I wish I weren't Asian

College Confidential Community
381

<p>Fabrizio, do you know who the people in the link you provided are? Each of the authors in the link you've provided are notoriously against affirmative action, as is the Center for Equal Opportunity, to the point where some have labeled it as rogue in its attempts to slander those who support affirmative action and assimilate people into American culture. Robert Lerner - while certainly loved by our President - slams Bowen and Bok for not studying what would have happened to the black graduates of elite colleges if they hadn't attended these schools. Well, this is 1) beyond the scope of the study and 2) next to impossible unless you did a twin study, which are exceedingly difficult to do since there aren't that many identical twins out there. He also makes arguments about data that he finds "flawed" - namely using the data from the Class of 1951 in the College and Beyond Database. The authors did so because it was prior to the Civil Rights Movement but after the GI Bill, which opened the doors of colleges to many because it helped remove the financial barrier of higher education. They did not use a class from the 60s because this is post-Brown vs. Board of Education. The historical significance of the 1951 class is that they entered college prior to "equal access" to education and affirmative action. They then used the class of 1976 because they were a midpoint class chronologically from the time they did their study. Lerner seems to think this isn't relevant to the study, yet it is precisely because the authors were trying to measure the effects of affirmative action as compared to the effects of not having it that including data on a class prior to 1960 is important. But again, you've been very selective in the evidence/viewpoints you've chosen to use in your arguments - but this evidence/viewpoints are severely biased. </p>

<p>Also, the Mellon Foundation does open the Database to anyone who wants to use it for statistical purposes in NON-BIASED RESEARCH; it is a "restricted database" in the sense that the personal information it contains and the individual institutional information it contains cannot be released - researchers either use all of it and do not single out certain individuals or institutions or they can't have access to it. That's the only way the institutions involved could assure their students that their individual personal information could be protected. But Bowen and Bok did not write TSOR with the intent to convince anyone on the merits of affirmative action, but rather to supply statistical evidence to see whether or not affirmative action does what it claims to do and how much it affects different students. As they mention on the second page of their work, data of this kind is subject to many interpretations, but you - and those you provided a link to - are speaking in absolutes with a rather biased view. That is not to say that I don't have my strong viewpoints, or that Bowen and Bok don't have their opinions either, but you can't reduce a body of research down to one or two points and then call out some flaws, call them "serious", and then completely ignore the remaining body of evidence that does not support your viewpoint or the actual regressions the researchers performed. Lerner and the others on the Center for Equal Opportunity link you provided did exactly this, making me question their motives and the integrity of their arguments. True, Lerner does make some points about the limitations of the database which, though somewhat minute, are valid; however, Bowen and Bok make the same exact points and account for them in their narrative analysis of the data. And Bowen and Bok did fear backlash about this piece - they knew it would create a furor; however, prior to TSOR, no one had done any work as extensive about the effects of affirmative action because of fear that they would be labeled "in favor" or "opposed" to something that people are so sensitive to. Also, remember that no quantitative research or study is ever going to be perfect... </p>

<p>Also, Bowen and Bok are very clear in their narrative analysis that 1) their sample is atypical because most students in higher education do not apply or attend highly selective institutions and 2) that IN THEIR SAMPLE, their findings were what they were...they do not make "huge and broad normative statements in defense of affirmative action everywhere". They are very careful from the beginning to assert that statements made in their piece reflect their findings about affirmative action in admissions at highly selective colleges and nowhere else. And while Mr. Lerner and others might not think that the institutions they used were all that similar with respect to selectivity, the fact of the matter is that, at the time the students in the database were admitted to college, these schools were very similar with respect to selectivity. They may not have been similar in reputation, size, location, whatever, but that's not what the researchers were measuring...they were measuring how affirmative action affects admissions decisions at selective schools and if these decisions truly do provide benefits. </p>

<p>Indeed, most of the arguments presented in the link you've provided are of a political nature and not based on empirical evidence or educational research about admissions and life-outcomes of students. Bowen and Bok speak about pedagogy and social justice, while Lerner and others are concerned about defining "merit" in absolute, "fair" terms. This is not a subject where absolutes can apply. Your mention of Ward Connerly illustrates this perfectly - I'm not sure he's should be the posterchild for "merit" and "fair" considering his wavering viewpoints, or rather his history of trying to benefit from affirmative action when it will allow him to gain financially and then opposing it publicly for a similar reason. This is a man with a business that won over a million dollars in state contracts because he filed for the contracts under affirmative actions clauses and then later earned hundreds of thousands of dollars personally after starting the American Civil Rights Institute opposing affirmative action. He claims to seek the truth about race in our society - apparently a rather lucrative enterprise. Gotta love those lobbyists. </p>

<p>qwilde - don't be intimidated...i'm just trying to encourage folks to see past the politics and personal feelings and look at affirmative action from a macro social perspective, as well as to be critical when reading about educational research. If you think my tone is lofty, that is your interpretation and you are entitled to it - but remember this is text and a thread, not an actual conversation where you can hear my voice. I do, however, think that some of the comments on here are gross assumptions and inflammatory. I would, however, encourage you to read more before making absolute claims that affirmative action "is discriminatory by all accounts". Race, sexuality, and socioeconomic status are certainly factors considered in admissions and I agree with you that considering the country's history they should be, but they are not the deciding factors, regardless of anecdotal evidence some folks on CC have supplied. The fact is the only people who read a student's whole application to a college are admissions officers; there is so much more that goes into our decisions besides considering race (read my previous posts) that anecdotes do not come close to accounting for. I'm not really sure what else I can say to assure you all that these decisions are made fairly. All of our admit actions are affirmative - we recognize academic achievements, personal qualities, different values, different talents, legacy relationships, different perspectives on learning, etc..., when creating a community of learners we hope will learn from each other. In doing so, we have to recognize that we don't live in a meritocracy...</p>

<p>Now I have 40 applications on my desk...I will be around in other posts and if you have any questions shoot me a message, but I'm done writing in this thread. Hope you learned more about this subject...I did from some of you!</p>

382

<p>epiphany,</p>

<p>Yes, my mistake. Thanks for pointing that out.</p>

<p>Civil rights initiatives potentially end racial preferences, but they do not immediately solve the existing problems.</p>

383

<p>AdOfficer,</p>

<p>Ai..."non biased research?" Could we be any more vague?</p>

<p>If I only gave procedures and calculations in my lab reports and hid my data in a safe spot due to "teacher bias," then I'm sure that I'd receive a failing grade. My lab report is missing an essential component.</p>

<p>Hence, it should be given that The Mellon Foundation can claim anyone is biased. All they have to do is doubt whether the researcher will produce a paper in favor of racial preferences and boom! he's biased and can't be granted access.</p>

<p>Such a practice runs counter to the spirit of science. The data should be available to all, "biased" researchers and "non-biased <em>COUGH</em>" researchers.</p>

<p>If anything demonstrates how partisan, politicized, and for lack of a better word, rude the Mellon Foundation is, it's how they treated Drs. Cole and Barber. The foundation funded the research, and when it was obvious that the findings were against racial preferences, they distanced themselves from it. Apparently, the professors weren't biased when their research was funded but they were when it was released. Hmm. Wonder why.</p>

<p>The problem with lumping smaller colleges with larger universities is that the resulting statistics are more indicative of what happens at larger universities as opposed to smaller colleges. </p>

<p>I certainly respect the fact that AdOfficer took time out of his schedule to write with users here, but I have to say that I was disappointed with some (not all) of the statements. I'm still not satisfied with the explanation reconciling conflicting statement A ("there are so many great colleges out there") and B ("the college you attend matters").</p>

384

<p>If people are complaining that black people are more likely to be poor as an argument for affirmative action, then why don't we just have it income-based? If anyone gets what I'm saying, please expnd for me.</p>

<p>This is coming from a very far left liberal (see username). But I'm Asian so I guess that doesn't count.
Random Questions:
I know that they give affirmative action for Asians at Emory and Vanderbilt (and many others) but do Hawaii at Manoa, Berkeley, Irvine, and others give affirmative action to whites? How about colleges in "the chocolate city" of New Orleans (to blacks, whites, Asians, Hispanics, Native Americans)? How far is the extent of affirmative action for Native Americans at Dartmouth (renowned for having lots of Native Americans)?</p>

<p>By the way, Ray Nagin's apology for the chocolate sity remark was something to the effect of this:
"Well, you take some chocolate, grind it up and mix it with milk, and it becomes a delicious drink."</p>

385

<p>Wow, I'm sorry if my comments offended anyone. I was more repeating what my mom said about her work. Basically, there was a program where high school graduates did menial work for hte government like sending memos to different buildings. That was gone when email became big. The government promoted them all to desk jobs. Very few of the African Americans my mom works with got to where they are through these promotions, but she has yet to mention a white person who has. Also, I was filling out applications for federal jobs, and the first race question they ask is if you are a nonwhite hispanic/latino. Then they have another question for every other race. Think what you will. My mom thinks the governemnt is desperate for qualified hispanics. I don't know what to think.</p>

<p>Think about the merits of AA for a second. I saw somewhere on CC that the overall SAT average was like 1500-1600 and Asians also fell into this average (whites may have too). If there is no reason to think one race is smarter or more hard working than the other, why do top colleges have over 10% Asian when they make up 4% of the population? Why are colleges hard pressed to have 5% black or 5% hispanic? Obviously there is some sort of disadvantage URMs have. Maybe it is the school system. I don't know. I come from an affluent area so I wouldn't know how bad inner city schools are. Fabrizio, don't fight AA until you see what obsticles URMs have to go through to graduate high school and go to a college (not just top colleges). Asians only have a slight disadvantage when applying to the most elite colleges (if you can call it that, considering the number who get in). I don't think that AA hurts us that much (if at all) in the grand scheme of things. And remember, life has very few meritocracies. Get used to it now. Just because you have a 4.0 and 2400 does not mean you are guaranteed anything. No one promised you admission to Harvard. And if you get into Harvard, no one promised you that you will not be unemployed 10 years down the road.</p>

386

<p>venkater,</p>

<p>Yes, I am aware that certain groups in our nation are still disadvantaged. Hence, I support policies that attempt to address the causes of the problems. Merely recognizing them as "bad" does nothing to solve them and does nothing to benefit the intended groups in the long run.</p>

<p>I also believe that a student with perfect stats is not entitled admission to an elite. I cannot stress enough that I believe this student's race should neither benefit him nor hurt him.</p>

<p>Statements like "not another boring Asian" made by admissions officers are completely unacceptable. No excuses. The individuals who utter these words should be fired. I don't care how rare it is; it's wrong.</p>

387

<p>"If people are complaining that black people are more likely to be poor as an argument for affirmative action, then why don't we just have it income-based? If anyone gets what I'm saying, please expnd for me."</p>

<p>proletariat, The colleges already see that income is very important, & that varieties of income levels exist across the ethnic & racial spectrum. I think they have been a little slow to see that, but have certainly dramatically improved in this regard over the last approx. 5 yrs., that I can see.</p>

<p>But AdOfficer made diff. points about race as a separate affirming (not in the sense of excusing or favoring, rather inclusive) feature. Those posts appear earlier in this thread, & explain a committee's point of view pretty thoroughly. For college admissions, it's not "bad" to be Asian, any more than it's bad to be any other particular race, ethnicity, nationality. It's a piece of information -- in itself, neutral. Race is not considered on the basis of a stereotype of positive features or negative features. </p>

<p>There is a huge racial & ethnic diversity (& economic, & geographical) applying to Ivies that are also qualified to attend. And that's why the committee can afford to seek a balance within that qualified diversity.</p>

388

<p>"For college admissions, it's not "bad" to be Asian, any more than it's bad to be any other particular race, ethnicity, nationality."</p>

<p>This is an important point that needs to be made again. Being Asian does not hurt you; it just doesn't give you any advantage except at schools that have a historically small Asian population and want to increase it.</p>

389

<p>Doesn't give you any advantage...</p>

<p>...so we're admitting that certain races are preferred?</p>

390

<p>No, certain races are not "preferred," but they are identified with the aim of including a variety of students.</p>

<p>If URMs were actually preferred, then they would not be underrepresented.</p>

391

<p>If you look at the student bodies at colleges, you could conclude that whites and Asians are preferred.</p>

392

<p>Preferred - Non politically correct term meaning "identified with the aim of including a variety of a students."</p>

<p>I'm just using 1 word to express 11.</p>

393

<p>[url=<a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/the_new_yellow_peril.html%5DHere%5B/url"&gt;http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/the_new_yellow_peril.html]Here[/url&lt;/a&gt;] is Thomas Sowell's response to "Little Asia on the Hill".</p>

<p>Interesting.</p>

394

<p>Reading 40 files in one night makes one need to take a break, so I'm back :)</p>

<p>Fabrizio,
"Non-biased research" - most educational research (like other research) is done with the use of grants from various organizations or institutions. If an organization like the Mellon Foundation sees that the majority of funding for research is coming from an institution/organization like the Center for Equal Opportunity which has clear political ambitions, then they are not very likely to provide support/access to data to individuals using that funding. True educational research seeks to understand the effects of policy, social factors on educational attainment and success, the success of various programs, etc..., and as such should contain no bias because it has lasting effects on policy-making and the futures of millions of students. This is the reason why databases containing educational and demographic statistics are not open to just anyone, but particularly to those with a political agenda. It is highly-sensitive information - not because anyone is hiding anything, but because it is extremely personal. Bowen and Bok - and other educational researchers - have to operate within the limitations of the data available to them. And because, as mentioned earlier, education in this culture is not seen as a social good necessarily, the government has not done a good job of collect data on education that is comprehensive enough to satisfy everyone. Additionally, education and learning are not easily-quantifiable, which is why it is often difficult to find causations in educational research and why it is dangerous to make blanket statements about the intelligence or educational attainment of certain groups. </p>

<p>As far as Bowen and Bok "hiding their data" - the College and Beyond Database has been used in tons of other studies (including some which conclude that affirmative action should be opposed) and in all of those studies it has to be presented in aggregate; no single institution or individual can be singled out because of FERPA and other privacy laws. Again, this was the only way to get the institutions represented in the College and Beyond Database to submit all of their admissions decisions and personal/academic information about their applicants. This is also academic and professional ethics. However, Bowen and Bok are meticulous in their methodology and carefully explain what data, if any, were segregated and why. They also include all of the data (without personal or institutional info) that they used in their work. </p>

<p>Regarding Cole and Barber - their research was supported by a wide range of organizations and institutions, including Columbia and Harvard and other institutions and organizations that support affirmative action. The reason the Mellon Foundation "distanced" (which is still debateable - the authors claim Mellon did this, but the authors never reapplied for funding from Mellon) itself from their research was because initally Cole and Barber applied for funding from Mellon to do one study (on black student success in highly selective colleges) and then used it to fund another (on diversity in faculty). They tried to explain that both studies were actually part of the same project, but Mellon (and others) didn't buy it. However, Cole and Barber also violated the College and Beyond Database's rule that they use the data in aggregate; they instead segregated individual institutions (like Amherst, Bowdoin, and others). In addition, their methodologies were highly criticized because when they did release their findings about black graduates of elite colleges and universities, they did not use the data on graduates of the Ivies or highly selective privates when making their conclusions - they only used data on high-achieving black graduates of public institutions and some privates. One finding, however, was important in their work (although it was rather evident prior to their research); they did highlight the drought of black Ph.D.s that academia faces.</p>

<p>As far as the larger vs. smaller institution issue you keep bringing up - again, when studying the effects of an admissions policy on selectivity, size of the institution does not matter. What matters are the selectivity indicators like acceptance rate, average SAT/ACT scores for admitted students, average high school GPAs for admitted students, etc...,. If a college with 20,000 students has an acceptance rate of 20% and a college of 2000 has an acceptance rate of 20%, then the selectivity is the same. That is how selectivity is defined. However, if you don't buy in to this, Bowen and Bok actually applied the appropriate sample weights to each individual institution in their tabulations and regression analyses so that their findings regarding each individual institution would accurately represent the entire entering cohort of each grouping. In other words, they weighted each institution so that size wouldn't matter. Thus, they did control for the size of the institutions, as I previously mentioned.</p>

<p>You are still conflicted by my assertion that there are plenty of great schools out there for students who don't get into the Ivies, Stanford, MIT, etc...but that where you go to school matters. I'm not sure where the conflict is, as I explained this a few times. The fact of the matter is that a student who attains a bachelor's degree will earn far more over the course of their lifetime than a student who does not. There is certainly a prestige hierarchy that exists in this country with respect to higher education...I would be lying if I said that my attending two Ivies had nothing to do with me getting interviews for jobs. However, these schools' names may get your foot in the door, but depending on what you learn in college, how you learn it, and what you choose to do with it, having the Ivy degree might not mean squat once you interview, or write a cover letter, etc...,. It all depends on what you learn in college and what competencies you develop there. If you go to Harvard but don't learn to write or communicate effectively as someone who went to, say, North Carolina State University, chances are that person is going to get hired over you. Thus, like in high school, you get out of college what you put into it and benefit from taking advantage of all the opportunities you can. If I am interviewing someone (which usually happens every year) and they can't convince me that they can communicate well, write effectively, and think critically, I don't care where they went to college - I'm not hiring them. College is no longer simply the signal that it was decades ago. So, does going to Harvard or Brown or Amherst matter? Yes. Will you be a failure if you graduate from the University of New Mexico? Absolutely not. There are subtle differences in earning between grads of the Ivies versus, say, Tulane or NYU, but that doesn't mean those schools can't give you a darn good education and leave you better off than if you hadn't attended college...I mentioned the work of Caroline Hoxby in an earlier post regarding this subject - I suggest anyone read it if they can (just google it and it'll pop up) to get a better understanding of the economic returns of attending a college and the differences in economic returns between grads of some schools versus others. </p>

<p>I think you are inferring way too much from what people are posting on here, not reading closely enough, and/or getting caught up in semantics (example: post #389). The way you define "preference" is much more pejorative than most people's definitions of it. </p>

<p>epiphany and others...there have been a lot of studies done on "income-based" affirmative action and many simulations have been run to predict what would happen if income-based affirmative action supplanted race-based affirmative action. Overwhelmingly, the research suggests that the number of black and Latino students would probably drop at most elite institutions, namely because there are more low-income white students in this country than there are black and Latino low-income students. I'm talking about real numbers here (more white students than black and Latino) and not proportions...if you are interested in this topic (the recruitment of low-income students to elite institutions), check out Gordon Winston's work...he's an economist from Williams...go to their website and search his name and his articles will come up under the Williams Project on the Economics of Higher Education...or check out the work done by the Century Foundation). My own research supports these results as well. But I think this highlights once again the importance of maintaining affirmative action the way it is - it helps a minority of students by recognizing the social factors that impede their academic achievement. However, many schools - like Oberlin, Williams, Pomona, Princeton, Stanford, and others - are working with organizations like Questbridge to identify low-income students around the country and expose them to places they may not have otherwise considered because they aren't familiar with financial aid policies at these schools (meeting 100% of need). Personally, I think a formal combination of the two is needed...</p>

<p>Again, read carefully guys - whether it's someone's post on CC or educational research. And when consuming research, make sure you understand why the authors are writing what they are. Ask yourself - are they really interpreting their findings accurately (regardless of whether or not you agree), or is the data really saying something different? No data is perfect, nor are methodologies, but works like the Shape of the River are considered definitive for a reason, despite some conservative criticisms.</p>

<p>Back to reading...</p>

395

<p>Momwaitingfornew, if college admissions doesn't hurt Asians but only gives an advatage to other group, that means it hurts Asians. When thinking at the boundaries of selective college admissions, throwing aside all obvious rejects and shoo-ins, for every person accepted, there are many others that are rejected. If that person is, say, a Hispanic person who is just ever-so-slightly less qualified but AA gives enough "push" to make him/her slightly "better", then the Hispanic will be accepted. If the Asian or white people were in that place and the others were Hispanic, the Asian would surely be rejected. It's kind of like the Red Queen hypothesis in evolutionary biology: any advance made by any species marks a setback for all other species. That's the difference. If diversity doesn't just happen, you can't make it happen artificially.</p>

<p>See the article posted by Canuckguy. It's actually pretty good.</p>

<p>I remember Drosselmeier saying that colleges have to realize that "the black person had to slog through" so many challenges, etc. Wanna bet? I, as an Asian, have certainly experienced discrimination. Maybe not as much, but how much is a racial slur going to lower your SAT scores?</p>

396

<p>AdOfficer,
I hope you don't think I was arguing with you; I am in agreement. The Elites are certainly supporting the reality of a low-income white population while recognizing the need to encourage minority applications & qualified admissions.</p>

397

<p>Using preference the way Momwaitingfornew is using the word, we can add more.</p>

<p>If you look at the student bodies at colleges, you could conclude that female are preferred.</p>

<p>If you look at the student bodies at colleges, you could conclude that students that are not bald are preferred.</p>

<p>College prefers students who has graduated from high school.</p>

398

<p>AdOfficer,</p>

<p>Thank you for stating that the data is not freely available and thank you for elaborating on the phrase "non-biased research."</p>

<p>The Mellon Foundation's refusal to release data to perceived ideological enemies highlights, in my opinion, their fear. If they truly believed in the societal benefits racial preferences produce, then they would release the information to the "biased" Center for Equal Opportunity out of sheer confidence that the final results would be in favor of racial preferences.</p>

<p>As far as Drs. Cole and Barber go, a few recorded statements by Dr. Nieli seem to show no complaint about methodology but many complaints about the results. Apparently, the executive director of the Council of Ivy Group Presidents told The Chronicle of Higher Education that the two professors might have had some kind of biased "ideological position" that explains their results. The Vice President of the Mellon Foundation claimed that readers should be "cautious about putting much weight on certain findings." The first comment is nothing but ridiculous. This ideological position went unchecked when the study was funded, but it surfaced after it was finished? The second comment is acceptable if and only if a similar comment prefaced The Shape of the River.</p>

<p>Here's the conflict. You stated that there are many great colleges out there. I agreed and stated that students shouldn't fret so much over "THE college" as long as there is "A college" that they like and want to attend. Then, you rebuked me and claimed that "where you go to college matters. 'A college' isn't good enough."</p>

<p>I was never, ever thinking about SEWBSC. When I used the phrase "A college," I had in mind selective LACs (and research universities) that offer substantial merit-based aid. I was also thinking about flagship public universities. I believe that these institutions are highly comparable to the elites at the undergraduate level. I made sure to add that "A college" had to be one that a student liked and felt she would succeed at. Obviously, SEWBSC doesn't count.</p>

<p>But, I did find a statement in your paragraph that I've been waiting for. "So, does going to Harvard or Brown or Amherst matter? Yes. Will you be a failure if you graduate from the University of New Mexico? Absolutely not." That's what I wanted to read, and thank you.</p>

<p>Obviously the way I define preferences is more provocative than what the supporters of race-based affirmative action here believe it to be. I choose not to use politically correct, vague, and amorphous words like inclusion, diversity, level playing field, and the like. Why use them when racial preferences is exactly what they refer to?</p>

399

<p>fabrizio, what do you gain by arguing with AdOfficer?</p>

<p>AdOfficer, don't you have more productive things to do than to argue with fabrizio on a college forum? Read a book, watch TV, talk to your family. Stop wasting your time on a lsts cause. This is why schools should be allowed to leave kids behind. Some just don't want to learn ;)</p>

400

<p>venkater,</p>

<p>At the risk of sounding defensive, is it any of your business?</p>

<p>Anyway, to answer your question, I gain the perspective of a person who supports racial preferences.</p>

<p>Oh, and by the way, as far as your comment about "don't want to learn" goes, remind me who it was again that said the government needs to lower standards in order to have more Hispanic employees or else they won't look good?</p>

<p>That's right! I remember who it is. It's you!</p>