<p>Admit rate for Asian-Americans to Berkeley 1994-2010 was:</p>
<p>1994: 37.1%
1995: 34.3%
1996: 31.9%
1997: 28.4%
—Race no longer allowed to be considered in admissions—
1998: 30.0%
1999: 28.0%
2000: 35.1%
2001: 33.2%
2002: 31.0%
2003:31.3%
2004: 32.3%
2005: 34.7%
2006: 31.6%
2007: 31.5%
2008: 28.5%
2009: 30.0%
2010: 28.1%</p>
<p>…and across the UC system it was about 80-81% before, 84-85% after. That’s a good number of students but hardly an example of floodgates opening to Asian students after Proposition 209.</p>
<p>I don’t see any evidence that eliminating race from consideration helped Asians at all at Berkeley. In fact the high year for Asian admits was in 1994 when race was still considered. And the lowest was 2010, well after race stopped being considered.</p>
<p>Why is California cited so often here as an example of how Asians do better there than at colleges that consider race??</p>
<p>The reason for the emergence of such a large enrollment of Asian students at Cal is due to a confluence of variables. The schools location in the second highest state in regards to asian population coupled with the largest segment of that population residing in the Bay Area. Cal has become for Asian kids what Notre Dame is for a kid who is Irish Catholic. I would imagine that when an Asian kid walks on that campus it has to be extremely comforting to see so many students who may look like or have a similar culture to that student. Not only students but professors and people of their ilk in positions of importance. Add to this an outstanding education. If you are Asian interested in stem and from the state of California or reside in the west. Where can you find a better situation to achieve that exceeds Cal. Maybe Stanford and a few of the Ivy league schools. Interestingly Michigan who’s academic policies and institution rivals Cal has an Asian population of 13%. Like Cal no drastic shift in terms of admission percentage for kids of Asian descent. As an African American I would love for my kids to have the opportunity to attend a highly selective school with just half the cultural comfort and influence that exist at Cal for students of Asian descent. </p>
<p>Probably before today ends someone will come here and post that there are more Asians at UCs now because of the lack of AA in CA - which is an argument I always accepted. I am not getting where the data for that position comes from now that i see the historical acceptance rates.</p>
Self- selection: applicant pools are self-selected, maybe more Asians felt they’d have a chance without affirmative action so they applied.
Admission rates dropping precipitously over this period; Pretty mock every school; especially elite schools (which you could pin Berkeley as) have had falling admission rates, especially in such a long period (easier to send in applications, applying to more colleges) so if admission rates aren’t falling perhaps it’s because it was easier for Asians than in the past.</p>
<p>Berkeley’s admit rate for all races went from 40% to 25% during that time. </p>
<p>From 1994 to 2010 the African American admit rate went from 51% to 15%, Chicano/Latino from 55% to 18%. White went from 40% to 28%. International went up slightly. Interestingly Asians are the only group that stayed pretty much the same.</p>
<p>Similar stats UC-wide and most of these are not particularly “elite”.</p>
<p>You just answered your own question: “Interestingly Asians are the only group that stayed pretty much the same.” Across all racial classifications, since 1994, the number of students applying to Berkeley has increased. Yet, as you yourself point out, only for Asians has the admit rate stayed roughly the same. Thus, with more students applying and admit rates “constant,” more Asians will be admitted. This isn’t immediately true for other racial classifications, since the number of applicants increases but the admit rate decreases.</p>
<p>@OHmomof2
well there you go. more applications, more competition. reason 2 on my list. I guess reason 2 works for any college, I had only looked at elite colleges, but with the greater ease in sending applications today it only makes sense. so despite more competition, the asian rate has stayed the same, while white, black, and hispanic rates all fell, with hispanic and african american rates crashing precipitiously. </p>
<p>Is that what the UCOP stats indicate? Were more Asians students admitted this year than in the previous two years? How is the trend at Cal? Or UC system wide?<br>
Did the Hispanic numbers crash precipitously in the last years? </p>
<p>^
The trend has been over several
Years.
Come on this isn’t hard
Black rates: 51-15%
Hispanic: 55-18%
White: 40-28%
Asian: same
Overall rate: 40-25%
With affirmative action removed in the middle of this period.
So the effect of removing affirmative action cancelled out increasing competition for Asians meaning affirmative action had hurt them before. For whites, their decline was pretty much the same as the overall decline, meaning that affirmative action didn’t really affect them. It seems to maybe have slightly hurt them. For URM’s, the admit rates went off a cliff, far more decline than the overall decline, because of increasing competition and the effect of losing affirmative action, meaning that affirmative action had helped them.
I think I also read an Article In which it was said that in race blind admissions 4/5 seats lost by URM’s would go to
Asians. It’s essentially continuing the purpose of holistic admissions which were started to keep Jews out of elite colleges. </p>
<p>xiggi, this is pathetic. OHMomOf2’s question was based on data from 1994 to 2010. During that time, of all “defined” classifications (i.e. African American, American Indian, Asian American, Chicano / Latino, and White), the variance of the admit rate of Asian Americans was the lowest at 0.000708. To put that in perspective, the variance of the admit rate of whites was 0.001374, 0.016705 for blacks, and 0.014997 for Latinos. Thus, in this case, eyeballing was right: “Asians are the only group that stayed pretty much the same.”</p>
<p>xiggi tries to deny this by cherrypicking a few select years from the entire 1994-2010 period and when that fails, uses data that did not influence OHMomOf2’s question. And this is coming from CC’s test prep “guru”!</p>
<p>The point of citing the Asian admit rate at Cal was to display that on an individual basis the Asian Community has not been negatively or positively impacted by schools choosing to use affirmative action. No one denies that as a community Asians are at the top of the charts when it comes to measuring students solely numerically. Cal has been used as a beacon of what many colleges would look like if AA was eliminated but in truth if you are Asian, 20 years ago you had a 70% chance of being denied at Cal and you still as an individual Asian have a 70% chance of being denied today. What has driven Cal’s Asian enrollment has been a confluence of variables that go well beyond the elimination of AA. Location, cultural comfort, are just some of the variables in play. The fact that Michigan a similar school academically and admissions wise has only a 13% Asian enrollment rate helps to emphasize the importance of these other variables. Unless you believe the quality of Asian students is far different between now and 20 years ago. I do not. Then as individuals an Asian student is operating under the same hope and despair of acceptance to Cal as before. However Black and Latino students have seen their opportunities shrunken at schools who do not use AA. This is an issue that most Administrators and University presidents claim vehemently does not benefit the quality of education on their campuses. You can cite the recent comments by the Univ of Texas administration in response to the most recent ruling allowing them to consider race in their admission process. Are there instances when a student of Asian descent is passed over with great numbers absolutely. It also happens to White applicants. It is an holistic process other parts of the application matter. No question it is less rare in the cases of URMs. However I think that elite college campuses should house the brightest of the brightest in a way that is also reflective of society. We still reside in somewhat of a melting pot and these campuses should reflect that. I also believe in the power of the state if Califirnia and Michigan choose not to implement race based AA I have no problem with it. There are enough private school and other options available that will provide positive options for URMs. I think the question yet to be decided esp. In a state like Michigan is when you have well qualified URM applicants will they choose other schools due to the fact that the environment may not be as culturally welcoming. That truly would be a loss for any campus environment to lose access to great students because he or she did not feel comfortable. My children would have cleared whatever academic hurdles were in place at UM but as a parent we had concerns about their social life on that campus. I wonder at schools that eliminate AA are there more variables in play that cause the shrinking of URMs such as comfort zone, leading to students who would easily meet the standards choosing not to even apply. </p>
<p>Why don’t you allow OHMom to tell you if she wants the data to run to 2014 iinstead of 2010? Have you thought why her numbers ended in 2010? Could it because that is all the spreadsheet contained? Read post 872 for her question about the 28 percent admit rate being constant. And then look at the numbers I posted. First fallacy exposed! </p>
<p>Twist it is all you want, but it remains that your comment “more Asians WILL” be admitted is DEAD wrong and your rhetoric is debunked by the evidence provided by UCOP. I post clear numbers that are simple. </p>
<p>That cherry picking argument is baseless. I ADDED the last years to the data of OHM after having posted the links days ago. Who is it that wants to cherry pick the numbers and exclude the years that contradict you? </p>
<p>It takes an ounce of intellectual integrity to admit that your predictive statement was flawed. Not holding my bated breath! </p>
<p>@Mayihelp
I guess you can’t make a logical conclusion. The overall rate fell yet the Asian rate stayed the same. Why? Because affirmative action was also removed in this time period. See how URM numbers fell even faster than the overall rate, see how the white admission rate fell pretty at about the same as the overall rate, implying that the removal of affirmative action didn’t affect them.
If you think that removing affirmative action had no effect on Asians, than their admission rate should have fallen at the same rate as the overall rate did, but it stayed the same instead of falling down.</p>
<p>It should not be that complicated, but unfortunately that seems to be the case.</p>
<p>If Public school, balance representation to the school district and state.
If private school, balance representation to the needs of the school, after-all, they are “Privates” - so every need s discussed indoors and is subject to change every year.</p>
<p>Again, OHMomOf2’s question was based on data from 1994 to 2010. Everything I said referred to that period: during those years, the Asian admit rate stayed “constant” while the number of Asians applying trended upward, as was the case for every other racial classification. And as you can easily verify for yourself, of all “defined” classifications, Asians had the lowest admit rate variance. Hence my statement, “Thus, with more students applying and admit rates ‘constant,’ more Asians will be admitted.” That was not a predictive statement; that was a descriptive statement of what actually happened from 1994 to 2010.</p>
<p>I considered the entire period from the spreadsheet that she referred to explicitly. You simply cherry picked a few years from the entire period and then proceeded to refer to years that did not influence her decision to ask that question. Utterly pathetic.</p>