Do Elite Colleges Discriminate Against Asian Students?

Applying to College
1181

<p>No, no, no. I wasn’t saying “where’s your evidence [that Espenshade’s research is as bad as you make it seem].” I was saying, “where’s your evidence” that *[r]equiring competitive admission on both objective and holistic measures for URM’s will decrease their enrollment and *slightly increase enrollment both for Asians and for whites.</p>

<p>As for siserune’s posts, I’ve no doubt that he has had significantly more advanced statistics training than I have had. In fact, his posts have firmly convinced me of the need to spend a lot of time studying statistics in the future. His posts also, however, mostly leave me unconvinced, as some have contained very slipshod mathematical reasoning while others have shown total disregard for the meaning of statistical significance. Edit Perhaps the death knell was his insinuation that IMO data show that Asian parents are more likely than other parents to encourage their children to pick “low hanging fruit,” an offensive suggestion that he has yet to rescind.</p>

1182

<p>

</p>

<p>I understand that some people here have a very unfavorable view of the SAT. Since some of these people and others also believe that anecdotal evidence is persuasive, I’ll give my own: my critical reading SAT score was 190 points higher than one of my previous roommate’s. And, it showed; his reading comprehension and critical thinking abilities were comically poor.</p>

<p>There may not be a real difference between a 750 and an 800, but a 630 and a 800 is not the same.</p>

1183

<p>

I’ll take a shot at this, although it wasn’t directed to me. I think most sensible people would recognize that selective schools are giving a substantial boost to URMs despite lower stats. The question is: what would happen if those schools stopped doing that? It seems to me that there are several possibilities, and they depend on some facts we don’t have and some predictions that aren’t so easy:

  1. If colleges went to entirely race-neutral emissions, then the results Espenshade describes might happen–but he based it only on stats, so we can’t be sure. That’s what we’ve been talking about for a good part of 79 pages.
  2. If colleges are already really race-neutral between whites and Asian (and the Asian stats-admission discrepancy is caused by something else), then you would expect the slots lost by URMs to be distributed among whites and Asians along the distribution of the slots they are already getting.
  3. If only URM admissions preferences are dropped, and colleges are in fact limiting the number of Asians and continue to do so, they will either (a) keep the number of Asians static while increasing the number of whites or (b) maintain the same ratio of whites to Asians.</p>
1184

<p>

</p>

<p>It is fact that Espenshade’s model does not include “soft” variables. It has been speculated by many that Asians are lacking in these “soft” variables. If that is true, for your first scenario, would you agree with me that the 39% (23.9+15.1) predicted Asian enrollment under a race-neutral admissions scheme can be thought of as a “maximum” value? And if you agree with me, do you think 39% indicates “severe unbalance”?</p>

<p>Edit</p>

<p>Once again, this isn’t evidence. Rather, it’s listing the possible outcomes.</p>

1185

<p>

Well, maybe, for those 10 schools, and assuming nothing else has changed in 12 years.

What, you mean between whites and Asians? And do you mean for me, personally? For me, I see no problem with a selective college having 39% Asians. I don’t know, though, what others might think and what colleges might think. I’m not sure what you’re getting at, exactly, but I continue to think that there is a big difference between the virtual disappearance from a college of URMs and a large number of Asians. Is that what you’re referring to?

Of course. They demonstrate where there are data gaps in the evidence.</p>

1186

<p>Re 1185</p>

<p>The way I see it, the 39% figure is the predicted value under a model that supposes, more-or-less, “numbers only” admissions. That is, 39% is a “maximum” value; it’s what would happen if admissions were structured to Asians’ “greatest advantage.”</p>

<p>Some users write of the “severe unbalance” that they feel would result if admissions were race-neutral. I’m simply pointing out that if they believe race-neutral admissions will produce such an outcome, they must necessarily feel that 39% is too much. But obviously you are not one of these people if you say that you have no problems with student bodies’ being 39% Asian.</p>

<p>Espenshade’s model predicts 6.5% “underrepresented” minority enrollment under race-neutral admissions. Again, that can be thought of as a “minimum” value. If “soft” variables were considered, the ideologies of pro-racial preference people would suggest that these “soft” variables would benefit the “underrepresented” minorities, leading to enrollment higher than 6.5%. I don’t think 6.5% is “virtual disappearance,” but others may disagree.</p>

1187

<p>Here’s another bit of data I just found:
[CSU</a> | AS | 2002-2003 Degrees Granted](<a href=“http://www.calstate.edu/AS/stat_reports/2002-2003/deg14.htm]CSU”>http://www.calstate.edu/AS/stat_reports/2002-2003/deg14.htm)
These are the undergraduate degrees granted by the Cal State schools, broken out in divisions, by ethnic group. I haven’t crunched all this, and I probably won’t, but a couple of things are pretty obvious. In this group, Business-Management is the biggest major for all groups, but it’s a much larger percentage of Asian students than it is of white students. There are differences in other majors too. What does this mean? I don’t know. I don’t think it’s likely to tell us too much about potential differences at more selective schools. But something is causing a significant variation in choice of majors between ethnic groups. What is it?</p>

1188

<p>

I think you’ve got the math wrong there (or maybe I do). I’m looking at Table 9.1 (<a href=“http://www.nacacnet.org/EventsTraining/NC10/Baltimore/educational/Documents/C313.pdf[/url]”>http://www.nacacnet.org/EventsTraining/NC10/Baltimore/educational/Documents/C313.pdf&lt;/a&gt;) It seems to me that Espenshade says that under a race-neutral stats-only approach, URM representation at those ten schools would drop from 13.3% to 4.6%. African-American representation would drop from 6.3% to 0.8%. I don’t think it’s too much to call that last number, at least, a virtual disappearance.</p>

<p>And just a reminder, for context: African=Americans make up about 13.5% of the U.S. population.</p>

1189

<p>CSU’s admissions are (supposed to be) completely race neutral, so this should provide us with a more balanced look at how majors would be distributed under a race neutral system.</p>

1190

<p>A quick summary of STEM major % by race from the CSU data. I included the following disciplines as STEM majors: Biological Sciences, Engineering, Health Professions, Mathematics, Physical Science.
AA: 12.5%
Hispanic/Latin@: 10.9%
Asian (including Filipino, not including Pacific Islander): 15.4%
White: 12.6%</p>

<p>Fine Arts:
AA: 3.4%
Hispanic/Latin@: 3.4%
Asian: 4.7%
White: 5.4%</p>

<p>Humanities (Letters, Foreign Languages)
AA: 5.5%
Hispanic/Latin@: 7.2%
Asian: 2.6%
White: 7.9%</p>

<p>I had difficulty identifying which fields fell under social sciences, so I stopped there. The data appears to be inconclusive. For example, approximately 3% more Asians majored in STEM fields than did whites (or blacks). Asians and whites appear to prefer fine arts more than URMs, though the absolute numbers are rather small. Hispanics/Latin@s and whites far outrepresent Asian students in the humanities. One could see this as too many Asians choosing STEM over humanities; you could also see it as too many Hispanics choosing humanities over STEM, or too many whites choosing the humanities (at 7.9%, they represent the greatest portion of humanities majors in this limited sample). In all cases, the percentage differences are small enough to make me doubt statistical significance.</p>

<p>I limited my definition of “humanities” to exclude preprofessional majors, since I felt that this would better approximate a “useless” liberal arts major.</p>

1191

<p>Re 1188</p>

<p>I’m looking at the same table. You were looking at the wrong value. It is the “observed baseline admitted” that we are interested in, not “observed baseline applications.” For blacks and Hispanics, these values were was 8.3% and 7.9%, respectively. Under a race-neutral admissions scheme, the percentages decrease by 5.5 and 3.2 points, respectively. So, the new values are 2.8 and 4.5 percentage points, respectively, which actually adds up to 7.5%, so yes, I did err in my calculation, but in your favor!</p>

<p>I’m far more inclined to view 0.8% as “virtual disappearance” than 7.5%.</p>

1192

<p>Re 1187</p>

<p>Very interesting data, and much thanks! If you were to find such information for the UC schools, that’d be even better as the UC system is far more selective than its CS cousin.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, a quick calculation reveals that in 2002-2003, about 43% of all degrees earned by Asian Americans were in one major - the previously mentioned Business-Management. Compare this to the 2002-2003 Michigan data, which as Hunt calculated, showed that 47% of bachelor’s degrees earned by male Asian Americans were in one group of majors.</p>

<p>Now, yes, Michigan is certainly far more selective than any of the Cal State schools, but I bring up a question from before: should we cast business as the new “Asian” major? Or should we try to avoid stereotyping racial classifications’ interests?</p>

1193

<p>We can all speculate all we want, but here’s what no study ever published to date has considered, or could consider. Stats aside, holistic qualifications aside, human beings are attached to each of those application names, and the goods that those human beings bring are unique to each one of them and are fluid from year to year. Even holistically, there is no template ideal candidate as an absolute model, since one year there may be too many of one ideal model (which would include location & economic class) vs another ideal model with a different set of positives. </p>

<p>Let’s posit that application numbers remain static, and not only that, but that proportionally they remain static (racially). Let’s also even take URM special considerations out of the picture (although philosophically, there is a big consistency problem here, since lots of whites, and even some Asians, are getting boosts now with non-racial special considerations review). The result would be a qualification-based competition only, among all races. However that still does not mean that E&C’s predictions would be accurate.</p>

<p>Each year every college candidate brings personal commodities to the admissions round. In fact, supporting the notion of non-stereotyping, one year their fave ___major or accomplished dancer/artist, etc. could be Asian; the next year, Caucasian Anglo or Hispanic. I am telling you that you seem to underestimate the silent bargaining that the candidates do, by their mere appearance among the files. Everyone tends to look at this from the p.o.v. of the college administrations. But it’s a two-way competition, which is what makes it so fascinating to me. Rarely in the economy do you see a mutual buyer’s market, but that’s the best way to think of it. The college wants, desires, even yearns for your commodities almost as much as you want your fave colleges. Any parent on CC whose S or D is a cross-admit to more than one Elite may also be familiar with this. It goes way beyond my own experience, because I have compared notes with others on this. When an Elite knows or suspects that you are potentially cross-admit material (i.e., highly qualified), things can get nasty and even vicious. They will come close to the line in discouraging you from going elsewhere. They don’t care about just any Yield; they care about a particular configuration of yield. They have figured out their approximate ideal class for this particular year, with the apps they have in front of them, and you are part of their essential equation.</p>

<p>Admissions is not just competitive; it is comparative- each year, and each year that comparative base changes. I offer the example above because it’s only a more intense exposition of what is happening generally with the selection process (even with the very but not “highly” qualified). There is no way to predict what next year’s class “will look like,” even if you succeed in making the process thoroughly “race-blind.” How you are reviewed is linked to how the invisible others are being reviewed or will be reviewed on multiple measures & multiple subjective factors. Your chances increase, decrease, or remain static depending on what commodities are offered by the competition. And obviously the more competition you have, the less predictable the outcome. Last year’s configuration could have put you in the Admit pile, this year’s the Waitlist or Reject pile.</p>

1194

<p>

Could you explain the philosophical inconsistency here in more detail? What “non-racial special considerations” are whites and Asians receiving that URMs are not? For example, it is true that legacy special consideration is dominantly white; but the opportunity itself is race-blind and does benefit some students of any race (white, Asian, or URM).</p>

<p>

Well, I suppose this statement hinges on what one considers an accurate prediction. For example, I could predict that the 75th percentile SAT score for an Ivy League school next year will not drop below 700, based on current and historical trends–the historical applicant pool and the predicted applicant pool are just too strong for that to be likely, assuming that admissions do not drastically change their methods of distinguishing qualification.</p>

<p>It is possible to predict in composite what next year’s class will look like, if demographic and application trends do not change drastically. For example, Harvard’s next freshman class will very likely include at least one student from each state. I also predict that Harvard’s next freshman class will not have a median SAT score 50 points lower than this year’s, because it’s bad press for traditional measures of academic achievement to drop. The adcom priorities for a well-rounded class do not change from year to year; what changes are the individuals who fulfill those priorities.</p>

1195

<p>…and finally, rather than edit, I’ll just add to my above post:</p>

<p>Again people underestimate the effects of business and internal ‘economy’ on decisions such as college admissions. These companies (colleges) are looking at their bottom line, and the students’ personal commodities are part of their bottom line. There’s tremendous self-interest in this whole process. You may imagine that the Elites have some chip on their shoulder with regard to Asian application numbers (which, as siserune has pointed out, is actually counter-evidenced by the numbers themselves, which reveal an advantage to Asians). But I’ll grant you that misconception for a moment, and argue rather that…</p>

<p>Nothing is as important to any business as their product, combined with longevity of the product and the business. In this case, the product is the student, or the combination of students, and the longevity is what the heck those students will do after graduation. This is one very important reason that independent e.c.'s (outside of campus, especially – independently pursued & sustained) are such an important factor in ultimate decisions. The college is protecting its brand. They are not interested in jeopardizing their brand to satisfy any personal prejudices on the part of any committee members, individually or collectively. They are ultimately looking with a “cold” eye. They will admit “duplicatively,” (students that “look” too much alike in their academic & personal profiles for the “ideal” class configuraiton) if by admitting Student B as well as Student A, most likely great things will happen – in science, in art, in wherever, on their campus, under their name. At some point, “balance” gives way, if need be, to product. They will preserve as much balance as they deem attractive to all the candidates as a whole, while admitting individuals likely to make a significant impact on society - whether in business, in politics, in the sciences, in the arts, or some other visible area, and/or likely to contribute to “name-brand” (theirs) research which keeps them on the map or even advances their visibility in academia.</p>

1196

<p>

Maybe I missed the concession–I admit, I tend to skip the heavy statistical stuff–but wasn’t there a heated debate about whether these “numbers” were accurate? Regardless, could someone explain to me in non-statistical terms how an Asian “advantage” is defined and determined? Do you mean that Asians are simply admitted at a higher rate? That in itself doesn’t mean much, since it’s possible that the Asian pool is overall more qualified.</p>

<p>I agree that “nothing is as important to any business as their product.” However, I would add the following caveats: 1) Universities are non-profit, tax-exempt institutions with a responsibility to promote social justice. Whether this is interpreted as enrolling a “critical mass” of minority students or as ensuring equality in the admissions process is obviously a difference of philosophy. 2) A business is regulated; for instance, monopolies may help a business sell more product, but they will not be tolerated by the government. (Side note: utilities apparently an exception to the no-monopoly principle, but I digress.)</p>

1197

<p>Post 1194:</p>

<p>Again, kei, you seem to have some superficial understandings of how qualification is determined. It’s not even primarily the score range: that just gives you a second look; beyond that, the elements of the courses taken, their content, their number, their subject matter, the academic prizes attained, the offcampus courses completed, the detailed content of the LOR, how you compare with classmates, how that in itself compares with your opportunities, etc.</p>

<p>But if what you just said is not a comprehensive understanding of what you meant, I will still say that such a “prediction” on your part is superficial. Those in the 700+ range, from 50 states, could include one new e.c. never before seen by the committee, or several dozen new e.c.'s, or e.c.'s significantly higher in accomplishment than last year’s comparative, enclosed set. And one applicant from each state represented in the pool could have a different, or better, academic profile from that represented by last year’s admitted set of students.</p>

<p>Demographic trends may have remained static vs. last year, but that doesn’t tell you what commodities will accompany this year’s wide demographic pool.</p>

<p>Philosophically speaking, I’m saying that either the entire process is both merit-driven and race-free, or there’s hypocrisy involved. Eliminate all special considerations if you’re going to eliminate those URM’s who get admitted non-competitively.</p>

<p>Post 1196:
Yes, you do digress, but the point is, you don’t understand the priorities that businesses have. Not at all. Forget about social justice - and whether that’s pro- or con- AA. (Reasonable people can differ about that.) Colleges (these businesses) are doing nothing illegal or unethical about the often-cutthroat way they choose their finalists. Just like General Motors and AT&T, they’re using peripheral vision to look at what the competition could acquire if they don’t acquire it first – in this case the competition being Yale, Harvard, etc. If they’re looking, for example, at a student with a particular major in mind, and they know that major has a great reputation at one of their chief competitors (maybe a department even better endowed than theirs), and this is a very promising student, committed to that major, count on them offering that student a seat in the freshman class, unless there are even more desirable candidates in equally or more desirable majors this round, and they are reaching their maximum level of offers already.</p>

1198

<p>

I agree with all this. What is your point? All of these characteristics are taken into account in current admissions policies, which produce the current score ranges. If anything, if–as likely–race-blind admissions lead to a decrease in URM enrollment, and if one presumes that URMs on average have lower scores, the score ranges would go up. Those URMs with non-racial hooks would still be admitted, as would those URMs who meet the single race-blind standard; but overall I don’t see how the range would drop, especially since adcoms are motivated to maintain or exceed the status quo.</p>

<p>

Again, I agree: those in the 700+ range from all 50 states will have completely different ECs year-to-year. Does that change the composition of the class? Not particularly, in my opinion; the importance of “building a class” is to bring together diversity, not to make sure that one particular EC is always represented. Likewise, perhaps a rare North Dakota student this year is also a standout who would have been admitted without the help of geographic diversity, while last year that student was more of a borderline admit; so what? The effect on overall class profile (which does, btw, include boasting about unusual ECs in addition to the usual objective data) is miniscule.</p>

<p>My contention is that the unique “commodities” varying from year to year don’t matter in the context of the entire class. Sure, the unique traits of a class will be different every year; but every year will have some unique traits. The adcom priority is to find unique traits, not to find any particular unique trait.</p>

<p>Philosophically speaking, I disagree that admissions must be considered in an either-or, completely merit-driven vs. abundant special considerations comparison. For one, non-legacy students, et al are not covered by federal non-discrimination laws as a legally protected attribute. For two, achieving equality is a process: just because Y aspect involves special consideration does not mean that X aspect automatically gets a free pass from criticism, because Y and X are not irretrievably bound to each other. I strongly support race-neutral and gender-neutral admissions, but I would settle for one or the other being prohibited first–halfway is better than no way.</p>

1199

<p>

</p>

<p>There are two problems with this.</p>

<p>First, it presents a false dichotomy and implies that the determining factor of holistic admissions is the consideration of race; that is, no matter what other subjective criteria are included, if race is not, then the process is not holistic. While it appears that quite a few people subscribe to this notion, I find it nonsensical and utterly at odds with the equally common canard of “race does not play a big role in admissions.” If its consideration is what determines holisticity, then it indeed plays a very big role!</p>

<p>Second, it suggests that the consideration of racial classification is “no different” from other “special consideration[s]”. Again, such a view is inconsistent with Supreme Court jurisprudence, which has long held that the use of racial classification must be subject to strict scrutiny. That is, racial classification as a factor is not the same as any other “special consideration”!</p>

1200

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m curious as to why you forever think the colleges either should or do share your viewpoint. They simply do not. It’s important to keep the e.c.'s alive, and they need a critical mass for that. And e.c.'s are part of the diversity (of the class), not in contradistinction to it.</p>