How much does being a URM help, really?

Applying to College
61

<p>madville,</p>

<p>No, I do not consider a 3.3% enrollment rate for Black enrollees at Berkeley as a sign of progress.</p>

<p>I do, however, view a 6.5% graduation rate increase for Black students at Berkeley as progress. I also see a 100% increase in Black graduation rates from 26% to 52% and a 100% increase in the number of Black honor graduates at UCSD as progress. Likewise, I am very happy to know that Berkeley and LA have increased their outreach to talented but disadvantaged students, as evidenced by 40% of their students receiving Pell Grants. Lastly, the 240% increase in Black admissions at Riverside is a great sign of progress.</p>

<p>The difference in enrollment rates now compared to then (i.e. pre-1996) shows just how strong the old preference system was. Without it, numbers changed like crazy. That's why I find it laughable when some people still claim that it "doesn't do a whole lot."</p>

<p>At least have the intellectual honesty to admit that it does, in fact, do a whole lot.</p>

<p>As the Espenshade and Chung paper shows, being an "under-represented" minority is worth quite a bit. That is fact. Whether it should is opinion.</p>

<p>I would like to know of a paper other than the ridiculous Kidder one that "discredits" the E&C study.</p>

62

<p>right, but a drop to 3.3% and 2.0% respectively? That's terrible. (once again the 6.5% increase in grad rate when you knocked out the bottom 80% of black students only goes to show that the african americans there were performing well and is in no way the progress you speak of) How can you justify less african americans at the top schools progress? (race-blind policies didn't add black students to the applicant pool so any statistics on enrollment are NOT in your favor).</p>

<p>The 3 black students enrolled at caltech will only contribute to the internal and external sentiment that technology is not a "black thing". </p>

<p>I don't understand how you use the cal system to advocate race-blind policies when it has been an absolute catastrophe which you would realized if you would stop neglecting the fact that there are only 2%, 3.3%, 1%, and 1.5% at UCLA, UCB, UCSD, and Cal tech. There are also only 2% at Irvine, 3% at Davis, and 3% at Santa Barbra.</p>

<p>African Americans are severely underrepresented at all of the top schools of the cal system and this is success? No, this is backtracking. This is stunting the progress AA was making and is harming the diversity of the top schools in the cal system. Even the cal system will say that it believe that prop-209 HURT the system. </p>

<p>It DOES do a lot, and it SHOULD do a lot because it NEEDS to do a lot. </p>

<p>So go ahead and say that the world should operate on a meritocracy and everybody got into the schools they were most "qualified" for. But don't even try to act like race-blind policy helped african americans in the cal system, because it didn't. to say otherwise is ignorant and offensive. </p>

<p>-A 100% increase in honor graduates at UCSD could just be a fluctuation in the strength of the app pool at this point. Seeing as theres only about 40 of them and an increase from 4 to 8 could be 100%.
-The outreach to disadvantaged students was not a result of race-blind policies so it cant be used as support.
-And once again when you cut out the bottom 80-90% of black students at a university of course grad rates are going to increase. </p>

<p>If you want real statistics for support, i would like to see any evidence in an increase in the NUMBER of black graduates from any of the the top campuses in the cal system as a result of race-blind policy. Show me that.</p>

<p>And if you're still going to try to manipulate statistics them i ask you: what about race-blind admissions led to "progress" in African American college students?</p>

63

<p>
[quote]
The difference in enrollment rates now compared to then (i.e. pre-1996) shows just how strong the old preference system was. Without it, numbers changed like crazy. That's why I find it laughable when some people still claim that it "doesn't do a whole lot."</p>

<p>At least have the intellectual honesty to admit that it does, in fact, do a whole lot.</p>

<p>As the Espenshade and Chung paper shows, being an "under-represented" minority is worth quite a bit. That is fact.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>An idea cannot be considered a fact if there are exceptions. How can it be so laughable when there are URMs with high SAT scores and high GPAs who get turned down at schools of Harvard or MIT's caliber? If AA does "do a whole lot" as you say, why aren't these highly qualified URMs getting in? Some posts I have read on CC make it seem as if any URM that shows they have some ability, will automatically get into virtually any school they apply to. These posts seem to be ignoring the fact that some highly qualified URMs do get turned down. What happened in those situations?</p>

<p>And what about Asians who are under qualified and still get into these prestigious schools? I know quite a few Asians who got into Wesleyan this year who did not earn it at all. They got mostly B's in regular classes (never took an honors or AP course even though my school offers about 9 APs and honors in every subject including electives like art and music), a few totally bombed the SAT (although one did manage to get a combined score of 2090 after taking it 3 times), and they used to cut school almost every day freshman year (which forced some of them to have to repeat freshman classes as a sophomore and have to take night classes as juniors in order to catch up and have a normal senior year). And they still got into Wesleyan over a few URMs I know who were more qualified than these Asians. What did those Asians have going for them that the URMs did not? Legacy? Couldn't be since they were all immigrants who came over with their parents. Were they athletes? That couldn't be it either because these students hardly ever hung around school unless it was absolutely necessary. Why did they get in? </p>

<p>I guess what I am asking is this: Why do some over qualified URMs get rejected while some under qualified Asians get into these high caliber schools?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I would like to know of a paper other than the ridiculous Kidder one that "discredits" the E&C study.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You consider the Kidder papers to be ridiculous, but I consider the Espenshade and Chung papers to be weak evidence. Their study was only conducted at three major research universities. It's like flipping a coin 4 times vs. flipping it 1000 times; the more times you flip the coin, the more likely you are to get the the ratio of heads to tails to be 50-50. Or imagine finding a possible vaccine for HIV and testing it only on three people and then putting the vaccine on the market. Conducting a study at 3 schools is not enough evidence to develop any sort of conclusions, just as testing the vaccine 3 times or flipping the coin 4 times is not enough. In any lab science class the teachers will tell you, the more trials you have, the more reliable your data. A study conducted at only 3 schools cannot sustain an analysis on its own. Especially considering different schools look for different things which makes it difficult to conduct research on to what extent AA plays a factor in admissions; Espenshade and Chung themselves note how difficult answering questions about AA can be in their papers.</p>

64

<p>Fabrizio, as opposed to percentages, I'd like to see raw numbers. While I don't subscribe to the rationale that the admission numbers have to be proportional, african american population in Cali is about 7%, is it not? 3,2, and 1% of total enrollment is a bit low for the state's flagship schools, wouldn't you agree?</p>

65

<p>fabrizio-
I'm on your side here, but I have to give the Kidder papers some credit. After reading both the E&C papers along with Kidder, I have to say both make sone valid points and some ludicrous points. I think Kidder may be right in that E&C may have misinterpreted their data. The 4/5 of the Black and Hispanic seats that would go to Asians is incorrect in that the fraction is derived from the total number of seats that would go to Asians over the total number of seats that would go to Whites, Asians, and those that mark other based on their simulations (when you do the math yourself, it comes out to something like 81.1%, rounded to 4/5). The Kidder papers are interesting; his theory of their being two forces involved in AA isn't an idea I hear too often. And his charts on law school admission rates among Asians remaining the same at UCLA and UC Berkeley even after AA was banned are also interesting. But KennyD is right. Neither Kidder nor E&C are reliable sources because their evidence is small scale. Large scale research would have to be conducted in order for any conclusions to be made. </p>

<p>madville-
I know this is kind of old, but in August of 2006 stateline did an article on Prop 2 in Michigan and in the article it said that the incoming class (class of 2010), had only 96 African American students out of a class of over 4700. My eyes kind of bugged out when I saw the number. I mean, 3% is low, but when you think in terms of actual numbers...I just didn't realize it was quite that low.</p>

66

<p>Perhaps I should be more clear. I apologize if I was not.</p>

<p>I dislike the Kidder paper as a **response** to the Espenshade and Chung study. It is woefully inadequate in that regard. Kidder analyzes the effects of race-neutral admissions at the law school level and then uses what he has found to show that Espenshade and Chung were wrong about Asians being the biggest losers in the current system. Yet, Espenshade and Chung wrote their paper on undergraduate preferences. It makes no sense to use law school data to respond to a paper that did not deal with law school data.</p>

<p>Had Kidder used undergraduate data to respond to Espenshade and Chung and still found the same results, his paper would not be inadequate as a response. Indeed, it would be a very effective and damning one.</p>

<p>But, he knows he couldn't get the same results because UC post-1996 looks vastly different from UC pre-1996.</p>

67

<p>Well the numbers I had were from jbhe.com (journal of blacks in higher education). The numbers I had for Michigan were 330 or about 6.1%. This is with the 20 point "boost" but to the powers that be that was too many. Michigan has a 20% population of african americans, yet with preferences make up 6% at the flagship institution.
Although in the Michigan undergrad supreme court case much was made of the handful of AA candidates that were "less qualified", and admitted, there wasn't much said about the 1400+ non URM candidates that were admitted instead of the complainant. As I've stated before look at the total numbers. URM's are not a threat to monopolize selective school admissions!</p>

68

<p>I'm still waiting on some numbers fabrizio. Actual numbers not percents.</p>

69

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>
[quote]

race-blind policies didn't add black students to the applicant pool so any statistics on enrollment are NOT in your favor

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But, the statistics are in my favor. At UCLA, the number of applications from Black students for fall 2007 was 2,453, up from 1,450 in 1995. Kindly check the following link, which is from UCLA itself:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=7977%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=7977&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Tyler, I know you vehemently disagree with me on the importance of race-neutrality, and that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled, however, to make up your own facts, which you have done on numerous occasions.</p>

<p>I do not neglect the relatively low percentages of Black students enrolled at the campuses you've mentioned. Likewise, I do not ignore the relatively high percentages of Asian students enrolled at those same campuses. To be fair, you should not ignore that Riverside is 8% Black.</p>

<p>It is not a success that Blacks are "under-represented" at some parts of the UC system. The success comes from the higher graduation rates, higher numbers of honor graduates, and higher enrollment of disadvantaged students.</p>

<p>You are sorely mistaken when you say that "The outreach to disadvantaged students was not a result of race-blind policies so it cant [sic] be used as support." It is precisely because UC was prohibited from using race as a factor that they began increasing their efforts to target disadvantaged students.</p>

<p>You obviously went to the College Board when you wrote that Black enrollment at UCSD is 1%. You should know that the actual number of Black students there is over 200, not "about 40." As usual, you're disrespecting over 160 students by treating them as if they were nonexistent.</p>

<p>If you're interested in such a statistic, I'm sure you can find it. You may have to broaden your definition of "top campus," though.</p>

<p>I do not manipulate these statistics; they speak volumes about the effectiveness of race-neutral admissions. The progress for Black college students is shown in higher graduation rates, higher application numbers, and greater presence throughout the system.</p>

70

<p>Kenny,</p>

<p>
[quote]
Why do some over qualified URMs get rejected while some under qualified Asians get into these high caliber schools?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>An excellent question!</p>

<p>The answer lies in holistic admissions.</p>

<p>Maybe these "URMs" you speak of wrote poor essays or had cookie-cutter ECs. Maybe they didn't have "leadership." Maybe they didn't contribute to "diversity." Maybe they were boring people who played violin, wanted to major in math, and wanted to practice medicine. You know, the usual stuff.</p>

<p>Maybe these Asians you speak of wrote stellar essays and had great ECs. Maybe they had both "leadership" and "spark." Maybe they contributed to "diversity." Maybe they weren't boring people who played violin, wanted to major in math, and wanted to practice medicine. You know, the unusual stuff.</p>

71

<p>51,000 total applicants and 369 african american admits (not enrollees). I didn't catch the yield. Take away the athletes, and it probably gets scary. Jackie Robinson would be rolling in his grave. 10 years and the numbers aren't going up. It's no wonder that in some states where you have issues like prop 209 that talented URM's are opting more and more for the private school options.</p>

72

<p>madville,</p>

<p>
[quote]

It's no wonder that in some states where you have issues like prop 209 that talented URM's are opting more and more for the private school options.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because the private schools treat them "equally?"</p>

<p>Sorry, but treating an individual differently solely on the basis of his skin color (or national origin as some users support) does not count as equal treatment to me. It wasn't equal treatment sixty years ago, and to continue such a practice under a different name and a different stated intent doesn't constitute progress, either.</p>

<p>Besides, as UCLA states, the number of Black applicants to their school last fall was 1,000 more than than the number of Black applicants in Fall 1995.</p>

<p>It doesn't seem like the spectre of equal treatment bothered these students.</p>

73

<p>We aren't really getting anywhere. I don't think it'll really matter anyway. Race-neutral policies are going to continue to fail anyway. The cal system is going to go back to considering race. The michigan system already is. The fact of the matter is that a campus with 2% african americans is bad for the prestige of a system. </p>

<p>Your definition of equal treatment is the exact definition that Martin Luther King Jr. stood opposed to. And i'm sure that the people will continue to see King's message and oppose systems that hurt equal representation. </p>

<p>I bet that if california was to vote on AA policies again, but on a smaller scale perhaps, after seeing the results, they would possibly even favor AA policies.</p>

74

<p>In my previous post, I said the class of 2010 had only 96 African Americans out of the 4700+ students in that class. I apologize for not mentioning which school it was. I was referring to UCLA. More students may be applying, but a lot less are getting in. And the main reason more are applying isn't because of any ban on AA; more URMs are applying because more students are applying period. Each progressing year, more and more students are applying to more and more schools due to the so called "echo baby boom" and more schools using the common app. It only makes sense that over all applications increased, URMs included.</p>

75

<p>Quote:Besides, as UCLA states, the number of Black applicants to their school last fall was 1,000 more than than the number of Black applicants in Fall 1995.</p>

<p>Fabrizio, your focus is constantly on the number of people who applied. How many "made the cut?" How many have matriculated? I would venture to say that those numbers are an embarrassment given the size and "prestige" of these campuses.</p>

<p>With regards to how different schools vary, I found it interesting that UVA weighs minority status higher than standardized scores according to its common data set. Hasn't seem to affect it's overall prestige, endowments, reputation. There's a problem with regards to the opportunities(discrepancies) of the status quo and URM's with access to selective institutions. The chasm is great. I applaud UVA and other schools who recognize this and are being progressive in closing the gap. The Cal system and the people of California gave up way too soon. It's (Affirmative Action initiatives) imperfect as most human endeavors are, but it's moving in the right direction. You would see it differently possibly if you were walking in my shoes.</p>

76

<p>jissell1013, though you draw a nice corollary between an overall increase in applications, and an increase in the number of black students applying, you causal evidence that it's the case. As I don't have any causal evidence either, you need to drop that argument off the table. </p>

<p>The OP originally questioned how big of a deal URM status is in admissions. Given the UC data, it is pretty clear that without AA, URMs generally don't fare well in admissions. All right, case closed.</p>

<p>However, debating whether or not AA is good is like debating abortion, stem cell research, or gay marriage issues, as the topic is highly controversial, mostly based on personal sentiment and experience rather than hard fact (the fact of the matter is, there is no pretty data set that helps us conclude the usefulness of AA). CC has undergone many AA debates, and this one seems exhuasted. </p>

<p>Fabrizio, I would have helped you out, but I was volunteering at the ACLU (you know, the American Civil Liberties Union... so we can see I'm not a baby killer as many seem to indicate) so I didn't really have access to my email nor CC.com.</p>

<p>As a general note, making up data to fit your case only reveals the weakness of your 'side' and your overall argumentation. That won't get you anywhere in college, and won't get you anywhere here. If you think it feels good to 'win' an argument here using your own set of data, great, but please do that with your younger sister. If you want to have a constructive discussion, please stick to your own personal experience and the analysis of reliable others, and not the strategy that helped you craft your sixth grade story of how you are better at running than your best friend.</p>

77

<p>great post madville. But in the defense of the cal system, they did not want to give up so i can't attribute this step backwards to they system.</p>

78

<p>Quote:But in the defense of the cal system, they did not want to give up so i can't attribute this step backwards to they system.</p>

<p>That's a good point. Neither did the Michigan administration and their supporters. Just the same, I doubt it was the minorities voting in large numbers against their own best interests in either state(although tragically it is an AA "leading" the way). Just the same, in my advice to my children in their college searches, I point these things out to them and let them know that in these state held democratic elections the people spoke, and it was a step back as far as I was concerned.</p>

<p>Being a hard core Buckeye fan, it made it that much easier to hate *ichigan! lol!</p>

79

<p>
[quote]
The OP originally questioned how big of a deal URM status is in admissions. Given the UC data, it is pretty clear that without AA, URMs generally don't fare well in admissions. All right, case closed.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I wasn't referring to what the OP originally questioned, I was referring to fabrizio's comment that the overall number of URM applications at UC after AA was banned had increased, meaning that URMs were not being discouraged to apply (although some posters have interpreted his statement differently than I have).</p>

<p>
[quote]
jissell1013, though you draw a nice corollary between an overall increase in applications, and an increase in the number of black students applying, you causal evidence that it's the case. As I don't have any causal evidence either, you need to drop that argument off the table.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. What does casual evidence mean? That I don't have specific numbers to prove applications are increasing? I was under the impression it was pretty much understood the classes applying to college have been increasing over the last decade or so and are expected to continue to increase.</p>

<p>madville-

[quote]
Just the same, I doubt it was the minorities voting in large numbers against their own best interests in either state(although tragically it is an AA "leading" the way).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Michigan has an 83% electorate. I'm not sure about California though I did find an interesting chart on it which said that California has a roughly 72% white electorate. I don't really trust this chart though because it was on a blog. Maybe someone else can find more reliable data. But here's where I got my Michigan evidence from:
<a href="http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=137542%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=137542&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

80

<p>
[quote]
Because the private schools treat them "equally?"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If I were an African American who was accepted to UCLA, upon finding out there are graduating classes with 4700+ students and only 100 African Americans, I would start looking elsewhere myself, be it a private school or another public school. </p>

<p>And that link fabrizio gave earlier:
<a href="http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=7977%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=7977&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I think people need to read it over before using the UC system as an example for anything. UCLA is adopting a more holistic approach to admissions which considers a students achievements within the context of what opportunities were available to students and which of and how these opportunities were utilized. Why are they changing their admissions policies? UCLA says it themselves: they were prompted by the severe decline in the number of African Americans enrolling at their school. UCLA seems to be disgusted, or at the very least alarmed, by its own stats. But since under prop 209 they can't directly give racial preference, they are now doing it indirectly: creating scholarships for African American students, they are reaching out to more schools and students in inner cities in order get more African American students to apply, they are holding more events for the African American students who are accepted in order to try to convince them to pick their school, they have outreach programs working with students in grades as young as kindergarten in areas which are considered to be educationally disadvantaged...The bottom line is, prior to '96, the number of African Americans enrolled at UCLA were seen as inflated. Eleven years later, the numbers are too low. I see a sort of pendulum effect occurring here.</p>

<p>The truth is, no one wants a system of preferential treatment unless they can some how benefit. I bet if AA benefitted Asians instead of Hispanics, Blacks, and Native Americans a few people on CC would be signing quite a different tune than they currently are. Just as I am sure if the number of Blacks enrolling at UCLA or UC Berkeley ever dropped to say just 25 or, heaven forbid, 1 African American enrolling in a single class, people across the country would cry racism and the UC system would be under fire.</p>