espenshade’s research, where he found that race-neutral admissions results in a 15.1 percentage point increase in Asian enrollment.</p>
<p>Though they may claim otherwise, those who assert that race-neutral admissions results in “extreme unbalance” necessarily believe that a 35% Asian campus has “too many” Asians.</p>
Well, duh. Even some “highly qualified” URMs are rejected; it’s hardly a guarantee of admission.</p>
<p>But I don’t think the “unfairness” here is in the high number of undeserved rejections (from the viewpoint that very few people deserve to be accepted OR rejected). </p>
<p>Do I believe there’s a grand conspiracy against Asian applicants? Uh, no. Do I believe there is racial discrimination occurring against Asian applicants, probably unconscious or institutionalized? For the present moment, unless I see evidence that convinces me otherwise, yes.</p>
<p>Are you serious? Berkeley is probably THE most diverse top school there is. It has a comparable Hispanic population to many of the other top colleges, and Asians are hardly a monolithic group. Berkely also has the largest share of Pell Grant recipients next to UCLA. Most people come from in-state, but California is a pretty diverse state unto itself. Oh wait, when Whites are no longer the majority, a school can’t be considered diverse anymore. It’s fair to call out Berkeley for its undiverseness, but not Bard College. Right.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Kenyon and Davidson are definitely not full of elite applicants at all.</p>
<p>Yes, I’m serious. I know the way most undergrad students define diverse when they care very much about the breadth of that. FYI, they do not consider Berkeley diverse, even if you do. They consider, however, Harvard, Columbia, Princeton diverse on the undergrad level. Berkeley’s grad dept’s are another kettle of fish. Tremendous diversity there. But you will not find at UC Berkeley lots of students in the freshman class from 47+ States + a number of internat’l students.</p>
<p>“Qualified” applicants are rejected from every race, but don’t you think there is the possibility that there could be a significant different of proportion in the amount that are rejected?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is geographic diversity the only way to measure diversity? Perhaps Berkeley is failing on that part, but I don’t see how this is relevant on a thread about Asians.</p>
<p>You claimed Berkeley had a lack of diversity, yet not any of these colleges. Other than supposed geographic diversity, I don’t see why these colleges are not equally culpable. Or maybe I do.</p>
<p>Snide condescending remarks are equally great too!</p>
<p>I believe chaosakita is citing colleges (Kenyon, Davidson, Bard) generally considered highly selective, elite LACs, that are filled with “white preppy” students. Although I wouldn’t categorize Bard as elite, Kenyon and Davidson are certainly very selective “sought-after” LACs.</p>