<p>Derrick,</p>
<p>Sorry, but a derivative of reductio ad hitlerum doesn't apply here.</p>
<p>California's voters chose race-BLIND policies. They did not choose a policy that said only blonde-haired, blue-eyed "Aryans" were eligible for admission.</p>
<p>Your decision to bring up the Third Reich is comical in its total inappropriateness to post-Proposition 209 reality.</p>
<p>fhimas,</p>
<p>Don't worry. I am not the kind of person who will misconstrue your statement, "... many URMs ARE less qualified compared to their white/asian counterparts, but not because they are less intelligent..." as racist. I see the second part of that sentence (c.f. "diversity" advocates.) and it is clearly not racist.</p>
<p>As far as the Berkeley campus before 1996, I found the following:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Enrollment of "underrepresented" students at Berkeley plummeted from 22 percent of the entering class to 11 percent in the year following the end of affirmative action, prompting admissions officers to scramble to maintain a diverse student body at the state's most prestigious public university. In California, underrepresented students are defined as African-Americans, Chicanos, Latinos and Native Americans.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In spite of a fifty percent drop, some people still claim that "it doesn't do much."</p>
<p>Oh and sybbie719, your comments were just not at all helpful. Consider how easy it is to be against AA: students who have seemingly accomplished more face a 'harder' time getting in because students who have achieved 'less' are taking the spots of these 'more deserving' students.</p>
<p>Now, how easy would it be to say a student from Exeter, 4th in his class, semi-finalist in Intel, winner of multiple piano contests, and lab assistant at UMass for all four HS summers, about to publish is more deserving than a black student with 2010 on his SATs, and got 3rd place in debate at the sections state tournament. However, this black student also had to take care of his two siblings after school and had to work weekends to help his mom support his family. Does this latter student list those accomplishments on a site like CC? Is it easy to quantify such achievements? NOOOO!!!</p>
<p>Is it easy to quantify the achievements of the white student? ** YES!!!!** </p>
<p>Does the white student appear to be more qualified? Yes.</p>
<p>Is he? Though this question is very debatable, I would say yes. This white student at Exeter grew up in a world where education is key, and he had access to unlimited resources to pursue his passions. However, this underprivileged student comes from an environment where education is not most important, and an environment where he has many other responsibilities to take care of * before * he can start pursuing his passions. Again, I don't really know who is more qualified in this scenario, but you can see why it's so easy for kids to say, "Well, compare our accomplishments. I'm clearly more qualified" because it is incredibly easy to overlook these hindrances and even harder to quantify them.</p>
<hr>
<p>Thanks Fabrizio. So, is the conclusion that AA did or did not affect the enrollment of underrepresented students?</p>
<p>fhmas,</p>
<p>I hope that you are not looking at my comment on my post as sort of a double standard, because we both know, that there is a lot of truth to what I wrote.</p>
<p>Even with the post: about how awesome it was the young lady from rural maine who got into Harvard with a 1980, most of those congratulations would have not been coming her way had she been a minority.</p>
<p>the reason I made my comment is that you cannot look at everything at face value. On face, perhaps the poster is (or has brought) to the table something that stanford has found appealing and as a result, they believe that he can contibute something to the class, so they admitted him.</p>
<p>While I do agree with the first part of your scenario as each student is looked at in context of what opportunities they had and to what extent they took advantage of those opportunities beyond grades and scores. The student who takes care of siblings and works weekends does not have either the time or the $$ to participate in piano contest or to be a lab assistant.</p>
<p>However the reasoning, in the second part of your scenario, I can say is definitely not true and you are painting using some pretty broad strokes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is he? Though this question is very debatable, I would say yes. This white student at Exeter grew up in a world where education is key, and he had access to unlimited resources to pursue his passions. However, this underprivileged student comes from an environment where education is not most important, and an environment where he has many other responsibilities to take care of before he can start pursuing his passions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While for the student at Exeter, college is a natural progression and an expectation, you don't know for certain that the underprivileged student in your scenario is coming from an environment where education is not important. It is most likely quite the contrary, because this student knows that education is the only way that s/he is going to be able to break the cycle of poverty.</p>
<p>fhimas,</p>
<p>
[quote]
So, is the conclusion that AA did or did not affect the enrollment of underrepresented students?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Racial preferences did affect the enrollment of "under-represented" students. There was a significant drop at two campuses but an overall increase in the system.</p>
<p>Gosh, I am really feeling like here we go again....</p>
<p>You do know that the Espenshade & Chung study is based on admissions preferences and is hypothetical and not actually not factual.</p>
<p>In the Chronicle of Higher Education 6-21-2006 article:</p>
<p>State Bans on Affirmative Action Have Been of Little Benefit to Asian-American Students, Report Says</p>
<p>Contrary to predictions in a widely cited 2005 study that said Asian-American students were the biggest losers in affirmative action, those students made only minor gains at law schools when the practice was banned in three states, according to a new study.</p>
<p>In addition, there have been flaws in the study</p>
<p>their Princeton paper is based on a previous study by Espenshade, Chung, and Walling </p>
<p>'‘Admission Preferences for Minority Students, Athletes, and Legacies at Elite Universities.’’ Social Science Quarterly 85(5):1422–46, 2004.</p>
<p>Objective. This study examines how preferences for different types of applicants exercised by admission offices at elite universities influence the number and composition of admitted students. Methods. Logistic regression analysis is used to link information on the admission decision for 124,374 applications to applicants' SAT scores, race, athletic ability, and legacy status, among other variables. Results. </p>
<p>Elite universities give added weight in admission decisions to applicants who have SAT scores above 1500, are African American, or are recruited athletes. A smaller, but still important, preference is shown to Hispanic students and to children of alumni. The athlete admission "advantage" has been growing, while the underrepresented minority advantage has declined. Conclusions. Elite colleges and universities extend preferences to many types of students, yet affirmative action-the only preference given to underrepresented minority applicants-is the one surrounded by the most controversy.</p>
<p>Models 5 and 6 add athlete and legacy status, respectively, to Model 4. Being a recruited athlete significantly improves one's chances of being admitted to an elite university. The odds of acceptance for athletes are four times as large as those for nonathletes. Put differently, the athletic advantage is roughly comparable to having SAT scores in the 1400s instead of the 1200s. Legacy applicants also receive preferential treatment in admissions. Children or other close relatives of alumni have nearly three times the likelihood of being accepted as nonlegacies. The SAT effect is somewhat "steeper" when athlete status is controlled, but it changes little when legacy status is added. These results are partly explained by the fact that athletes in the applicant pools have lower average SAT scores than nonathletes (1298 vs. 1335), whereas there is a smaller gap between legacies (1350) and nonlegacies (1332).</p>
<p>Espenshade, Chung, and Walling conclude their article by stating:</p>
<p>The relative weights assigned to different student abilities are in constant motion, and our data indicate that admission officers at elite universities are placing a declining weight on belonging to an underrepresented minority student group, whereas the admission advantage accruing to athletes has been growing. By 1997, in fact, being a recruited athlete mattered more than any other type of admission preference we have examined. A subsequent article in this journal will consider the opportunity cost of admission preferences (Espenshade and Chung, forthcoming). Who are the winners and losers from current admission practices?</p>
<p>Examining preferences for recruited athletes and children of alumni in the context of admission bonuses for underrepresented minority applicants helps to situate affirmative action in a broader perspective. Many different student characteristics are valued by admission officers and receive extra weight in highly competitive admissions. It is all part of a process that views academically selective colleges and universities as picking and choosing from many different pools or queues in order to create a first-year class that best advances institutional values and objectives.</p>
<p>Per the Educational Trust website that tracks graduation rates for all schools the graduatuon rates for URM's @ HYP range from 92.1% up to 96.4%.</p>
<p>I hardly think that these numbers show that underqualified URM's are gaining admission into HYP and other selective schools.</p>
<p>If that was the case they would not be graduating at these rates.</p>
<p>And please don't come back with a response that they are ALL majoring in basket weaving or some other soft major.</p>
<p>Interesting site worth a look @ <a href="http://www.collegeresults.org%5B/url%5D">www.collegeresults.org</a></p>
<p>In response to poster's who have cited UC Berekely's URM percentages changing after AA was dropped:</p>
<p>Admissions at a state school can be vastly different than those at a private institution. State schools are more likely to evaluate applicants on a points system (where GPA, SATs, etc are assigned value, the resulting total serving as a raw indicator of the applicant's strength). This was what got Michigan in trouble. They assigned a significant part of their evaluation score to URM status. Thus, when NUMBERS become the main focus of admissions instead of a more holistic approach, the highest umpteenth percentile have a leg up.</p>
<p>At Berekely, this meant that the large pacific asian population of the state displaced NOT ONLY urms, but also whites. UC Berkely in one of the few campuses in the US where whites are a MINORITY. </p>
<p>While AA, affects the overrall population at a university, I highly doubt that it adversely affects that many INDIVIDUALS. </p>
<p>The 20pts, that a study found URM status added to a student's SAT score, is ONE QUESTION.</p>
<p>I, for one, would like to think that ONE QUESTION on a test would not be enough to get someone in to or deny them admission to college.</p>
<p>would u guys that think AA is unfair consider it wrong if i (a black man with a 4.02 and 2200sat) got in over a white kid with a 4.4 and a 2300? just wondering.</p>
<p>^Well, of course it depends on the individuals, but if the black kid is getting in over the more qualified white kid ONLY because he is black, than yes, it is wrong.</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>Seriously guys, no one is attacking (or no one * should be * the URMs who are getting in). ** BUT*, URMs, you NEED to take into account that even with your high test scores and high GPAs, there are many, MANY other students with VERY similar stats. No one is denying you're smart. But what people are saying is that you are not the only *smart applicant in the applicant pool. Whether AA was used to bump you in can never be known, but you must realize, whether you like it or not, that admissions probably used AA in your admission. Does it mean you're less qualified? NO! It just means that when admissions comes to two students, both with 2300s and both near the top of their HS graduating class, they will choose the URM. That is a fact. [Let's just say in that example that both are just bringing really solid academics to the table.] </p>
<p>Of course, there are some very high achieving URMs that probably didn't need the 'help' they likely received and could have gotten in anyway. But that is something we can never find out.</p>
<p>sybbie719 - you say that education is highly prized within the homes of URMs... I guess I always think of "Save the Last Dance" when I think of such circumstances. That movie depicts a hard black neighborhood in New York. The plotline of the movie demonstrates that few URMs value education, because their environment doesn't lend itself well to pursuing an education. </p>
<p>And, sybbie719, I just can't imagine that all URMs value education as much as you say. It just doesn't make sense to me that only a lack of resources could produce so few college-ready high school graduates. If a family values education, while difficult, babysitting a sibling and working on weekends won't (I know I don't have personal experience here, but I do know that under pressure, human desire to achieve can be quite strong) stop a student from going to college. </p>
<p>We agree, economic conditions shouldn't stop a HS student from attending college. However, for some reason or another, URMs are just not flocking to high school. So either economic conditions do affect scholarly achievement, or there is something else in play. I think there's something else going on here, and like "Save the Last Dance," I don't think education is highly valued in the homes of URMs. Meager economic conditions are not the only hindrances for URMs to get to college. </p>
<p>On the other hand, I have no personal experience here, so I definitely could be wrong.</p>
<p>sybbie,</p>
<p>The paragraph you cited explains all:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Contrary to predictions in a widely cited 2005 study that said Asian-American students were the biggest losers in affirmative action, those students made only minor gains at LAW SCHOOLS [emphasis mine] when the practice was banned in three states, according to a new study.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The E&C study talked about UNDERGRADUATE admissions.</p>
<p>The Kidder article is thus almost totally irrelevant as a response to the E&C study.</p>
<p>You did not highlight, Who are the winners and losers from current admission practices? in your quotation. The paper you quoted from was older and less reflective of what goes on today.</p>
<p>I have seen the terms "flawed" and "discredited" used to describe the E&C study by many racial preference defenders. But, it seems like their only support for their dismissal is a study from William Kidder, who in terms of "bias" is the equivalent of Dr. Richard Sander (*). What's more, this study doesn't even directly address the E&C paper.</p>
<p>As one admissions officer here says, disingenuous.</p>
<p>(*)</p>
<p>The same crowd that adores Bowen, Bok, and Kidder despises Sander, Sowell, and Clegg. To them, the first three aren't biased but the last three are.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The 20pts, that a study found URM status added to a student's SAT score, is ONE QUESTION.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No study has found that URM status adds 20 points to a student's SAT score.</p>
<p>Gratz revealed, however, that under Michigan's old system, being a so-called "URM" earned you twenty points automatically.</p>
<p>Espenshade and Chung have shown that being a so-called "URM" is the equivalent of at least 100 and up to 240 extra SAT points. It's imperative to understand, however, that no one's scores were artificially increased. The end results of admissions just showed that being members of certain groups got you treatment equivalent to having a substantially higher score.</p>
<p>fabrizio, right there on that last page is where i finally realized why no matter what anybody says, you aren't going to admit benefits of AA.</p>
<p>"fhimas,</p>
<p>Quote:
And jissell1013, though it seems no one really likes the harsh realities of AA, if we abolished AA, a lot of campuses would start looking like that of Berkeley's, with primarily Asian and White populations, and then a little URM presence scattered in here and there.</p>
<p>Very possible. I ask, though, is there anything wrong with that?"</p>
<p>-you don't place any value on having racial diversity on a campus. In your mind, if one day their was nothing but whites and asians at Harvard it would be the same, if not better than it is now. Hopefully going to a school that has racial diversity will help you appreciate its value, it just makes me sad at how deprived and misdirected you are. That's like saying if America was ONLY white people, it would be just as great, if not better. And if that's the opinion you hold, then i'm sorry.</p>
<p>Thankfully most of the country doesn't share that sentiment where so little value is placed on racial diversity. And THANK GOD universities feel the exact opposite.</p>
<p>being a urm only helps to the extent that the overall urm applicant pool is lagging behind the represented groups. If one year urms were equally as strong as whites and asians, then AA wouldn't help at all. </p>
<p>A 200 pt SAT score difference isn't really that big at the elite universities. I bet Harvard would have a hard time deciding between a 2200 and a 2400. (and that's on the high end).</p>
<p>i think everyone here agrees that michigan's point system was wrong, but since they were a large state university, that was the easiest way for them. </p>
<p>But you have to remember that university admissions isn't a job application. There is no "more qualified" because qualified is whatever they want it to be. </p>
<p>YES universities want urm students more than non-urms because they are more valuable to them right now.
YES a urm student is going to find a university wants them there more and will get admitted more often.
But NO nobody is taking anybodies spot because there is no spot that "belongs" to you.
NO nobody less qualified is being admitted because graduation rates are roughly the same and once you can succeed, whoever is "more" qualified is completely up to them. </p>
<p>-The whole controversy is unnecessary because at the end of the day you can always go "so what?".</p>
<p>Jian li sydrome: I have a 2400 SAT score so i was entitled to get into Harvard but i have to go to stupid Yale!! Damn blacks taking my spot with their pathetic 2200s! I didn't get in because I'm asian! I'm such a victim!!!</p>
<p>Tyler,</p>
<p>You've made a few misstatements of my views.</p>
<p>I do admit that modern affirmative action has benefits. It's just that these benefits apply only to certain groups.</p>
<p>I do place value on having racial diversity. I believe, however, that it occurs naturally and does not need to be forced with a preference system. California shows this. I also believe that discrimination cannot be used to justify racial diversity. If I had to choose between less discrimination and less racial diversity, I would always choose the former.</p>
<p>My high school was quite "diverse" by the standards of racial preference defenders. Relax, I wasn't deprived of any diversity benefits; I received all of them when I first moved to the South, including name-calling, language insults, and being associated as White even though I'm visibly not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In your mind, if one day their [sic] was nothing but whites and asians at Harvard it would be the same, if not better than it is now...That's like saying if America was ONLY white people, it would be just as great, if not better. And if that's the opinion you hold, then i'm sorry.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Careful. It would most certainly not "be the same." But, I would have no problem with it if it occurred under race-blind admissions. And, it would not be "better" simply because of lessened racial diversity. I do not believe that a strictly white America is just as good as America today. Like most "diversity" advocates, you confuse race-neutrality with race-supremacy. The two are not the same. As usual, you have built a straw man and argued against it.</p>
<p>Your derision of Jian Li is identical to how cheers castigated him. Hmm, wonder why.</p>
<p>what are you talking about, i don't even watch cheers.</p>
<p>Tyler,</p>
<p>If I were referring to the TV series, "Cheers," then I would refer to it as a proper noun. I did not. What's more, "Cheers" had its final episode over a decade ago, when Jian Li was still a kid. Along with these two things, my previous assumption that you're related to cheers should have told you that cheers is a user here at CC. Looks like I assumed incorrectly. You just share her mentality and thought processes regarding people who want to be treated equally; to you guys, these people have a "sense of entitlement."</p>
<p>
[quote]
The whole controversy is unnecessary because at the end of the day you can always go "so what?"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The same could be said for previous injustices. You know, like slavery, segregation, apartheid, and so forth.</p>
<p>For a guy who claims to follow Dr. King's teachings, you should adhere to his statement that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.</p>
<p>for bringing up Dr. King. </p>
<p>I think this quote sums up his position on the URM question, heck, the affirmative action question;</p>
<p>"Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment of the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man is entered at the starting line in a race 300 years after another man, the first would have to perform some impossible feat in order to catch up with his fellow runner." MLK</p>
<p>Seems as if some of the CC posters are like the people Dr King was alluding to in the first part of this quote.</p>
<p>madville,</p>
<p>Yes, indeed, Dr. King was supportive of both reparations and preferential treatment. He had the honesty and strength to admit what he wanted, unlike the people who still claim that "it doesn't play that big of a role" or even worse, "it's not preferential treatment."</p>
<p>I do not recoil in horror. I just say that I disagree with the need to grant a license of preference. The natural experiment that is California post - 1996 shows that it is not necessary.</p>
<p>Quote:"The natural experiment that is California post 1996 shows that is not necessary."</p>
<p>I guess if you consider enrollment rates among African American enrollees at the Cal public flagship schools for the class of 2010 at Berkeley 3.3% (140 people) , UCLA 2.0 %(99 people), and Cal Tech 1.4%(3 people) "progress." Or that natural selection is bringing about the desired results.</p>
<p>Getting back to the OP question, being a URM does matter, and for many rational and justifiable reasons I could expound on, it should.</p>