<p>
</p>
<p>Here, let me help you with a little math … no calculator handy, but 47 / 38.8 would be – oh, about an index of 121. So yes, that would indeed suggest exactly what was being said.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, if two percent of Asian males graduate with degrees in STEM fields but only one percent of white males graduate in the same area, Asian males disproportionately identify STEM majors because the index is 200?</p>
<p>In post 1096, Hunt himself denied that the two figures demonstrated any disproportionate identification of STEM majors. Perhaps you should have read that and thought of a few counterexamples before you decided to “help” me with mathematics.</p>
<p>Edit</p>
<p>Even if you want to go there, don’t forget that 38.8% is not a small percentage by any means.</p>
<p>Actually, what I meant in 1096 is that two-fifths (the number of whites in STEM majors) is not a small fraction. That’s true. But come on, fabrizio–the point I’ve been making is that if Asians concentrate MORE on a limited number of majors than whites do, that can be expected to impact on their admissions outcomes, because they’re not competing for all of the available slots. The Michigan data support that hypothesis. This can explain at least part of the disparity between Asian stats and Asian admissions. I’m not sure exactly what part of that point you’re resisting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not denying that “half” is greater than “two-fifths.” Of course it is!</p>
<p>My main problem with post #1121 was its suggestion that “two-fifths” was a small fraction, that it doesn’t also show that lots of white males like STEM majors, too. I see now that your recent post clarifies and acknowledges that “two-fifths” is not a small fraction.</p>
<p>You’re right to say that the Michigan data shows that lots (47%) of Asian males graduate in STEM fields. But, most (53%) don’t. Moreover, they show that lots (38.8%) of white males graduate in STEM fields, as well. And again, most (61.2%) don’t.</p>
<p>My dislike of the validity of “wide-spread observation[s]” is based on a simple question. How come most of the parents here don’t seem to have met many of these Asians who are not studying in STEM fields? Whether it’s the overall AAPI data from the College Board or specific data from the University of Michigan, we see that most don’t pick STEM fields. How many of these have you met, and if you haven’t met many, why is that so?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>D1 had two Asian suitemates Freshman year, both of whom described themselves as intended science majors. Current Freshman D2 has two Asian suitemates, both of whom describe themselves as intended science majors. I know of one Asian male from our high school who started at an Ivy with the stated intention to major in the sciences. As a Junior, he is now an Art History major.</p>
<p>From anecdotal knowledge only, it seems that many students go off to college intending to ultimately go to med school, but change their minds, presumably because of the difficulty of the courses and competition they encounter in undergrad, or because they realize they are not interested in the med field after all, or they realize that it makes more sense to get a high GPA in Econ or another less rigorous major while taking the required science courses for med school.</p>
<p>I would not be surprised if a number of Michigan’s econ majors started out as science majors. It would be interesting to see data on this.</p>
<p>47% is (only) a 20% increase from 38.8%. but Asians currently only make up 10-15% of the spots at most top universities. Is that significant enough to explain the perceived bias?</p>
<p>And what majors should be more Asians taking? Greek and Interdisciplinary studies?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just to confirm, are you saying this applies only or mostly to Asian students? Or are you saying that it applies to all students?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Come off it, don’t be dense. An index needs to be taken into account based off the base size. A 121 index off a 39% base is meaningful. A 200 index off a 1% base isn’t. This is sort of Data Analysis 101.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Asians, like anyone else, “should” be taking whatever majors personally interest them, of course. (Is there something wrong with Greek as a major?)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It applies to all students.</p>
<p>But to look only at which majors students end up graduating with, doesn’t really tell us much about how an applicant presented himself to adcoms during the application process. For instance, D2’s suitemates shared among themselves by email, detailed descriptions of themselves and their accomplishments prior to meeting in the Fall. The Asian girls listed extensive and impressive science-related accomplishments, and stated outright their intentions to major in science-related fields. They both may end up as Econ or English majors in the end, who knows?</p>
<p>This phenomenon may apply across the board to all races, but we don’t know that. It is possible that more Asian students start out thinking they will be science majors due to family or cultural pressures, but change their minds once they are in an environment that validates more possibilities for them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you’re saying that 39% does not suggest that lots of white males major in STEM fields?</p>
<p>That’s my point. Yes, 47% is greater than 38.8%. No, that doesn’t suggest anything “disproportionate” because 38.8% is also a fairly large percentage.</p>
<p>To answer the question Bay brings up, we’d need data that details major changes by racial classifications. As important as some hold racial classification to be, I don’t think colleges actually keep this specific data.</p>
<p>Edit</p>
<p>On second thought, you might be able to get around this by comparing incoming major breakdowns with graduating major breakdowns, though of course, such a method does have its problems.</p>
<p>Hunt - I can’t speak for any other Asian students, but any resentment on my part wrt the “tax” if it is meant to deal with “the long-term effects of racism” is because institutional racism affects every racial minority–including Asians. Despite racism, Asian students have managed to succeed academically, due to any number of factors irrelevant here; what is important is that they succeeded, and yet they are being “taxed” for being more successful resisters against racism. Asian students are not only “[not] part of the history of institutional racism against African-Americans” but were suffering from the same kinds of racism. Why should “reparations” be different just because the final result was different? Should the federal government have withheld reparations to Japanese-Americans affected by WWII who managed to rebuild on their own, in favor of giving increased reparations to those who did not manage it? The suffering meant to be compensated for is identical (in principle, obviously not in practice, for either racism or Japanese internment).</p>
<p>Random anecdote: on a recent visit to Carleton, I met three Asian male prospies who planned to major in English. (None of them indicated to me an additional interest in being pre-med, although it’s possible that they simply didn’t mention it.)</p>
<p>I find it odd for someone to rely on numbers from Espenshade’s study, but to talk about “lots” of students when the numbers suggest something else. </p>
<p>
Well, remember that Asians make up about 5% of the population, so the bias we’re talking about assumes a disparity between Asians’ stats and their admission results, not that they are underrepresented in general.
It’s hard to say if the STEM disparity at Michigan is enough to explain the disparity in Espenshade, because we don’t know what the 10 schools in Espenshade were, and we don’t know if things have changed in 12 years. As I think I’ve said enough times already, it may be that selective schools are deliberately (or perhaps unconsciously) limiting the number of Asian admittees to prevent there being too many Asians. But there are a couple of factors that may also be affecting their admission outcomes. First, as I think the Michigan numbers show, choice of major could be a factor. Second, desire for geographical diversity could be a factor. Third, concentration of ECs could be a factor. Finally, as Espenshade recognizes, there could be a discrepancy between white and Asian applicants in some “soft” factors, such as recommendations or essays. The Duke “mismatch” study cuts against that last possibility, but it’s not definitive, since it applies only to one school, and we don’t really know what “personal factors” were at Duke.</p>
<p>Finally, to Keil (I think it’s odd we’re having two separate discussions in this thread, but I guess they are related)-while there certainly has been discrimination against Asians in this country, it really pales in comparison to what was inflicted on African-Americans for two centuries. The internment of Japanese-Americans was a crime, but it certainly didn’t have the same effect on all Asians as the legacy of slavery and segregation had on all African-Americans. I think the idea that Asians-Americans have managed to overcome the same kind of racism while African-Americans have failed to do so minimizes the differences between what the two groups have suffered over the long term.</p>
<p>
And if we were going by world population, Asians would be underrepresented.</p>
<p>Why are we necessarily going by national population standards? Especially with emphasis on diversity as in worldly cultures, it would seem logical to make the shift to maintaining a population distribution relative to the world, not the US.</p>
<p>
Why is it relevant that either group historically suffered at all? Are we to take more pity upon an applicant whose family was disadvantaged by slavery and segregation (and many African-American families are not anymore) than an applicant whose family was disadvantaged by his grandfather who gambled his way to bankruptcy?</p>
<p>
I agree with you here. But even if the Asian major supposition were true, it still remains unanswered why this would translate to a -70 per section SAT drop when many schools do not consider major during admissions decisions and some even do not have applicants declare majors until sophomore year of college?</p>
<p>
I think this is a misunderstanding. Again, the point is not just to help the person who has been disadvantaged. The point is to benefit society as a whole by helping the disadvantaged group. It’s not about reparations, but about social engineering. You still don’t have to like it, of course.</p>
<p>
A couple of responses to this. We don’t know whether the ten schools in Espenshade’s study considered majors or not. But you have to think that the most selective schools look for a mix of “science” and “humanities” people, and they probably drill down even more than that. You’d have to know a lot more to know what effect that would have on admissions results, of course, which has been my point all along. It’s really easy to just assume that the disparities in Espenshade’s results stem from racial discrimination, but there’s just not enough there to prove it. There’s enough to warrant further study.</p>
<p>“Especially with emphasis on diversity as in worldly cultures, it would seem logical to make the shift to maintaining a population distribution relative to the world, not the US.”
Why? We are talking about admissions to top US colleges, which are supported in very great part by US taxpayers [ through their non profit tax status].The colleges in question could not possibly justify to US taxpayers or their alumni basing undergraduate admissions decisions on WORLDWIDE racial makeup. Get real.</p>
<p>
And that is where we differ. I subscribe to the common anti-racism principle that suffering is not comparative; e.g. gender discrimination is not greater or lesser than racial discrimination. Applying this to different minorities under “racial discrimination,” if one assumes the legality of a “reparations tax,” I believe it is fundamentally wrong to tax/rebate different minority groups differently, because that implies that one group has “suffered” more than another group. For example, Hispanics/Latin@s did not suffer the same legacy of slavery as African-Americans; as you said yourself, neither did recent African immigrants. Yet both groups are “underrepresented” and therefore belong to the rebate category, while Asians are “overrepresented” and belong to the tax category.</p>
<p>I, of course, do not believe in historical reparations to begin with. Social engineering too often hurts too many individuals for me to stomach. But even sidestepping that, there are serious issues with the implementation.</p>
<p>“Are we to take more pity upon an applicant whose family was disadvantaged by slavery and segregation (and many African-American families are not anymore) than an applicant whose family was disadvantaged by his grandfather who gambled his way to bankruptcy?” Yes, because the grandfather had a choice whether to gamble or not, but the black slaves who were dragged from their homeland in Africa, forced to work for no wages and live in poverty for the rest of their lives by thousands of biggoted white landowners of this county are a different kettle of fish. Despite winning their “freedom” in the mid-1800’s, most blacks, especially those in the south, were not allowed to receive any more than a rudimentary education, if that, they were not allowed to vote, they were not allowed to own property. For generations black citizens were second class citizens in this country. Asians who are in this country, regardless of whether they are recent immigrants or whose grandparents came to this county years ago, came to the US by CHOICE. Even the Chinese conscripts who worked on the railroads in the 1800’s were paid for the work they preformed, which is why they came[ they could make more money working here than in China], and when the railroads were completed they had a choice to stay or return home. The same can not be said about the ancestors of today’s black US citizens.</p>