JBHE Gives Reson for Affirmative Action in 2005

Applying to College
61

<p>"All I'm saying is that white middle class America is not represented in elite schools (or maybe in any schools) in proportion to their prevalence in society. According to the 2003 government census statistics, people identified as "single race white" made up 80.5% of the population. Black or African American = 12.8%, Native American or Alaskan = 1%, Asian = 4.1% and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander = 0.4%. So saying that 50% of students in a school are white is not exactly proportional."</p>

<p>Whites are "underrepresented" at elite schools such as HPYS because Asians as a group have sky high scores, strong ECs and high gpas. Their SAT scores are the highest of any racial or ethnic groups in the US. This has happened even though Asians are in general not in the power positions in this society. </p>

<p>If whites -- who have had centuries of race-based advantages in the US and that includes being the only people who could go to most of the elite schools for more than 100 years -- want to complain about being "underrepresented," then they should do more to raise their scores and grades and strengthen their ECs.</p>

<p>I think it's so funny when white posters point their fingers at allegedly underqualified URMs for allegedly taking "their" spots. I assume that such posters debate in that way because they know that it would seem ridiculous to argue about how Asians are taking whites' spots since everyone knows that Asians are disproportionately admitted to top colleges because their achievements are so strong that adcoms feel compelled to accept them in much higher numbers than Asians are in the US population.</p>

62

<p>Firewalker, I didn't want to go there, but we don't red-line smokers. We didn't put smokers through the Civil Rights Movement, segregated schools, Reconstruction, share cropping, four centuries of slavery...</p>

<p>And most importantly, smokers are here voluntarily, they didn't come by slave ship across the Atlantic. Go to sleep if your going to enter an intellectual & mature debate with a dumfounded comment like that.</p>

63

<p>my point is...why not fix the educational system+provide better economic assistance to URMS?</p>

<p>AA doesnt fix the problem</p>

<p>just an fyi, im asian, and 100% against AA.</p>

64

<p>do you stop the companies that continue to emit greenhouse gasses, or do you continuously, and wastefully, provide free medical care for victims of carbon monoxide poisoning/ozone/acid rain/etc.</p>

<p>furthermore, do you whine and complain how taking on those companies will be too great of an undertaking?</p>

65

<p>Cre8tive1 and DiamondT I guess I didn't make my point.</p>

<p>If admission were based on Stats alone and Asians do score higher than whites because they work harder, then the admission process would be much simpler and you might get an even greater imbalance of Asian students and who knows what the ethnic/gender mix would be. You then would have your homogeneous college that you want to avoid, good test scorers.</p>

<p>MIT seeks diversification not just along ethnic lines but on personality and maybe socio-economic factors, what they call context. 90 percent of MIT applicants qualify for MIT on Stats and can do the work. All those admitted are from that 90%. The affirmative action seems to work for the URMS. If you refer to the ethnic breakdown of students taking the SATs last year you will see that URMs as defined by MIT are 20% of the test takers and URMs are 20% of the students. That 20% though does not represent the breakdown of URMs in society, which indicate that the problem possibly lies in the lower school education. </p>

<p>If everyone was equal who took the test then you would expect similarly 9% Asians and 70% whites at MIT. Perhaps the difference is that Asians work harder but then that would suggest stats alone was the differentiating factor which is not true. </p>

<p>My comment on the Middle Class white boy was somewhat tongue in cheek, trying to show how statistics can be used. I really don't know why there is a lobsided representation. I don't believe it's hard work alone, perhaps you could offer another answer? Is it just as simple as there are more Asians applying to MIT than whites?</p>

66

<p>Cre8tive1 you mention Alcorn State. That is one college that has AA for whites. They even have scholarships for being white assuming your stats are ok.</p>

67

<p>what it really comes down to is that everyone just wants an easy way out! noone wants to put in the work to get somewhere in life! test prep books are as cheap as $10</p>

68

<p>"my point is...why not fix the educational system+provide better economic assistance to URMS?
my point is...why not fix the educational system+provide better economic assistance to URMS?</p>

<p>AA doesnt fix the problem."</p>

<p>I agree with you as do many other folks. The problem is that most Americans who vote don't want to do things like revamp the way schools are funded. If property taxes no longer were used to fund schools, lots of middle class and upper class people would find that their homes immediately depreciated in value, and most folks don't want to take that kind of financial hit. I empathize with them since I would not want that to happen to me either.</p>

<p>just an fyi, im asian, and 100% against AA."</p>

<p>Did you know that Affirmative Action is supposed to mean that if 2 equally qualified candidates are considered for an opportunity, the underrpresented minority would get the position? Many people think that AA is supposed to mean that less qualified minorities should be chosen over more qualified whites or other people, but that's not what the policy was designed to do.</p>

<p>When it comes to college admissions, how can one figure out who is most and least qualified? Is the white guy with the SAT scores in the 600s who did major work changing the school curriculum in his community less qualified than a person of any race with a 4.0 unweighted, 2400 SAT, SGA president and 400 community service hours?</p>

69

<p>
[quote]
2 equally qualified

[/quote]
</p>

<p>they do not have to be 2 equally qualified , but 2 similarily qualified candidates.</p>

70

<p>when talking about being similarly qualified, I think this is where a lot of the gray area (and frustration over scores) comes into play.</p>

<p>according to the college board the average SAT score by ethnicity (page 10) :</p>

<p><a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2005/2005-college-bound-seniors.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2005/2005-college-bound-seniors.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>American Indian or Alaskan Native 489v 493 m = 982</p>

<p>Asian, Asian American, or Pacific Islander 511v 580 m =1091</p>

<p>African American or Black 433v 431m = 862</p>

<p>Mexican or Mexican American 453v 463m = 916</p>

<p>Puerto Rican 460 v 457m = 917</p>

<p>Latin American, South American, Central American, or
Other Hispanic or Latino 463v 469m = 932</p>

<p>White 532v 536m = 1068</p>

<p>Other 495v 513 m = 1008</p>

<p>No Response 511v 525m = 1036</p>

<p>When colleges "look at the numbers" students are evaluated with in their ethnic group (asians evaluated against asians, blacks evaluated against blacks etc). </p>

<p>IF a student scores 40% above the average score of their peers within their same race/ethnicity they are considered similary qualified as each student scored 40% "better". This is the reason (and much to the frustration of some that it is not a straight number approach because all numbers are not equal).</p>

<p>So when a student submits a score that is 140% above the average for their race/ethnicity, their scores would be </p>

<p>American Indian or Alaskan Native 982 (avg) 1305</p>

<p>Asian, Asian American, or Pacific Islander 1091 (avg) 1527</p>

<p>African American or Black 862 (avg) 1206</p>

<p>Mexican or Mexican American 916 (avg) 1282</p>

<p>Puerto Rican 917 (avg) 1283</p>

<p>Latin American, South American, Central American, or
Other Hispanic or Latino 932 (quote) 1304</p>

<p>White 1068 (avg) 1495</p>

<p>Other 1008 (avg) 1411</p>

<p>No Response 1036 (avg) 1450</p>

71

<p>cre8tive1:</p>

<p>I'm enjoyed your posts, but the one where you listed the colleges that are predominately white just illustrated my point that minority groups do that. You put up a list including schools such as Furman, Calvin College, Bulter, and Grove City on the "white" side and then put up a list of the historically black colleges on the "black" side. Great, but what about school like the University of the District of Columbia (UDC)? I'm not even going to go thru a guide to come up with that "black" list that includes schools on a par with "Grove City".</p>

<p>(I am not trying to insult any college here. There are about 3400 four-year colleges in the US, and I'm sure that Grove City is a great college.)</p>

72

<p>Yes, except, your predominantly white school are well-respected and highly ranked institutions, whereas, where the predominantly black are...secondary state state colleges or little kown at best.</p>

73

<p>I agree but attribute that more than to the state of the public schools and how minorities are performing than problems with affirmative action not being observed. </p>

<p>With 3400 four-year US colleges, affirmative action can't be considered for all of the schools. Some states have only 2% minorities for all minority types. You can't expect schools in those states to meet some type of national requirement for minority participation. Talk about busing. West Virginia has a 4.1% minority population and so WVU is going to be predominately white. Even Ohio has only a 12.9% minority population. This has to have some effect on the minority population at Ohio State.</p>

<p>This webpage gives the % of minorities by state in 2000.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.oseda.missouri.edu/tables/raceh/usst_pctminority_1990.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.oseda.missouri.edu/tables/raceh/usst_pctminority_1990.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

74

<p>
[quote]
A previous post said: "According to the 2003 government census statistics, people identified as "single race white" made up 80.5% of the population."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The 80.5% figure for white includes hispanics, who are not really a racial group. It is more accurate to say that the US is 69% "white"</p>

<p>See Wikipedia at:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Ethnic_groups%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Ethnic_groups&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>81.7% or 216 million, (Including Hispanics and those of Middle Eastern and North African descent)
69% (Excluding Hispanics but including Middle Easterners, North Africans, and others who checked "Some other race" in the Census)</p>

75

<p>This is also from wikipedia. I just thought it might be nice to read. Skip it if not. There is more in the article.</p>

<p>The concept of a "white person" (or a "black person") is scientifically useless. This does not mean that the terms are inaccurate, nor that there are no White people or Black people in the world. It means that the terms cannot be defined objectively so that they can independently be tested. Like aesthetic terms such as beauty and balance, religious terms such as sin and grace, and political terms such as liberal and conservative, they reflect something important in the minds of those who use them. Nevertheless, the claim that any specific individual is Black or White cannot be falsified—there is no way to demonstrate it to be an inaccurate depiction of factual reality. Hence, biology, genetics, physical anthropology, indeed the all of the hard sciences ignore the concepts of White people and Black people; they are as irrelevant to the scientific method as is the transubstantiation of the Eucharist.</p>

<p>Those who believe in the physical reality of "White" as a replicable human category use three kinds of definition to advocate the notion: ancestry, appearance, and self-identity. All three criteria must match in order to define one as White. The ancestry definition applies the label to anyone whose ancestors were all (or almost all) Europeans, but only if they "look White" and they also self-identify as White. All three criteria are epistemologically untenable.</p>

<p>A problem with the ancestry definition alone is that about one-third of White Americans (non-Hispanics who are members of the U.S. White endogamous group and check off "White" on the census) have easily detectable African DNA from the transatlantic slave trade that they inherited from recent ancestors who passed through the U.S. color line from the Black endogamous group to the White endogamous group[1]. On the other hand, dark-skinned East Indians have seldom been accepted as White, despite technically being "Caucasoids" in the obsolete craniofacial anthropometry of the early 20th century.</p>

<p>A problem with the appearance definition alone is that it is routinely demonstrated in college cultural anthropology classes that "racial" appearance is in the eye of the beholder. The same individual seen as White by a Dominican can be seen as Black by an American. Furthermore, such perceptions have changed dramatically over the centuries.</p>

76

<p>sybbie, your formula is interesting. However, I seem to think that on average a white applicant w/ a 1500 would fare better in the admissions process than an African American applicant w/ a 1210. I think a better way to look at the figures is using this chart offered by the CollegeBoard:
<a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2005/03_v&m_percentile_ranks_gender_ethnic_0506.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2005/03_v&m_percentile_ranks_gender_ethnic_0506.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>It conveys generally what you were talking about, but it makes it easier to compare scores - especially because for the elite schools the only kids that matter are the elite scorers. Take for example SAT verbal scores between Asians & Whites. A 750 is 97th percentile for Asians but 98th percentile for Whites. HOWEVER, on average whites score 21 points better than Asians on the SAT verbal. What this means is that on average whites score better, but when we are looking at only top scorers - the ones the top schools are interested in - Asians outscore whites not only drastically in Math but also to a lesser extent the Verbal section as well.</p>

<p>One thing to consider is that achievement is certainly a factor; it's not just racial quotas. When equating scores to compare applicants of different ethnicities from an admissions standpoint, perhaps we should average the respective percentiles for gender with the respective percentiles for ethnicty. For example, using averages, an Asian male with an 800m/700v (1500) would end up with a weighted percentile of 98m/94v. A Black male with a 730m/660v (1390) would also end up with a weighted percentile of 98m/94v. </p>

<p>This seems fairly accurate, as from looking around the results I think a 1500 Asian & a 1390 African American may end up comparable in the admissions game. I'm not going to debate whether or not affirmative action is fair, but maybe I'm on to something as far as how this process works...</p>

77

<p>
[quote]
One thing to consider is that achievement is certainly a factor; it's not just racial quotas. When equating scores to compare applicants of different ethnicities from an admissions standpoint, perhaps we should average the respective percentiles for gender with the respective percentiles for ethnicty. For example, using averages, an Asian male with an 800m/700v (1500) would end up with a weighted percentile of 98m/94v. A Black male with a 730m/660v (1390) would also end up with a weighted percentile of 98m/94v. </p>

<p>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Stambliar,</p>

<p>Thanks, I do think that the chart and the scenario you presented probably does give a more accurate reflection of comparing "similarily qualified' candidates in the admissions process. I believe that you are pretty close to hitting the nail on the head.</p>

78

<p>Stambliar,
I think converting "raw" SAT scores onto a standard scale than normalized the differences between races would be a reasonable way to compare SAT scores. I believe that the normal way this is done now by adcoms is to have different admission "rounds" such as one for legacies, and another for URM's. In this way, they are able to get into a certain mindset so that during one round, a 1520 is good, and during another round, a 1320 is good. Of course, after you decide what a good SAT score is, the main criteria are EC's, essays, recs, and so forth. Actually suggesting that your approach be adopted might upset more people than it is worth because it throws away the "diversity" argument for AA.</p>

79

<p>Oh I don't think necessarily that it should be adopted. But I think it is a good approach for both non-URMs and URMs in uderstanding the selectivities of the schools they are applying to. So it were to be "adopted," I think it should be adopted by those counseling the kids applying to college, not the colleges itself (although they obviously have some kind of arrangement, perhaps with the rounds that you mentioned). </p>

<p>I actually love the diversity argument for AA, and I think college is an opportunity to learn about the world - and that includes learning about people of the world. I think any parent who would rather send their kids to a Harvard that is 99% white/Asian just to be "fair" is actually more discriminatory than they claim they colleges are. At least the "discrimination" put forth by the universities serves a greater good. :)</p>

<p>But, once again, this isn't an AA argument. Clearly there is a different standard for non-URMS than there is for URMs. The better students and parents understand this the better.</p>

80

<p>"Did you know that Affirmative Action is supposed to mean that if 2 equally qualified candidates are considered for an opportunity, the underrpresented minority would get the position? "</p>

<p>no difference.</p>