<p>Here’s another source of data that may be relevant to both branches of this discussion: <a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-by-Gender-Ethnicity-2009.pdf[/url]”>Higher Education Professionals | College Board;
They don’t give us this information for combined scores, so it makes it harder to analyze.
But if you look at the numbers and percentiles of URMs at the top end of scoring, you can get some idea of how the numbers of URMs would drop off at top schools if race-blind admissions based only on SAT scores were used.
You can also compare Asians and whites in terms of SAT scores. Asians do better at the upper end on all three sections, but substantially better on the math section.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Their parents <em>aren’t</em> savvy enough, because they keep pushing them in the direction of the same EC’s! Because they keep applying Asian metrics of objective qualification to this process … as if a 4.0 “deserves” a slot that a 3.9 doesn’t, a 2400 “deserves” a slot that a 2350 doesn’t, or a gold medal winner “deserves” a slot that a bronze medal winner doesn’t! Good grief. It’s about as silly as if I were to go to Asia, apply to a university there and then complain that my volunteer experiences don’t count and isn’t that unfair.</p>
<p>
You are unlikely to find any justice who now disagrees with the proposition that Title VI proscribe[s] only those racial classifications that would violate the Equal Protection Clause or the Fifth Amendment. Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 280-281 (2001) (quoting Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 287 (1978) (opinion of Powell, J.)). The disputes in Grutter and Gratz turned on the Equal Protection Clause, not on the interpretation of Title VI.</p>
<p>
The really savvy Asian parents will have their kids take up the bassoon, play ice hockey, and plan to major in Slavic Studies.
Seriously, I suspect that there will be–indeed probably already has been–a shift by Asian students into a broader range of ECs and fields of interest. That is exactly what happened with with immigrant Jews a few generations ago. As I tried to point out upthread, there used to be cliches about what Jewish kids did, and they have largely faded out (except, maybe, for “my son, the doctor”). That is part of a process of assimilation. (It is also worth asking whether assimilation also weakens the work ethic, with a resulting weakening of grades and scores. That, I don’t know.)</p>
<p>A new voice,
Some schools are doing reverse discrimination as their student bodies have a proportional high % of certain races, etc. Most do try to reverse the past by getting more minorities represented (but at least two schools, one in CA and one in IL were recently sued by a white male who won). Thus they are trying to decrease the number of asians accepted, as like someone else stated, they normally are the top of all high school classes.</p>
<p>As to accepting an “older” person who has life experiances; most data shows they do better in college and grad school.</p>
<p>Re 1221</p>
<p>Again, the predicted percentages shown in Espenshade’s presentation can be thought of as “extreme” values.</p>
<p>If it is true that Asians are not, on average, weaker than their white peers when “soft” variables are included, then the percentage would still never be higher than 39% under a holistic race-blind admissions scheme. If, however, Asians are weaker than their white peers in these areas, a possibility that many suggest and some strongly believe in, then the percentage would very likely be less than 39%.</p>
<p>If it is true that “underrepresented” minorities are, on average, no better than their peers in the “soft” dimensions, then the percentage would still be no lower than 7.5% under a holistic race-blind admissions scheme. if, however, they are substantially stronger in these areas, a possibility that many likewise suggest and some likewise strongly believe in, then the percentage would very likely be greater than 7.5%.</p>
<p>Essentially, there is nothing to fear from a race-blind admissions process. Thus, the frequently brought up claims of “severe unbalance” that would result from such a process are totally unfounded.</p>
<p>A couple of points: when we start getting into low numbers like 7.5% admitted for all URMs combined, we also have to consider the possibility that the most selective schools will not be able to enroll anywhere that percentage of URMs, because there may not be that many of them. So I don’t really think this is a maximum when you are talking about those who will actually matriculate. (Here’s a situation where it may really matter what the 10 schools in Espenshade were. If they are schools where admitted students on a race-blind basis would have SATs above 700 on each part, there aren’t very many URMs who would qualify.)</p>
<p>
I’d also like to clarify something about these “soft” criteria. As I understand it, these are things like essays, recommendations, and level of achievement in extracurriculars. I am agnostic on whether Asians are likely to be weaker or stronger than whites in these areas. There may be some “featureless grind” Asians, but there are whites like that, too. But this is not what I’ve been talking about; I’ve been talking about factors that could disadvantage Asians without any personal evaluation of the person being involved. In that respect, I don’t think these are “soft.” The simplest example is geographical diversity–if Harvard wants to take a certain number of applicants from Iowa, that disadvantages any group that has few people living in Iowa. Similarly, if Harvard wants to take a certain number of classics majors, or musical theater singers, or ice hockey players, that disadvantages anybody who isn’t any of those things, or who is competing for a more crowded “niche.” If there aren’t very many Asian alumni, then legacy preference is another clear example. These things aren’t negative evaluations of any particular applicant–they are just demographics. Of course, they could be stacked deliberately to harm a particular group. (Geographic diversity may have been one of the tools used to limit Jews, for example.) But these are different from truly soft factors, like how good the essay or interview was.</p>
<p>
I agree with you if you’re talking about blindness between whites and Asians. My only quibble there is that I don’t think it’s proven that it isn’t race-blind already. But I don’t agree with respect to URMs–but my disagreement is partly based on my interpretation of the facts and partly philosophical. I don’t think URM admissions at the most selective schools would be anything like 7.5% at the most selective schools, because there just aren’t enough high-stats URMs (especially African Americans) to go around. The philosophical part is that I think it would be a bad thing for URM representation to drop to such low levels at the most selective schools, for reasons I mentioned upthread.</p>
<p>Re 1227</p>
<p>No, to clarify, I’m arguing that 7.5% can be thought of as a minimum, not a maximum. If the pro-racial preference crowd is right in asserting that “underrepresented” minorities have sparks, passions, and character that their white and Asian peers do not have or do not have as much of, then this “X factor” could easily result in enrollment higher than 7.5%.</p>
<p>While some may disagree, the way I see it, from a pure stats perspective, a 750/750/750 candidate is probably as qualified as his 800/800/800 peer. But I find it much harder to accept for the 630/630/630 candidate Bay alluded to a few pages back. Nevertheless, I do believe that a 630/630/630 can still trump a 800/800/800 if the former has some serious subjective criteria in his favor that the latter does not have. That’s my understanding of holistic admissions: even if you don’t have the best stats, you can still “win” if you have something else. I must say I found it a bit odd that some were disagreeing with me on this.</p>
<p>Points taken about soft-but-not-really factors. And according to Malcolm Gladwell, President Lowell did in fact attempt to use geographic preferences to limit Jewish enrollment; his attempt, failed, however, as he still ended up getting Jewish students. They just weren’t from the Northeast. You must, however, admit that it is still possible that this could happen for Asians. It worked for their “predecessors,” after all.</p>
<p>No, it hasn’t been proven that there is no negative action. It’s only been speculated, albeit a speculation held by academics who are also supporters of affirmative action (ie. they are not hacks with agendas).</p>
<p>As I understand it, Espenshade’s “stats only” admissions model shows that even if the only factors included are quantitative in nature, you would still get at least 7.5% “underrepresented” enrollment. And, it must be emphasized that his model was essentially “numbers only.” Thus, when the real soft factors are included, it is entirely possible and perhaps very likely that the percentage will be higher than 7.5</p>
<p>Edit</p>
<p>One of the more traditional justifications for affirmative action was that it was helping “equally qualified” but “underrepresented” minorities. For example, if you had a black candidate and a white candidate with equally high SAT scores, say 700/700/700, you’d give preference to the former. While some may balk at that, it’s hard to argue that a 700/700/700 from a black candidate is “worse” than an identical score from a white candidate; they are equal, after all. Try to argue that a 630/630/630 is the same as an 800/800/800 as Bay did, however, and you’ll get far more complaints because now you have to show that there’s no difference between a 630/630/630 and a 800/800/800. That’s much harder to stomach than comparing a 700/700/700 with a 700/700/700.</p>
<p>
Maybe. I don’t agree with the crowd on that, though.</p>
<p>Post 1228: As usual, fabrizio mischaracterizes the “pro-racial-preference crowd” (whoever that is). The arguments I’ve read in support of their admission are largely based on political philosophy (academic, economic, social participation), not on “sparks” and what-have-you. There may be additional observations of those elements, along with the rationale for AA’s existence, but admissions committees look for passion in virtually all their admits; it’s difficult to be admitted without Signs of Visible Life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. Exactly. Well said.
And, there is high Asian concentration in NJ and CA – two states that are already well represented in practically any elite pool of applicants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You still don’t get it. They don’t HAVE to prove to you that “there’s no difference” between the 630/630/630 and the 800/800/800, because they are not obligated to make the primary criterion objective SAT scores, much as you would like it to be. They are perfectly entitled to say “630/630/630 is our minimum needed to satisfy ourselves that the applicant can do the work and above that, it’s all subjective and personal.” They don’t have to privilege the 800/800/800 above the 630/630/630 if they don’t want to. Really. Honest. This isn’t Asia.</p>
<p>Re 1229, 1230</p>
<p>Well, then, it appears that I have straw manned the pro-racial preference crowd. My apologies. My choice of words was not meant to be offensive in any way; I freely refer to myself as part of the anti-racial preference crowd, the logical counterpart. Thus, I see no reason why anyone who is obviously a member of the pro-racial preference crowd should feign ignorance as to her membership in said crowd.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And, had you read my other posts calmly instead of emotionally taking a quotation out of its context, you would have realized that I do not endorse the international system of admissions, which actually is not unique to Asia as it is also employed in the United Kingdom, France, and according to Malcolm Gladwell, even our neighbor to the north. Indeed, your posts have consistently demonstrated a failure to consider context.</p>
<p>I redirect you to my post 1228, where I wrote the following:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it’s very important that to understand that the limitation of Espenshade’s model nevertheless yields results that severely weaken the “yellow peril” fears of a “100% Asian” campus that some have expressed in this thread. The whole point is that even if we were to use what Pizzagirl derisively refers to as the “Asian” system, we still wouldn’t get Asian enrollment anywhere close to 100%. Start adding subjective criteria, and it’s highly conceivable that enrollment won’t get all that close to 39%, either.</p>
<p>Some have stated that they wouldn’t have any problems with a 39% Asian campus. I give you my appreciation. My issues are with those who think that 39% is an unacceptably high figure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One reason universities give benefits to URMs is because of cultural differences. Tell me why these benefits shouldn’t be extended to Asians. </p>
<p>Besides, this is a straw man argument. No one is saying that we should stop using holistic admissions.</p>
<p>
The problem is when you ascribe views to this “crowd” that some of us who favor URM preferences don’t share. I’m quite willing to admit that URM preferences result in the admission of persons who wouldn’t be admitted in race-blind admissions, no matter what criteria are used. I do think that, in general, the elites try not to admit URMs who can’t do the work.</p>
<p>
Who are these people? I will admit to a certain twinge when I hear people who are part of a group that makes up 5% of the population complaining that they are only being admitted at four times that rate, instead of seven times that rate. It seems to me that if there were really rampant anti-Asian racism, you’d be seeing even lower admission rates. But I do think that between whites and Asians there is no real reason to achieve any kind of balance.</p>
<p>
But if it were shown that certain elements of holistic admissions–such as geographic diversity, major choice, etc.–was disproportionately impacting admission of Asians, would you want that to be changed?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why? People are entitled to have whatever preferences they’d like. I don’t want to go to an HBCU; it’s “too black” for me. Some people don’t want to go to Brandeis because it’s “too Jewish” for them. Others don’t want to go to Sweet Briar because it’s “too WASP” for them. Others don’t want to go to some of the UC campuses because they are “too Asian.” What’s the essential difference?</p>
<p>‘One reason universities give benefits to URMs is because of cultural differences.’
The MAIN reason universities give benefits to URM’s is because they are racially UNDERREPRESENTED, which is what the U stands for. Asians as a race are NOT underrepresented. So why should they have the same benefits offered them?
In 5 years here on CC, I have yet to see a thread where well qualified white students, who are also NOT underrepresented on elite campusus, are so intent on arguing that they should receive the same “benefits” that URM’s receive. Why are so many well qualified Asian students so intent on finding signs of racial prejudice, when others of a different, equally well represented race [whites], are more willing to accept that there simply isn’t room at the elite colleges for all those who would qualify for acceptance, if space were unlimited?</p>
<p>Re 1237</p>
<p>I don’t deny that the pro-racial preference crowd itself is full of diversity, no pun intended.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As per TOS, I shouldn’t name any specific individual. “These people” are the ones who believe that race-neutral admissions will result in freshman classes that exhibit “extreme unbalance.” You can find several examples of this mentality in the early stages of this thread as well as the later stages.</p>
<p>I must once again point out that “overrepresentation” does not disprove discrimination by citing the history of Jews at Harvard. There was no doubt very strong anti-Semitism in the 1930s admissions policies, yet Jews still made up 15% of the student body.</p>
<p>Do you likewise “cringe” at the founders of Brandeis University?</p>