Do Elite Colleges Discriminate Against Asian Students?

[fabrizio]

<p>

It’s not that Espenshade’s research is flawed, but rather that the results allow for more than one interpretation.

</p>

<p>Unfortunately, it seems you may be in the minority when it comes to perceptions of Espenshade’s research among people supporting racial preferences. Several other users have dismissed Dr. Espenshade’s results or denigrated his reputation and qualifications. Some, for example, have argued that since the standards for publication are so “low” in social science, we should not put much weight into the paper. Others have asserted that Espenshade is a hack with an agenda.</p>

<p>I don’t know why I didn’t bring it up before, but the experiences of Sander are illuminating. In both cases, researchers presented findings that were controversial, to say the least. However, only Sander’s research has been the subject of numerous responses. [Sander’s</a> web page](<a href=“http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/]Sander’s”>http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/) suggests that there have been at least five responses to his original mismatch paper since 2005. By comparison, the only response to Espenshade and Chung (2005) contested merely its conclusion, not its methodology or findings.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>And one more thing about the Michigan numbers. Does Michigan have a preference for residents of Michigan? The population of Michigan is about 2% Asian, less than half of the national percentage. Asian students make up about 12% of the Michigan undergrads. This is just a clear example of how geographical distribution is likely to affect admissions results. Take a look at the Census Bureau site, and note how many states have above or below the national percentage of Asian citizens of 4.5%. This is going to affect what happens at schools that are trying to get national geographic diversity.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

Unfortunately, it seems you may be in the minority when it comes to perceptions of Espenshade’s research among people supporting racial preferences. Several other users have dismissed Dr. Espenshade’s results or denigrated his reputation and qualifications. Some, for example, have argued that since the standards for publication are so “low” in social science, we should not put much weight into the paper. Others have asserted that Espenshade is a hack with an agenda.

So? In that case, what’s your argument with me? I assume you’re not including me in the group of people supporting racial preferences for whites as opposed to Asians, because that’s not what I think at all. I support racial preferences for URMs–a different issue.</p>

[mokusatsu]

<p>

@fabrizio

Your point being?

The point is that your interpretation of Espenshade’s data is not Espenshade’s intepretation of his data.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

So? In that case, what’s your argument with me? I assume you’re not including me in the group of people supporting racial preferences for whites as opposed to Asians, because that’s not what I think at all. I support racial preferences for URMs–a different issue.

</p>

<p>In this particular case, we are in agreement; there is no argument here. I am expressing only my disappointment that more people do not share your viewpoint on this specific issue (i.e. there is nothing wrong with Espenshade’s research).</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

The point is that your interpretation of Espenshade’s data is not Espenshade’s intepretation of his data.

</p>

<p>I redirect you to two quotations from Espenshade that you omitted:</p>

<p>

Describing himself as a “staunch moderate” on such issues, he said he will be pleased if advocates with differing views find evidence they like in the study.</p>

<p>“My main objective here is to be a mouthpiece for the data,” he said. “My job is to let the data talk. What I may or may not feel about affirmative action doesn’t matter. What matters is how the Supreme Court feels about it and how the voters feel about it.”

</p>

[Keilexandra]

<p>

@epiphany

When the number of qualified applicants of any particular segment (including whites) vastly exceeds space, the institution, if it doesn’t want to become culturally homogeneous within one department, has to choose qualified applicants from many segments. Otherwise, the result will discourage those other segments from applying. And that in turn will make the U as a whole less economically viable and will also reduce their applicant pool of talent, which the U always seeks to make as wide as possible.

You are operating on the assumption that selecting “qualified applicants from many [cultural] segments” is reasonable and allowed. However, this simply reduces the “negative action” experienced by Asian applicants to a smaller pool (STEM majors) vs. the overall pool. As I’ve said repeatedly, there are many more distinctions of “qualified” than you are willing to recognize. </p>

<p>

@epiphany

The way to get absolutely every Asian qualified as a STEM major into a (related) department/college of a particular U is to have fewer qualified Asians applying there, and/or fewer qualified segments of other backgrounds applying.

Let’s say there are 10 applicants who indicate a prospective academic interest in biology. Of these applicants, 5 are Asian, 3 are white, 1 is African-American, and 1 is Hispanic/<a href=“mailto:Latin@”>Latin@</a>. However, when rated subjectively and holistically on qualification and achievement–assuming that factors like geographic residence are approximately equivalent–the ranking proceeds as follows:

1. white
2. Asian
3. Asian
4. Asian
5. white
6. Hispanic/Latin@
7. Asian
8. Asian
9. African-American
10. white
    All 10 applicants are “qualified.” However, the adcom only wants to take 5 prospective bio majors this year. They therefore select those students ranked 1-5. In different years, the mix of races will be different–this year it happens that only Asian and white students are among the top half, but another year there might be an outstanding AA student. Also notice that not every Asian was accepted–because it’s ludicrous to suggest that every Asian is most qualified for the elites.</p>

<p>

@fabrizio

I just want this to be absolutely clear: I’ve never argued in favor of the goal you are speaking of. That’s a goal that you and only you have referred to. I don’t support race-neutral admissions because I think it will “get everyone who is qualified to be accepted [to a particular elite university].” I support it because I believe race is not a relevant factor for participation in any aspect of university life and because evidence shows that race-neutral admissions benefits Asians. I add, however, that out of principle, I would support it even if it reduced Asian enrollment.

As usual, fabrizio has said (more eloquently) what I would have. I don’t particularly seek to get every qualified student into an elite school, nor do I consider that necessary to have a “fair” admissions process. To be “fair” means to not discriminate. It does not mean to not hurt people’s feelings.</p>

<p>

@ctyankee

So, Dartmouth subjectively rates and color codes things. It certainly is a process but is it effective? For discussion purposes, Candidate A and B have all the same terrific classes, grades and test scores. Neither candidate has a major hook that makes their application a “slam dunk.” Candidate A has terrific and diverse ECs and Candidate B works 25 hours per week as a janitor in a school, no other ECs but adds that he likes to read books that interest him. Who is Dartmouth going to select?

If I were a Dartmouth admissions officer, I would pick whichever candidate my “gut” told me to pick–perhaps based on a detail in a recommendation, or in an interview report, or in an essay. For those who haven’t read Hernandez’s book, I’ll summarize the admissions process that she describes: the various ratings are compiled into one single number. There is a high cutoff and a low cutoff; anyone meeting/exceeding the high cutoff is automatically granted admission, with just a cursory check by the dean, while anyone below the low cutoff is automatically denied with the same cursory check. This accounts for perhaps 40% of the applicant pool. For the others, subjective decisions must be made in committee–and from the examples that Hernandez gives, I gather that the “borderline” students usually have one “weakness” on their application. Thus, it comes down to details like balancing geographic representation, a student who really “speaks” to a particular adcom, and which weaknesses are most acceptable (i.e. whether the current SAT range meets/exceeds/falls short of historical trend).</p>

<p>I suspect that Dartmouth does not bother quantitatively ranking its applicants because it gets so darn many. Even TASP, with 1000 applicants in the initial round, only ranks the ~130 finalists. But I challenge some posters’ assertions that no distinctions can or should be made beyond “qualified.”</p>

<p>

@Hunt

It’s my hypothesis that potential STEM majors iin general, across races, are likely to have, on average, better stats than people looking at other majors.

I’m unsure how your hypothesis relates to my previous statement:

@Keilexandra

I’ve never disputed the general inclination of Asians toward STEM fields. But they should not be penalized for this bias unless the presumably lower admission rate for STEM-inclined Asian applicants is proportional to a higher level of achievement for STEM-inclined white and URM applicants.

I am comparing only potential STEM majors across all races. Any sort of “racial balancing” within STEM majors is still simply racial discrimination, not “interest” discrimination. Cf. my simplified example in response to epiphany, above.</p>

<p>I do thank you sincerely for the Michigan data summary. What I find interesting is that nearly 80% of URMs do not graduate with a STEM major. Shouldn’t this group also be penalized for disproportionately concentrating within the humanities and social sciences, if you wish to advocate racial balance within academic fields? (Which you may not, since I try my best not to put words in other people’s mouths; but from your previous statements overall, I have drawn the conclusion that you do support racial balance by means of discrimination–fabrizio’s “second problem” of differing fundamental philosophies.)</p>

[Hunt]

<p>My hypothesis does relate to your statement, I think. My point is that if the white students with the highest stats are going for STEM majors, then that’s who many of the Asian applicants are competing with, and not the lower-stat whites who want to major in other areas. I suspect that this disparity, if it exists, might be more apparent at someplace like Michigan, which has majors like Communications, than it would be at Harvard, where I would expect pretty much all of the accepted students to have high stats, whatever major they are interested in. Again, I have no proof of this; it’s just my impression that the very highest stats students tend to be STEM majors–others may have different impressions.</p>

<p>You raise a provocative question about how far colleges do or should go in achieving diversity (not balance–that’s a naughty word) by admitting URMs. Should they look for diversity in each major, or only in the college as a whole? </p>

<p>As for what I actually favor, I’ll be honest: I think URMs should receive special treatment because I think it’s necessary to overcome the effects of past discrimination. I think that’s probably the real reason most colleges do it, despite what the Supreme Court makes them say. I look at it as a kind of tax that I’m willing to pay, within reason. Reasonable minds can disagree on whether it really does any good, but I think it does, based on my experience.
I don’t particularly care about balance. I don’t think Yale and Harvard have too many Jews, for example. There are probably some schools I wouldn’t want to attend because of their overwhelming domination by certain groups: BYU, for example, is too homogenous for my taste, since I’m not a Mormon. I don’t think that’s the same as caring about balance. I guess I do think that diversity is a reasonable goal as well, and all students benefit from being exposed to students from a lot of different backgrounds. So, from that point of view, I think a college with only 1% African Americans has a diversity problem, but that problem wouldn’t exist for a school with 30% Asians.</p>

[Bay]

<p>

…fabrizio’s “second problem” of differing fundamental philosophies.

</p>

<p>I find it rather bizarre and therefore frustrating that some of you hold Epenshade’s limited and inconclusive study as the premier damning evidence of Asian discrimination on the one hand, and on the other hand nonchalantly characterize prevailing U.S. Supreme Court case law as simply a “second problem of differing fundamental philosophy.”</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

I find it rather bizarre and therefore frustrating that some of you hold Epenshade’s limited and inconclusive study as the premier damning evidence of Asian discrimination on the one hand, and on the other hand nonchalantly characterize prevailing U.S. Supreme Court case law as simply a “second problem of differing fundamental philosophy.”

</p>

<p>The prevailing case law does not strongly endorse Justice Blackmun’s position. Based on his opinion in Bakke, I don’t believe that Justice Powell agreed with his colleague:</p>

<p>The guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color. If both are not accorded the same protection, then it is not equal.
…
It is far too late to argue that the guarantee of equal protection to all persons permits the recognition of special wards entitled to a degree of protection greater than that accorded others.
…
Moreover, there are serious problems of justice connected with the idea of preference itself.</p>

<p>Right now, you’ve got three Justices who agree with the Chief Justice’s point of view. (Including the Chief Justice, this makes four.) You’ve also got the other four Justices, who all subscribe to Justice Blackmun’s view, though Justice Stevens originally did not back in 1978. (Evidence perhaps that these discussions are not futile!)</p>

<p>Finally, there’s Justice Kennedy. Like his predecessor Justice Powell, Justice Kennedy is not a big fan of racial preferences, but he thinks they can be constitutional if properly implemented. Thus, whether he agrees with the Chief Justice’s perspective is debatable.</p>

<p>Nothing’s changed since 1978 with respect to the composition of the Court on affirmative action!</p>

[Keilexandra]

<p>Hunt - I was referring to a comparison of achievement among prospective STEM majors only. I.e. what if one year “too many” Asian bio majors are super-strong? What if all of the black bio majors are “qualified” but not competitively qualified? I don’t know if this kind of data exists, though. Your impression of STEM majors having overall higher stats doesn’t match mine–I see “lopsidedness” for both STEM and non-STEM prospies–but that doesn’t matter much, being simply an impression on both sides.</p>

<p>I agree that most colleges practice affirmative action for the “illegal” reason of historical reparations. However, I disagree that this is a fair method of distributing said reparations. To continue with your tax analogy, I’m willing to pay taxes within reason to help alleviate poverty–as, indeed, taxes already do–but I see affirmative action as a “loophole” taken advantage of by people who don’t need the help. And I would prefer my money–my sacrifice–go toward a truly worthy cause: I wholeheartedly support socioeconomic affirmative action, which would “hurt” me if it were ever implemented.</p>

<p>Bay - Prevailing U.S. Supreme Court case law has historically been decided by one Justice’s vote. Nor, in history, has Supreme Court precedent proved infallible (though I’ll leave it to someone else to pull out specific examples that are hazy in my mind). fabrizio cited two different Justices’ opinions, each representing a different fundamental philosophy; there is a reason, after all, that Justices may file dissenting opinions.</p>

[sinflower]

<p>i think they do… but i don’t think that will change until there are either more asian americans in the u.s. or the community gets more much proactive about fighting discrimination, because that’s just the reality. a small and powerless group can’t change something big like this. we have to just suck it up and deal :)</p>

[Bay]

<p>

Prevailing U.S. Supreme Court case law has historically been decided by one Justice’s vote

</p>

<p>Actually, it is always decided by a majority of the Court, which is normally at least 5 votes.</p>

<p>While it is possible for the Court to overturn its previous decisions, it is very unusual for them to do so, and in those cases fresh facts or new information must be presented that provide them with a compelling reason to reverse themselves.</p>

<p>I don’t recall anyone here proposing a new and compelling reason for the Court to reverse itself. I only recall reading that some of you disagree with the decision, and hope that the minority somehow prevails, the next time around.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

I don’t recall anyone here proposing a new and compelling reason for the Court to reverse itself.

</p>

<p>There’s no need for a “new and compelling reason.” The existing reasons covered in the dissenting opinions are compelling enough.</p>

[Keilexandra]

<p>^ A 5-4 majority is generally considered a split decision, being as it hinges on the vote of one (usually moderate or “swing”) justice. Come now, I know you know basic politics.</p>

<p>A compelling (albeit not new) reason to reverse itself? Well, we might start with the 25-year time limit originally set on approval of affirmative action.</p>

[Canuckguy]

<p>

You think criticism of the Chinese government reveals an anti-Asian bias? 

Nope. It is the fact that you found the gymnasts (Chinese) guilty before the investigation began, yet cut the elite adcoms (white establishment) enough slack to feed the US army that is the issue. It is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. We are what we are.

i think they do... but i don't think that will change until there are either more asian americans in the u.s. or the community gets more much proactive about fighting discrimination, because that's just the reality. 

</p>

<p>I think “strategic” complaining/suing (the Jian Li gambit) is a worthy tactic for now, but must not be over-used (think Catholic Church and the power of excommunication). The elites are protective of their image, here and abroad. I am sure they do not enjoy having their reputation drag through the world’s media.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

I see affirmative action as a “loophole” taken advantage of by people who don’t need the help. And I would prefer my money–my sacrifice–go toward a truly worthy cause: I wholeheartedly support socioeconomic affirmative action, which would “hurt” me if it were ever implemented.

I think that is a valid concern. I myself question counting (for example) children of recent African immigrants as URMs. But it’s not just about helping people who have been disadvantaged because of poverty; it’s also about dealing with the long-term effects of racism. It’s not just about the individuals needing help getting into college; it’s thinking that having more of those URMs in college is beneficial to society at large. I think it’s quite natural that Asian students–who really aren’t part of the history of institutional racism against African-Americans–would be particularly resentful of this kind of “tax.”</p>

<p>

Nope. It is the fact that you found the gymnasts (Chinese) guilty before the investigation began, yet cut the elite adcoms (white establishment) enough slack to feed the US army that is the issue. It is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. We are what we are.

Since I never did what you accuse me of, your last statement is quite true.</p>

[Bay]

<p>

A compelling (albeit not new) reason to reverse itself? Well, we might start with the 25-year time limit originally set on approval of affirmative action.

</p>

<p>That one might work if you are willing to wait until 2028 for a reversal.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>That 25-year time limit is the most blatant evidence that the Supreme Court knows full well that affirmative action is intended to deal with past racism, and not just to create “diversity.” If the purpose is really just diversity, what’s the point of a 25-year time limit? Is there a time limit on geographical diversity too?</p>

[Bay]

<p>Hunt,
There really is no 25-year “time-limit.” Rather, it was a statement of expectation by Justice O’Connor:</p>

<p>

It has been 25 years since Justice Powell first approved the use of race to further an interest in student body diversity in the context of public higher education. Since that time, the number of minority applicants with high grades and test scores has indeed increased. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 43. We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.

</p>