I wish I weren't Asian

College Confidential Community
281

<p>IsleBoy,</p>

<p>No, you asked some questions, and I answered your questions by providing examples. This is different from the earlier case, where I asked you a normative question, and you responded by answering a positive question. Quite different, in fact.</p>

<p>Also, with respect to my photography / study example, the student's hobby is photography. When I said 'study', I referred to his academic coursework. Just to clarify.</p>

<p>Did I say opportunity costs are zero sum? No. The definition of opportunity cost as I recall is "what you give up to get something." Many things can be given up to get something. Zero sum? Nope. And, zero sum is a special type of game. Game theory itself is a microeconomic topic, not a macroeconomic one, thank you very much.</p>

<p>Equality won't be achieved by extending preferences to certain groups and not others. I have never understood how that works. Such policies run counter to the very ideal of equality.</p>

<p>Yes, I know that you don't think Blacks will be "left behind" when their race is considered. That's not what I asked. I asked you why you believe that they'll be left behind in a race-blind system if they applied to all categories of colleges (safety, match, reach).</p>

<p>Here's a key point of our disagreement. You focus on the steep declines aspect of that quotation, but I focus on the are now higher aspect. What's more important? Mismatching students and lower numbers of "under-represented" students or correctly matching students and higher numbers of "under-represented" students? I'd pick the second option any day of the week. More students are attending universities, and these students have better chances of earning high grades relative to their peers and graduating.</p>

<p>But, I guess more isn't better for you. You probably don't care that there are more Black and Hispanic students enrolled across the UC system now than a decade ago. What matters to you is that there are fewer Blacks and Hispanics at Berkeley and LA.</p>

<p>The state residents you speak of do not support discrimination. They support an end to racial preferences, which are discriminatory policies. They are not against diversity.</p>

<p>Racial preferences == Discrimination
Dislike for racial preferences ==|== Dislike for diversity</p>

282

<p>Fab:</p>

<p>
[quote]
No, you asked some questions, and I answered your questions by providing examples.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You constructed the questions you answered. </p>

<p>
[quote]
This is different from the earlier case, where I asked you a normative question, and you responded by answering a positive question.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Since you mix macro and micro, your questions are normative, as well as positive.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Quite different, in fact.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, most people turn it into a relational.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, with respect to my photography / study example, the student's hobby is photography. When I said 'study', I referred to his academic coursework. Just to clarify.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My mistake. I have friends in Arts High Schools that do study photograph, dance, theatre, etc...</p>

<p>
[quote]
Did I say opportunity costs are zero sum? No.

[/quote]

Yes and No answers are binary, and zero sum.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The definition of opportunity cost as I recall is "what you give up to get something."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's the cost of the next best option.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Many things can be given up to get something.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That is true.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Zero sum? Nope. And, zero sum is a special type of game. Game theory itself is a microeconomic topic, not a macroeconomic one, thank you very much.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, zero sum games can be a micro or macro phenomenon. That is why a MACRO zero sum game, like using test scores as the primary consideration in college admissions, can affect the MICRO version that affects individuals.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Equality won't be achieved by extending preferences to certain groups and not others.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Since some groups have the power traditionally, I would say that the preferences are defined by the majority.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I have never understood how that works. Such policies run counter to the very ideal of equality.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Giving power to those who aready have it would perpetuate the inequity at the pre-college level. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Yes, I know that you don't think Blacks will be "left behind" when their race is considered.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, it's ethnicity, rather than race that concerns me.</p>

<p>
[quote]
That's not what I asked. I asked you why you believe that they'll be left behind in a race-blind system if they applied to all categories of colleges (safety, match, reach).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Since I don't avocate for a ethnicity-based system which does not consider individual applicants test scores, recs, ECs, etc....I don't believe that Blacks (or Hispanics or Southeast Asians, or women) will be left behind in a holitic private college selection process. Just as some Asians won't be hurt by the holistic admissions process with respect to safety, match, and reach schools. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Here's a key point of our disagreement. You focus on the steep declines aspect of that quotation, but I focus on the are now higher aspect.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree.</p>

<p>
[quote]
What's more important? Mismatching students and lower numbers of "under-represented" students or correctly matching students and higher numbers of "under-represented" students?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, since the UC system uses stats, rather than a generally holistic process, more Whites and Asians benefit. That is, the UC system discriminates against kids that do not have the scores, but the class rank, to get into it's flagship schools (i.e. LA and Berkeley)...because the UC system deems what is important for them. Likewise, selective private colleges can use the holistic process that does consider applicants as individuals. I prefer the latter to the former because the former does not recognize pre-college issues or look at the individual. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I'd pick the second option any day of the week. More students are attending universities, and these students have better chances of earning high grades relative to their peers and graduating.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You mean as opposed to the rates at the selective private schools?</p>

<p>
[quote]
But, I guess more isn't better for you. You probably don't care that there are more Black and Hispanic students enrolled across the UC system now than a decade ago.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>With respect to the macro demographics....it is not a surprise, since there are more Black and Hispanic graduates.</p>

<p>
[quote]
What matters to you is that there are fewer Blacks and Hispanics at Berkeley and LA.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, it does not bother me that there are fewer Blacks and Hispanics at UCB and UCLA, since proposition 209 helps the two largest groups in CA. That Hispanic and Black applicants go to other UC schools is fine.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The state residents you speak of do not support discrimination. They support an end to racial preferences, which are discriminatory policies.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, they support the status quo. Their vote was not to end racial preferences since whites are prefered or discriminatory policies (since discriminatory practices by the majority existed before AA). </p>

<p>
[quote]
They are not against diversity.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not against diversity as long as student come mostly from in-state. And, belong to the biggest two voting blocks in the state. If that is not discriminatory or reinforcement of the status quo, I'm not sure what you define racism, sexism, elitism, etc...as. </p>

<p>Ignoring pre-college factors (income, gender, ethnicity, et al.) is discriminatory, as is a believe that applicants are only qualified if they have the best scores. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Racial preferences == Discrimination

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Racial neutral preferences == Discrimination and reinforcement of the status quo.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Dislike for racial preferences ==|== Dislike for diversity

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Reinforcement of the status quo and race-neutral policies ==|== liking diversity.</p>

<p>Like I said before, if pre-college issues were similar, considering gender, ethnicity, income, state residence, would not be an issue. The reality, is that the majority (pre- and post-AA) sometime marginalize groups that are in the minority. Giving the majority more power to marginalize, without legal protection for minority groups (ethnic and otherwise), will reinforce the status quo and increase the inequity gap.</p>

283

<p>IsleBoy,</p>

<p>As post 275 demonstrates, you asked several questions, which I proceeded to answer. I constructed my answers, absolutely, but not the questions.</p>

<p>A positive statement describes the world as it is. A normative statement describes the world as it should be. Thus, a positive question asks whether the world is X or is not. A normative question asks whether the world should be X or not.</p>

<p>I asked you a normative question, but you responded by answering your own question, which was a positive one.</p>

<p>I still have my macroeconomics textbook. Dr. Mankiw defines opportunity cost as "whatever must be given up to obtain some item." To use one of your phrases, it's definitional.</p>

<p>You say that preferences are defined by the majority. They surely are. The majority group in our nation defined which groups received preference and which groups didn't. By careful word choice, they defined Asians as minorities based on their population size, but they excluded them from receiving preference because of their supposed "over-representation." Now, don't get me wrong - I don't support extending preference to Asians. I'm just pointing out once more the ridiculous nature of the term "over-represented."</p>

<p>I'm not advocating racial preferences for any group. Hence, I do not see how placing high emphasis on test scores gives power to those who already have it. Any student of any race can earn a high standardized test score. As AdOfficer has pointed out, the test is quite prepable. Having a high emphasis on test scores does not mean other factors aren't considered (ie. the magical "holistic" system). It's just that to me, these other factors shouldn't include race, or ethnicity if you prefer that term.</p>

<p>We may never agree on which effect overrides the other. For me, increased minority enrollment (from all minorities, thank you) in the UC system following an end to racial preferences is bona fide evidence that people aren't being left out. They aren't being denied chances. Their opportunities were not stolen from the majority group. All the lame hyperbolic excuses pro-race-sensitive affirmative action supporters throw out didn't happen. More students are enrolled in the UC system, and this happened without any group preferences!</p>

<p>Also, to refute your statement that the UC admissions system does not recognize "pre-college issues," I present you with the following article:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8366426%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8366426&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]

As soon as it became clear that affirmative action would be done away with, the state's public universities began to concentrate their attentions on California's schools. They sent their trainee teachers to some of the most troubled ones, and, by entering into partnerships, nudged them to improve. They offered places to the top 4% of pupils in every school that offered the right courses, regardless of how bad it was, on the ground that those who prevail in bad environments have at least shown gumption.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Lastly, how did a majority of the voters in California, Texas, Michigan, and Washington support the status quo? If they did, then racial preferences would still be in effect in those states.</p>

284

<p>If one quotes a passage, one should at least try to understand it.</p>

<p>UC’s eligibility criteria of accepting the top 12.5% of the state’s high school graduates is part of the state’s master plan of higher education.</p>

<p>The ELC is introduced recently. It accepts the top 4% of any individual high school. There are some high school where you are the top 4% but you are still outside the state’s top 12.5%, so this is a different rule. Originally it was thought that it can be used to get around proposition 209, but it turns out to have little impact. For example, in my area, the Hispanic majority high schools usually still have some Vietnamese students. They go to the same school and have the same social economic status, but guess who dominate the top 4%.</p>

<p>With the passage of 209, the result is the shifting of URM towards the lower ranking UCs. But remember that top 6 UCs are in the top 50 USNWR ranking, and even the bottom UC (ignore Merced which is too new) would still be around top 30 for public university. And while there may be less URM in Berkeley or UCLA, the URM now has better grade and better graduation rate. So under AA more URM may be accepted, but a lot of them also don’t graduate. What is more important, the acceptance rate or the graduation rate?</p>

<p>Another thing about the eligibility index is that it just says you are eligible, not that you must be accepted to the top UCs. To be eligible is really a very low bar, after that the school may ignore the index. Berkeley’s admission process is officially called “holistic review”, UCLA is going to do the same soon. They would do anything other than openly breaking the law.</p>

285

<p>Fab:</p>

<p>
[quote]
As post 275 demonstrates, you asked several questions, which I proceeded to answer. I constructed my answers, absolutely, but not the questions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I asked two questions in post #275.</p>

<p>

[/quote]
A positive statement describes the world as it is. A normative statement describes the world as it should be. Thus, a positive question asks whether the world is X or is not. A normative question asks whether the world should be X or not.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As I said, by mixing macro and micro concerns, which are at times different with respect to what the selective college process should be versus what it is for different groups and individuals, you are mixing a normative with a positive, because neither at the macro or micro level, world as it is or world as it should be is just one or the other.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I asked you a normative question, but you responded by answering your own question, which was a positive one.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, I did make the distinction between REAL world, and the IDEAL, and why the normative (not considering gener, ethnicity, race, et al.) would not work without considering a positive.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I still have my macroeconomics textbook. Dr. Mankiw defines opportunity cost as "whatever must be given up to obtain some item." To use one of your phrases, it's definitional.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I also still have my micro and macro econ book, which defines it as I have stated.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You say that preferences are defined by the majority. They surely are. The majority group in our nation defined which groups received preference and which groups didn't.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes they do.</p>

<p>
[quote]
By careful word choice, they defined Asians as minorities based on their population size, but they excluded them from receiving preference because of their supposed "over-representation."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually they are not excluded from preferences (as Southeast Asians are sometimes preferd to East Asians), nor are they excluded in the case where college admissions is based heavily on test scores, rather than a holistic view.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Now, don't get me wrong - I don't support extending preference to Asians. I'm just pointing out once more the ridiculous nature of the term "over-represented."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In that case, under-represented would also be rediculous. Maybe you should find another word that is more fitting for both sociological terms. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm not advocating racial preferences for any group. Hence, I do not see how placing high emphasis on test scores gives power to those who already have it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As you've said before, you don't want adcoms to consider pre-college issues that may affect individual applicants. The current situation with respect to test scores favor the majority and certain Asian sub-groups (that tend to be better-off economically). Therefore, by using test scores heavily, schools like the UCs, UTexas, UFlorida, etc...benefit those two groups. Without a holistic private college process (to balance some of the discrimination with respect to scores, and state of residence), should be an option in the admissions process, since there are other characteristics that are deemed important to an education. To think that private selective college would be mandated to discriminate against such applicants with the force of law, because the majority votes for it is flawed, in my eyes.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Any student of any race can earn a high standardized test score. As AdOfficer has pointed out, the test is quite prepable.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And, more readily an option for those who benefit from their social and economic standing.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Having a high emphasis on test scores does not mean other factors aren't considered (ie. the magical "holistic" system).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, some schools value score more than others, as it should be. Thus, schools like the UC's should exist, just as other private, holistic schools should exist.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It's just that to me, these other factors shouldn't include race, or ethnicity if you prefer that term.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If whites did not enjoy preferential treatment at both the macro and micro level, I'd agree with your in the abstract...</p>

<p>If private schools could use a holitic process, rather than one strictly geared to discrimintate for high scores and against others, I'd have no problem with how the UC's, UTexas, UFlorida approach admissions. By advocating that all private colleges use test scores more heavily like some of the publics do, I'd have to disagree because it reduces diversity in school choice for those who do not scores as highly but have other characteristics/talents/factors which do make them desirable. </p>

<p>It is your stance with respect to private holistic college admissions that do not weigh scores more heavily that I have difficulty with.</p>

<p>
[quote]
We may never agree on which effect overrides the other.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree with that sentiment. </p>

<p>
[quote]
For me, increased minority enrollment (from all minorities, thank you) in the UC system following an end to racial preferences is bona fide evidence that people aren't being left out.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That is positive evidence that there has been an upward blip in the numbers of students applying to college (at least until 2010)...the funny thing is that the Black and Hispanic enrollement has remained somewhat steady, even as their numbers are rising. So, they are losing some ground, when placed in context.</p>

<p>
[quote]
They aren't being denied chances. Their opportunities were not stolen from the majority group.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, their opportunities have been reduced. See above. As for being stolen, I think that reinforcing the the status quo in CA is what causes many of its problems. It's more like the majority supports policies that keep them in power without considering what the reality is.</p>

<p>
[quote]
All the lame hyperbolic excuses pro-race-sensitive affirmative action supporters throw out didn't happen. More students are enrolled in the UC system, and this happened without any group preferences!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It does not happen in the whole UC system, nor does it happen without considerations of gender, ethnicity, income, etc.... See post above, as well as the UC system page.</p>

<p>Most of the drop in numbers did happen...see your own article posts as well as mine. </p>

<p>As to whether anti-AA excuses are correct, that is up for debate. As for pro-AA excuses are correct, that is also up for debate.</p>

<p>Like I said, prop 209 proponents are quick to congratulate themselves without placing the numbers in context. For instance, the graduation rate, when compared to private schools is in the toilet. </p>

<p>And, yes, the schools would do anything not to break the laws, voted on by the two largest beneficiary groups (which makes up the majority), and maintain the status quo. Not really surprising. That some want private colleges that use a holistic process to weigh a candidate the exact same way without considering its ramifications is short sighted, as well as discriminatory at both the macro and micro levels.</p>

286

<p>IsleBoy,</p>

<p>Post 275. You asked five questions. I answered them all. Minor point.</p>

<p>bomgeedad pointed out a very important fact. Black and Hispanic graduation rates have increased following the end of racial preferences. At San Diego, they doubled.</p>

<p>Huh. Let's see. Under the ancien regime of racial preferences, there were X graduates from groups A & B. Following its abolishment, there were 2X graduates from groups A & B. Remind me. Who got left behind? Whose opportunities were denied? Whose chances were reduced? Twice the number of graduates, just remember that.</p>

<p>Lastly, please stop the misuse of status quo. A dictionary.com search defines it as "the existing state or condition."</p>

<p>Prior to the ballot initiatives, the existing condition was a system of racial preferences in California, Texas, Washington, and Michigan. A majority of the populace in those states voted against the existing condition. The correct thing to say is that they voted against the status quo, not for it.</p>

287

<p>Fab:</p>

<p>Here are the two questions:</p>

<p>
[quote]
By the same reasoning, where one concentrates on testing in the college admissions process, why would an individual take the extra 5 minutes to contribute to his or her community, work on his interpersonal skills, focus on a personal essay, look for a professor to write a rec, develope a special talent, et al.? </p>

<p>They were not left out in CA because of the 10% rule, a quota. See article above about the University of Florida. See UTexas data. So your fix is to use a quota system based on class rank. How is that any different than any other quota system?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As for your last post:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Post 275. You asked five questions. I answered them all. Minor point.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See above.</p>

<p>
[quote]
bomgeedad pointed out a very important fact. Black and Hispanic graduation rates have increased following the end of racial preferences. At San Diego, they doubled.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The reason graduation rates have changed, the source (i.e. more focus on retention and increased outreach to college students, etc...), was not mentioned. Why the graduation rate at all the schools in the UC went up to +50% has not been determined, but infered. If you like making such inferences, then the top private college graduation rates for HYPS, is an indication that even with 'preferences' for gender, ethnicity, income, special talents, essays, recs, geographic residency, et al. they are doing a better job using a holistic admissions process than all the UCs, UTexas, UFlorida, etc...</p>

<p>
[quote]
Huh. Let's see. Under the ancien regime of racial preferences, there were X graduates from groups A & B.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There has been defacto and de jure discrimination. The latter has been reduced, except for gerrymandering and other political practices. The former, is still alive an well. Ancient? Not really. The idea that test scores necessarily = apptitude is an old technique by the majority to keep those who are not in it or fall outside the social, political, and economic norm. See Jim Crow Laws, Voting Rights, School Segregation, et al for the historic. Then look at Low-income Housing History from the 1960's to present. Chicago, under it's current major is just now dealing with the defacto and dejure discrimination that lead to moving the poor of Chicago to the South side.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Following its abolishment, there were 2X graduates from groups A & B. Remind me. Who got left behind? Whose opportunities were denied? Whose chances were reduced?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Right. If there is a shift in how private colleges weigh test scores, making them 'worth' more, the reality would be few graduates, just as it is in the UCs, UTexas, UFlorida, etc....as compared to the private school rates. Who got left behind? Those who are low-income, those who have pre-college issues, those who are already marginalized by the majority.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Twice the number of graduates, just remember that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A correlation is not causation for graduation rates at either public or private schools. Remember that Black and Hispanic numbers (as a percentage) have not kept pace with the increase in high school graduates. Remember that since their is little growth in numbers for some minorities (as a percentage), an increase in graduation rates by a smaller percentage of Blacks and Hispanics does not mean that there has been, necessarily, an increase (i.e. big/medium/small).</p>

<p>
[quote]
Lastly, please stop the misuse of status quo. A dictionary.com search defines it as "the existing state or condition."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, the majority having the most benefits (politically, socially, economically) in society is the status quo.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Prior to the ballot initiatives, the existing condition was a system of racial preferences in California, Texas, Washington, and Michigan. A majority of the populace in those states voted against the existing condition.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, the majority did as they always have done, taken steps to protect their power (by vote). The majority voted to keep their power. That is not a surprise since they are the status quo. For a few years, discrimination was reduced in CA, TX, WA, MI...until the majority realized that they had less power than they have had historically. They corrected the situation with respect to their voting for the status quo, for supposed gender and race neutral policies that benefit them at both the macro and micro levels.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The correct thing to say is that they voted against the status quo, not for it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, they voted for an ideal, without any thought to the reality that would result. It's great to hold up the ideal, especially when it does not cause you group (what ever the majority) to benefit. Again, not a surprise that the majority of white and Asian voters voted for proposition 209. It keeps the power where it has traditionally be for the last 20 years...with the status quo. Thus, with respect to the reality, they did vote for discrimination, based on stats (since the UC's generally weigh them more heavily, even in holistic admissions).</p>

<p>I don't have a problem, like I said earlier, with the UC's (as well as the other schools, whose dynamics are different at the micro level), as long as their methods are not the only ones, and that private schools can use a holistic process that does not weigh test scores as heavily. If you eliminate considerations of gender, income, ethnicity, sexual orientation, geographic residency) for selective private college admissions, then the UCs (and other public schools must eliminate in-state considerations, it's own practice of considering income, gender, ethnicity, etc...). Will the numbers fall, without the use of a holistic process for some that make up the 4-12.5%, you bet. If the UC's (and other publics) keep their method, the private schools should keep theirs. I have no problem with that. </p>

<p>The problem is that those with stronger stats want the system to benefit thier candidacy in both systems, which would be a reality if test scores are ALWAYS weighed more heavily. Thus, even the UC's practice of using a holistic process runs afoul of your stance--even as you hold it up as an example that is race-neutral. Ditto for UTexas' 10% rule. Who benefits from such a situation that does not consider pre-college differences? The status quo.</p>

288

<p>IsleBoy,</p>

<p>That paragraph had five questions. You may call it one if you like. To use your term, it's a definitional.</p>

<p>As we have found out, there is no 10% rule in California. It's quite different from the Texas system, where a student who graduates in the Top 10% of his class is automatically admitted to Austin, the flagship campus of the UT system, as long as he applies on time.</p>

<p>I think you confused de facto and de jure. The former means "in fact," and the latter means "by right." You have stated that discrimination according to law still exists. Um, a majority of voters in California, Texas, Washington, and Michigan voted against de jure discrimination when they ended racial preferences. De jure discrimination is gone. What you fear is the resurgence of de facto discrimination. And, the UC data shows that your fear is quite unfounded.</p>

<p>I don't understand how you describe the UC system as producing "few graduates." Does the doubling of Black and Hispanic graduation rates mean nothing to you?</p>

<p>You bring up the whole "pre-college issues" thing again. Do you have any comments about the more aggressive outreach programs California is creating for its under-performing public schools?</p>

<p>No, "the majority having the most benefits" is not the status quo. This time it's not definitional. The residents were voting on whether to continue or end racial preferences. The existing condition was a system that had group preferences. A majority of the populace voted against the status quo; they did not vote to keep it. Stop misusing the term status quo.</p>

<p>UC data answers just about every single hyperbolic fear there is about race-blind admissions.</p>

<p>Reduced opportunities / chances? Reconcile that with increased matriculation and graduation rates.</p>

<p>Reduced diversity? Reconcile that with increased Black and Hispanic enrollment throughout the entire system.</p>

<p>Fewer role models? How can there be fewer role models if there are more Black and Hispanic alumni chasing the American Dream?</p>

<p>Failure to consider pre-college issues? Reconcile that with the outreach programs.</p>

<p>I don't think there's much more to discuss. It's simple. Ending racial preferences does not reduce diversity. It does not rob certain groups of chances and opportunities. It does not deplete the pool of role models. It does not ignore the X factors. All it does is move our nation one step further into embracing the ideal of equality.</p>

289

<p>I’m glad that UC has been brought into the discussion, because I often think that posters, when discussing holistic review (which is NOT AA) at private Elites, associate that with early AA at certain publics like UC (possibly Michigan too). </p>

<p>I.m.o., a student who cannot do the work at University X, public or private, should not be admitted to the school, period. I believe that some of this happened during the earlier stages of AA, labeled as AA. A 4-yr world class University is not a remediation academy. During the period of “forgiveness” admissions, not only did many of these admitted students struggle from the get-go, not only was there not the on-campus academic support, but worse, some of the curriculum was altered to accommodate these admits. And by the way, one needn’t have looked at scores to determine readiness: their grades, their high school course content, the qualilty of the teaching at their high schools, the barely literate essays – in some cases this was way below standard for any UC. This was a very race-in-itself-conscious period for UC & some other publics. I never approved of that, because in too many cases the outcomes were not positive for the students. Those AA admits who did do well, & legitimately so (without enrolling in altered curriculum) under the previous system, were then compromisd by the negative publicity about other students’ outcomes.</p>

<p>That system is history. That system is neither UC’s current Comprehensive Review, nor the Privates’ holistic admissions. In neither of these two styles of admissions & types of institutions is race a stand-alone factor. Nor does race, in either system, have the overriding weight that was previously in place. Most importantly, “groups” are not “being preferred on account of their race” (fabrizio).</p>

<p>However, to digress a little, fabrizio, since you seem to prefer UC’s approach (which now awards a combination of merit over a combination of circumstances), you need to know that actual numerical “points” are, or certainly have been, computed into the UCSD’s applicant’s profile for being low income and/or first generation. Who does that most favor? Poor immigrants, and children of poor immigrants. That group includes Latinos to a some extent, but to an even greater extent (recent) East Asian & Southeast Asian & South Asian families, because the latter come here so often specifically with education in mind, more uniformly than Latinos do. </p>

<p>In any case, the process at the Elites, which is not formulaic, but is organically evaluative. Overall, the significance of race in Elite admissions is minor relative to the entire set of attirbutes offered by the applicant. It’s not as if the committee sits arounds and says, </p>

<p>“Well candidate A is academically strong, but what do we care since we have ‘so many’ Asians in the pool? Candidate B is kind of weak academically, but man do we need someone from his race, & at least he just barely qualifies.” It would be more like, </p>

<p>“Candidate A is extremely similar, across about 7 areas, to candidates who in those 7 areas are also similar but who at least bring something a little unusual, different, etc. to our campus. We may (read, Jian Li) have to waitlist him, which acknowledges his excellence but says that there are candidates of an extremely similar nature (INCLUDING RACE) which are fractionally more attractive at this time; it also acknowledges that if our class size were bigger, he would be admitted rather than waitlisted.” </p>

<p>Elites, including the elite LAC’s, do not waitlist underqualified candidates. That is straight from the horse’s mouth. And since underqualified candidates don’t even get on a waitlist, there is zero chance that those candidates get admitted.</p>

290

<p>Again, fabrizio, you do not understand how the process works; that is clear from your arguments. But to indulge you a little, if there were a one-on-one competition for seats, it would be that Asians are competing with Asians, Whites are competing with Whites. For example, a middle-class East Asian student from the ‘burbs with a 5.0 W and a 2400 – family has been here for awhile; he’s at least 2nd generation--, competing with East Asian child of recent immigrants with a 4.5 W and a 2200 – parents are non-English speaking – hence his 600 in CR, & family lives above the laundromat they operate in an urban locale. I’ll bet you the bank that the immigrants’ child gets in. (And the assumption is that they both reside in the NE) Given all the books I’ve read & all the CC postings of current & previous admissions officers, the first candidate is not being directly compared with a person of a completely different racial category; first candidate is being compared indirectly, generally, with the entire pool of applicants, again generally within his region, and directly within those most like himself – type of high school, location, race/ethnicity, economic circumstances, etc. And understand that the one-on-one I just gave you is a snapshot. The panorama would be that the first candidate is additionally competing against females of his race & economic class, against midwesterners not of his race or economic class and with very different interests & accomplishments from him, etc. -- & all of these students with a range of numbers, some with GPAs & scores that match his. Sets of variables looked at in the macro (freshman applicants) & the micro (candidate as a candidate) dimensions – since you two like to use that terminology. And in both dimensions the data is not computed; it is evaluated: big difference, a difference which I believe favors the student in all cases. Big difference because the evaluation extends beyond asset to that campus: it considers value also to competing campuses. That is why, in the ED threads for Columbia & Princeton this year, you will find advantaged Asians in the math/science areas who were admitted. Those colleges are saying 2 things: (1) this student is a prize in & of himself/herself; (2) we’re worried that Harvard or Stanford or MIT might take him, & we may lose this prize if we don’t grab the student before he becomes a free agent. (The cynic would also say that the 3rd unspoken statement is that the advantaged student is not a financial aid liability, but I think this is a minor consideration, given the number of heavy FA students admitted in both rounds at Ivies; “enrollment management” ED awards are more common from schools with small endowments. For Ivies, money-driven ED decisions are more linked to esp. heavy donors, which are more rare.)</p>

<p>Where the point system still exists for certain UC campuses, I would call that system more a Collective Review, while calling the system at the privates more Comprehensive Review. Which one is more race-aware and race-rewarding? U.C., no question.</p>

<p>“Let’s assume that the student’s weighted GPA is 4.00, his SAT scores are 2150, and he has taken all the APs his school offers and has made at least a 4 on all them (some 5s). In addition, he dedicated himself to a community activity for several years. Last but not least, he wrote essays that made him stand out. I think this student can be admitted by his own merits to just about all the schools that we Asians are advised to add to our college lists. He’s good, why should his race make him unusual?”</p>

<pre><code>Response:

</code></pre>

<p>(1) His race doesn’t make him unusual; it makes him usual.
(2) The number of both Asians and non-Asians with these same numbers is staggering. It includes those who have “dedicated themselves to community activities for several years” and those with stand-out essays.</p>

<p>You rarely get admitted or not admitted based on your own profile in itself. The entire admissions process is an exercise in comparison, on many aspects of ability (judged by more than scores & grades), accomplishment, & potential -- along a balance of origins (racially, ethnically, geographically, economically).</p>

<p>“Now, let’s change those numbers up a bit. Let’s assume that his weighted GPA is 5.00, his SAT scores are 2400, and he has taken all the APs his school offers and scored all 5s….Should this student be admitted to the elite colleges? Yes. Why? He’s REALLY good! That’s all that matters! Why is he unusual because of his race? All I see is an outstanding student with great work ethic and civic duty.”</p>

<p>Thankfully, admissions committees see much more than that, things that you don’t see because you don’t see the competing apps. They see students equal to this from a different State or academic emphasis or a different opportunity set. (See above discussion of the process.)</p>

<p>I think I’ve about exhausted my patience with efforts at explanation. However, to mix things up a bit, it’s interesting to add this piece to the mix:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/05/19_ucadmits.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/05/19_ucadmits.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Happy debating, guys.</p>

291

<p>Fab:</p>

<p>Here are the two definitions:</p>

<p>
[quote]
de jure adj. Latin for lawful, as distinguished from de facto (actual).</p>

<p>de facto adj. Latin for "in fact." Often used in place of "actual" to show that the court will treat as a fact authority being exercised or an entity acting as if it had authority, even though the legal requirements have not been met.

[/quote]
</p>

292

<p>Fab:</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't understand how you describe the UC system as producing "few graduates." Does the doubling of Black and Hispanic graduation rates mean nothing to you?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You mean from 25% to 50%? Versus +90% at private selective colleges? It means something that +45% of Black and Hispanic applicants to the UC system do not graduate, using a modified admissions system that heavily weighs stats.</p>

293

<p>Fab:</p>

<p>
[quote]
No, "the majority having the most benefits" is not the status quo. This time it's not definitional. The residents were voting on whether to continue or end racial preferences. The existing condition was a system that had group preferences. A majority of the populace voted against the status quo; they did not vote to keep it. Stop misusing the term status quo.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It is your misuse of the status quo. The majority has never lost social, political, economic, power. Thus, the vote keeps the status quo in power. There has been no change.</p>

294

<p>Fab, besides not answering epiphany, you have made statements that may not be true, or have not been proven. For instance:</p>

<p>
[quote]
UC data answers just about every single hyperbolic fear there is about race-blind admissions.</p>

<p>Reduced opportunities / chances? Reconcile that with increased matriculation and graduation rates.</p>

<p>Reduced diversity? Reconcile that with increased Black and Hispanic enrollment throughout the entire system.

[/quote]
</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The UC system does not answer all the questions about considering gender, race, income, etc...because in some cases it does pay attention to mitigating factors in holisitc review.</p></li>
<li><p>Black and Hispanic enrollement, despite yearly increases in high school graduates, actually reduces their numbers in the UC system as a whole (percentage wise). See my earlier posts on the subject which you have chose to sidestepped.</p></li>
<li><p>You prefer to argue the macro, taking the group norm to make you points. That is, you are not looking at idividual applicants--but maintaining or reinforcing stereotypes of groups. You do not argue about UCB or UCLA, for instance, since looking at individual schools (micro) within the system would not further your assertions.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>You, again, mix the macro and micro view, assuming that they are the same, when they are sometimes not.</p>

<p>I'm interested in how you will respond to epiphany's posts above.</p>

295

<p>Epiphany:</p>

<p>Great posts and article...more succinct and better worded than any of my attempts thus far.</p>

<p>I'm about done as well. I usually don't continue, when the debate gets ureasonable, but this is one of the few subjects that is of great concern to my friends and family (in Hawaii, California, Washington, Virginia, Florida and in the Northeast), as well as myself. I'm surprised at how unified my large extended family and I are on this, as it includes Asians (Southeast and East), Latinos (Hispanic and non-Hispanic), and those in the majority (European).</p>

<p>Athough we prefer that the world exist in the ideal, the reality is what affects individuals. There are unintended (and real) consequences that are unacceptable (an opinion), if fabrizio's view of admissions wins out--which leads to greater real world inequity.</p>

<p>Anyhow, I wish I were better able to sperate the ideal with the real, as some posters have done. </p>

<p>In any case, I'm sure I'll see you here on CC--helping others in the admissions process. I, myself, have recently spent more time on this thread than helping others through the process leading up to an acceptance letter. For that, I'm a bit sorry. </p>

<p>Back to more important things. And, set some boundaries on postings with regard to the same old saw. ;)</p>

296

<p>epiphany,</p>

<p>Thanks for taking the time to write a complete and detailed post.</p>

<p>If groups weren't being preferred on account of their race, then I'd have absolutely nothing to write about.</p>

<p>In fact, if that were the case, I'm confused as to why Ms. Rapeleye didn't issue a statement along the lines of "We don't give preference to any groups."</p>

<p>Did she? If she did, then I missed it, and I've been complaining about something that doesn't exist.</p>

<p>The only thing is, it does exist. If it didn't, then Ms. Rapeleye would have publicly announced that Princeton does not give preferential treatment to certain groups and Li Jian would have no case. But, SHE HAS ISSUED NO SUCH STATEMENT.</p>

<p>There aren't enough Black students with above 700 sectional SAT scores in the entire nation to satisfy each elite university's diversity goals. Just in case someone misreads that and decides to spin it, it's not a racist statement.</p>

<p>Where do the other students come from? Elites would have to admit students whose scores are below 700. Apparently, their "charm," "leadership potential," or "uniqueness by virtue of skin color" make up for the stat deficit.</p>

<p>We all know that elites aren't the only institutions with diversity goals. Given that the pool of high scoring Black applicants has already been depleted, how can other universities satisfy their goals? They would also have to admit students who score below their average. On and on, ad infinitum.</p>

<p>With respect to your responses, I thought we were talking about a hypothetical Black applicant?</p>

<p>Holistic is fine. What's not fine is making blanket judgments based on race. Do you know that the "under-represented minority" applicant you pick has stronger 'leadership qualities' than the "over-represented" applicant you reject? Do you know that his life was more colorful? Do you?</p>

<p>Affirmative action as defined by racial preferences is a policy. Hence, it should be judged based on its benefits, costs, and results. What are the benefits? I see only one - higher percentages of preferred groups on campus. What are the costs? Many. It's a system that rewards underachievement. It addresses the effects of "pre-college issues" without doing anything about the causes. It fosters racial tensions. It flies against the ideals of meritocracy and equality.</p>

297

<p>IsleBoy,</p>

<p>Par the TOS, I'm not allowed to insult anyone on the boards. I assure you I write in good faith (not sarcasm) when I say that you have the potential to be a great politician. Your mastery of politically correct phraseology is unbelievable given that you are my elder by just a few short years. Your ability to deflect questions posed to you and instead answer your own question is commendable. Your skills at word choice are quite worthy of praise. I would not be surprised if in the future, you edify many people in the general public about why it is a good thing to treat people differently based on their race.</p>

298

<p>Drosselmeier,</p>

<p>I'm well aware that you express views which place you in a (very small) subset of affirmative action supporters. Yet, it scares me that you so aggressively advocate reparations for your race by asking other racial groups to pay. I've repeatedly stated that Blacks have indeed been grossly mistreated in the past. I believe they, like all others in this nation, should be treated equally. I do not believe that they are entitled to preferential treatment.</p>

<p>I've learned a lot from this discussion. The fears affirmative action supporters feel will happen under race-blind policies are simply unfounded. I've learned that it's easy for them to spin "against racial preference" as "against diversity." I'm very interested to see if I can start a civil rights initiative later on in my life, and I'll be sure to keep that fact in my mind.</p>

<p>Diversity? YES! Racial preferences? NO!</p>

299

<p>Fab,</p>

<p>I challenge you to befriend a Black man/woman (to a serious degree). I have done so and it has totally changed my thinking on this entire subject. As a race, I believe African-Americans have so much to offer the world that may or may not be in line with conventional thinking on the subject of college admissions. Just a humble suggestion.</p>

300

<p>fab,
IsleBoy's been trying to tell you repeatedly, so I'll say it again, perhaps differently:</p>

<p>Groups are not admitted to Universities (of any kind); individuals are. Therefore there is no "group" policy/preference; nor is there a policy/preference covering members of any "group," however that's defined.</p>

<p>Group policies are all a fantasy in your head, which you keep arguing & then demanding that posters defend a theoretical that does exist in the practical world. (So yes, you "have nothing to write about.")</p>

<p>The elites do not practice racial preferences; they practice diversity. It's been illustrated to you & documented & exemplified in various ways over & over. When will you understand this?</p>

<p>"There aren't enough Black students with above 700 sectional SAT scores in the entire nation to satisfy each elite university's diversity goals. Just in case someone misreads that and decides to spin it, it's not a racist statement."</p>

<p>I'm more worried about that being an inaccurate statement. Citation please?</p>

<p>And what's wrong with a 700? There are Asians applying to Ivies with 700's & below 700's on some sections, also on SAT II's Should we not admit them because of "low" scores?</p>