<p>Removing consideration of race would have little effect on white students, the report concludes, as their acceptance rate would rise by merely 0.5 percentage points. Espenshade noted that when one group loses ground, another has to gain -- in this case it would be Asian applicants. Asian students would fill nearly four out of every five places in the admitted class not taken by African-American and Hispanic students, with an acceptance rate rising from nearly 18 percent to more than 23 percent. Typically, many more Asian students apply to elite schools than other underrepresented minorities. The study also found that although athletes and legacy applicants are predominantly white, their numbers are so small that their admissions do little to displace minority applicants.</p>
<p>According to the study, without affirmative action the acceptance rate for African-American candidates likely would fall nearly two-thirds, from 33.7 percent to 12.2 percent, while the acceptance rate for Hispanic applicants likely would be cut in half, from 26.8 percent to 12.9 percent. While these declines are dramatic, the authors note that the long-term impact could be worse.</p>
<p>Interesting but for far different reasons than its conclusions: would this study allow laymen access to information that is typically better protected than Fort Knox? </p>
<p>It would be critical to ascertain how of much of the sources used by the writers Thomas Espenshade and Chang Chung are public versus private, and how much data was selectively chosen to demonstrate predetermined conclusions. On the surface, the conclusion of this new study would contradict the much publicized impact of the elimination of AA in Texas after the Hopwood decision. On the one hand, we have a study based on theoretical models that illustrates what COULD take place, and on the other hand, we have years of REAL experience and statistics. Obviously, one might not consider the University of Texas at Austin to be an elite school! </p>
<p>Could the different conclusions be ascribed to the fact that a large factor of admission rests in the subjective nature of the adcoms who might see past the measurable data?</p>
<p>PS Worth noting are the references to the UC Berkeley Law school numbers. "The impacts are striking. Compared to the fall of 1996, the number of underrepresented minority students admitted to the University of California-Berkeley Boalt Hall Law School for the fall of 1997 dropped 66 percent from 162 to 55". The only thing that is striking is how irrelevant and dated such such study is to the present study! </p>
<p>For what is worth, the authors advance to have based their work on models previously developed in a 2004 study where they looked at more than 124,000 elite university applicants' SAT scores, race, sex, citizenship, athletic ability and legacy in combination with their admission decision. This more recent study honed in on more than 45,000 applicants. Both studies are part of the multidimensional National Study of College Experience, which is funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.</p>
<p>I guess that means AA is here to stay...hardly anything is ever done in favor of Asians...but then again, that could be their motive for releasing the study...rather than presenting actual arguments in support of AA, just rely on racial presentiments to scare away thoughts of abandoning it...</p>
<p>Ever notice that whites complain about AA more than Asians do?</p>
<p>"hardly anything is ever done in favor of Asians"</p>
<p>Much HAS BEEN done and with great success: Asians have been the largest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action in college admissions.</p>
<p>When it comes to AA, the greatest problem for Asians is to be considered as a single ethnic group, despite great differences among sub-groups in education, wealth, and other socio-economic factors. Laotians, Hmongs, Cambodians, and Vietnamese face formidable hurdles before reaching the same status as more established asian sub-groups. </p>
<p>A sensible AA policy should not restrict an ethnic group in its entirety, but establish new parameters for inclusion.</p>
<p>PS As far as complaints from whites, in this case, they do represent the silent majority. Considering the statistics, this is very surprising, but may show more resignation than anything else.!</p>
<p>xiggi - I don't understand what you are saying. In fact Hmong, Cambodian, and Vietnamese have been hurt by being lumped in with Chinese and Indians as Asians and denied the benefits of URM status. The big winners in AA are middle class Blacks - frequently of Caribbean ancestry and Hispanics of mainly creole descent. The big loosers have been Asians. Upper middle class Whites, the top 5-10 percenters are really relatively little affected by it and the Whites who are affected by it are relatively unaware of it because the affect is mainly at the financial aid level. The working and lower middle class White kid doesn't apply because he can't afford the selective school.</p>
<p>"Xiggi - I don't understand what you are saying. In fact Hmong, Cambodian, and Vietnamese have been hurt by being lumped in with Chinese and Indians as Asians and denied the benefits of URM status." </p>
<p>Patuxent, I'd be glad to explain what I said, but not knowing WHAT you do not understand makes it hard. If you read my post, you'll see that I support to include certain asian sub-groups in the AA policies. </p>
<p>For what it is worth, there are no BIG winners -unless you count women- but the ethnic group you mention has SURELY not been a BIG loser, or any kind of loser for that matter. Unless you establish absolutely spurious yardsticks, there is simply no way to justify your claim that Asians have been nothing but a net beneficiary of Affirmative Action. The only losers are the minorities who fought -and left blood and tears on the pavement- to extract the preferential treatments, but have unable to benefit from them at the same rate as others. </p>
<p>Have you checked the population statistics lately, and especially population of high school students? It may bring some perspective on what is BIG and is not. How many blacks of Caribbean origin and Creole Hispanics do you really think are receiving undue preferences?</p>
<p>"Xiggi - I don't understand what you are saying. In fact Hmong, Cambodian, and Vietnamese have been hurt by being lumped in with Chinese and Indians as Asians and denied the benefits of URM status." </p>
<p>What??? I'm supposed to be a URM??? (Vietnamese)</p>
<p>This really is not news. By definition, getting rid of AA would lessen the presence of blacks and hispanics.
When I read the article, it seemed to imply, "oh well the only people helped by the abandonment of AA is asians, and we got enough of those already, and its not really going to increase the presence of whites, so lets just keep with the status quo."</p>
<p>Does it really matter if the asian population increases, so long as they are smarter than their predecessors? Berkeley abandoned AA, and its asian population skyrocketed to 45-50%, and I am sure the university is all the better for it.</p>
<p>I see less defense of AA's merits and more of this type of argument, that the abandonment of AA would not affect other's chances much.</p>
<p>AA at times is self defeating, because on some campuses, the minorities just segregate themselves, defeating the whole point of diversity.</p>
<p>According to Thomas Sowell, due to AA, many URMs are placed at schools slightly above their level, resulting in lower grades and higher dropout rates. A trickledown effect ensues, as 2nd tier URMs get into 1st tier colleges, 3rd tier URMs get into 2nd tier colleges, etc. A study of law schools also noted such a phenomenon.</p>
<p>The whole college admissions process is BS, as admissions officers take into account all kinds of "intangibles" that supposedly enable them to predict your success in college and life. Not surprisingly (to me at least), the school that engages in this pandering the least has the smartest students. Caltech. Caltech's practices probably derive from the pragmatic observation that, anyone who needs preferential treatment to get in will not survive the curriculum.
end rambling rant.</p>
<p>I disagree with the results of the Princeton study. First of all using the UCs as the model is not replicating the East Coast private college situation. In my experience African Americans have a totally different profile from Asian American students. In fact, they cannot possibly be more different. If those slots were eliminated, I doubt the school is going to fill them with a protype of the Asian Student (and such a student is not necessarily Asian). Schools have target numbers on what they want to fill an orchestra, a program, debate, athletics, personalitity types, etc. In my opinion, if a kid has the basic stats to get into a particular school, what makes the deal is where he stands on the private wish list that the adcoms have at the beginning of each year. If Classics is floundering, a kid showing strength and interest in that field will have a leg up that year at that school. If the school has invested a fortune in recruiting star Econ profs, they are going to need their grad students who are going to need the undergrads to teach to fulfill the stipends. It is a lucky day for those interested in Econ. If the M/F ratio starts falling dangerously below the 40% point for either sex, there will be preference there. If the school intramural sports are very underused and the school is appraised by the organizations they pay to do this as need more spirit and athletic types, that is going to be a consideration. They do not just peel the kids from the top stats wise when you are talking about top school. I do not believe for an instant that URMS are taking spots from Asian kids. There can be an argument made that they are taking spots from kids with higher academic stats who also have some of the other attributes that the URM kids have.</p>
<p>One needs to keep in mind that in the broader context, college admissions is not a zero sum game. The student denied admission to Princeton, for whatever reason, does not end up on the street but will attend perhaps Penn, Amherst or JHU. And given the vissitudes of admissions at the most selective colleges, I suspect that it is impossible to associate any particular denied applicant with an AA admittee.</p>
<p>So what are the costs and benefits of AA. Because of the observation cited above(Penn vs P'ton) I believe the costs are rather modest if measurable at all. However those who have read "The Shape of the River" have an understanding of the significant benefits afforded AA students attending these selective colleges and universities.</p>
<p>For purely utilitarian reasons, AA makes sense. From a purely Aristotlian ethic of the greater good, AA makes sense. For those who object to AA because it compromises the concept of pure meriticracy, then one needs to as strenuously object to preferences given to legacies, athletes, children of the famous, geography of orign, etc.</p>
<p>I do note the following. AA admissions considerations should be limited to those students who have overcome the obstacles commonly associated with minority populations-lower middle class socio economic status, substandard schoolling, first generation college student, etc. I see no reason whatsoever to grant any admission consideration to the child of a Colin Powell or an Edward James Olmos. To ignore this is hypocritical at best.</p>
<p>tanonev - southeast asians usually benefit from AA (being classified as an URM) this includes those descending from laos, cambodia, thailand, vietnam, philippines. this is why they ask u to specify ur country of origin when u bubble or mark "Asian"</p>
<p>it is those from Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, and India (although India is usually marked as Asia Subcontinent) that are hurt by AA</p>
<p>I think AA is beneficial to society if for no other purpose than to give a "reality check" to certain overly smug applicants.
Minorites can be smug too but at least they can't say to the majority person "you got in only because of aa"</p>
<p>I have been giving this some thought. I do believe that we don't have enough diversity in universities. In fact, we need to both change AA and to beef it up! My suggestions to increase diversity and to be politically corrrect would be as follows:</p>
<ol>
<li>Increase the amount of kids whose parents are plumbers, electrictians, carpenters etc. We definitely need blue collar representation, not to mention might be able to fix some of the problems that occur in dorms or buildings. </li>
<li>Increase the amount of kids from homeless parents. Hey, how many kids have you met came from homeless parents? In fact, there is a definite need to increase the participation from homeless people. This would get them off the street, and it would give them valuable training. Colleges would need to institute more showers and baths to "clean up" any homeless students; however, this would certainly benefit all students.</li>
<li>There certainly seems to be an underrrepresentation of kids from deaf and blind parents. In fact, I haven't met too many kids whose parents are severely handicapped. This needs to be instituted immediately. In fact, more access to handicapped at colleges and universities would be a good thing in order to accomodate the handicapped parents.</li>
<li>I haven't met too many kids from parents who are boozers and drug addicts. They certainly have a lot of challanges in life to overcome and their presence would probably enhance the educational quality for all students.</li>
<li>Children of Billionaires should be given special preference. I haven' t met any in my life; thus, there can't be too many in colleges. This certainly would be politically correct and provide and enhanced education for all students. This also would allow for potentially greater alumni contributions. </li>
<li>Children of prison escapees should be considered part of an undertrepresented minority. There certainly isn't too many of these as are released inmates of assylums. This would certianly meet the demand for diverity among college students and enhanced eduational quality. </li>
<li>Left handed people are definitely undrerepresented as minorities. </li>
<li>Xiggi's idea of not classifying those with Japanese backgrounds as underrepresented minorities has merit. Maybe we should only classify those of vietnamese and cambodian as URM, especially if they come from blind, deaf, handicapped parents or whose parents are plumbers. I haven't met too many of these types of kids, and I am sure that my educational experience would be greatly enhanced.</li>
</ol>
<p>Yes, we can solve the world's problems by expanding our definition of "underrepresented minorities," and you can love all of us because we are truly being liberal and policitally correct.</p>
<p>Actually, I thought of some more additions to "underrepresented minorities." How many people did you ever meet that are from Sri Lanka? Probably, none! We should immediately add all Sri Lankans to the list of URM. This would greatly enhance educational quality more than simply adding some more black or hispanic students.</p>
<p>One other addition are folks from North Dakota. Have you ever met someone from there? I personally believe that it is a fictional state designed to get US aid and have a congressmen and Senators. All schools should give preference to folks from North Dakota. This would certainly prove interesting and certainly enhance all schools' educational quality.</p>
<p>I have no expertise on this, but a stray thought crossed my mind as I read this and I am tossing it out here for discussion purposes.</p>
<p>Recently there was an opinion piece by Thomas Friedman in the NYT about India. I don't have the piece in front of me, but I vaguenly recall that one of his observations is that as protectionist trade barriers fall and countries are able to fulfill their comparative advantages, Indians are taking work away from Europeans not just because of their cheaper labor, but also because of their increasing strength in the knowledge industries such as software design and pharmaceuticals. "They (the Indians) are not racing [the Europeans] to the bottom; they are racing them to the top," wrote Friedman.</p>
<p>So as magazine covers proclaim the coming China century, and I read that many of the shakers and movers in China and India were US-educated but (some) left because of limited career advancement here, I wonder whether Affirmative Action in employment, promotion, and children's education played a role in their decision to return to their home countries. I can't imagine the numbers to be huge, but losing a Bill Gates equivalent could be significant.</p>
<p>jamimom, I seriously doubt that is the case, that is that you will recieve an edge because you engage in some obscure activity that happens to be in decline. Even so, why do URMs have lower application stats than the rest of the student body? An expert debater WILL be expected to have top stats, regardless of his excellency in debating. You seem to be implying that most if not all of the URMs have some obscure interest that gets them in, and those not admitted under preferential treatment 'only' excel academically. I doubt this is the case. It's more like these interests are spread out across students of all backgrounds, and that admissions counselors simply ask less of URMs in terms of stats to be admitted.</p>
<p>And no college will admit you based on your personality.</p>
<p>originaloog, how does AA benefit minorities if they tend to do worse in the colleges that admitted them under AA, precisely because they did not match the quality of the other students. According to Thomas Sowell, graduation rates are much lower for URMs because they are "mismatched", that their ability is slightly lower than what is needed. Had they gone to a slightly easier institution they would have been more successful. Also, a study of law schools showed that URMs admitted under AA tended to do worse in classes and thus had a lower BAR passing rate. The other special admits deserve equal criticism, but people are less critical of athletes because they bring in money for the university, and famous people because they elevate the profile their college (olsens and NYU). Geography of Origin probably started with the attempt to lower jewish population in colleges. That practice is also shoddy. This practice seems fueled by colleges wanting to say "we have students from all 50 states and 43 countries".
I do agree though about your last part, that rich URMs should have no advantage. They are likely going to the same schools as priveleged whites, and so should not recieve an advantage. But then, you admit lesser quality students, especially those of substandard educations. Most of the kids coming out of decrepit highschools are not ready for ANY college. So your plan would require even lesser academic quality of AA admits, engendering more failures in college. I favor admitting those of highest academic quality at any cost.</p>
<p>Great stuff taxguy.</p>
<p>4th floor, read the book by thomas friedman, the world is flat. It basically fleshes out the idea you are referring to.</p>