"Race" in College Admission FAQ & Discussion 11

[lookingforward]

<p>Time for some of you to explain what you really and truly know about how admissions works- not just this after-the-fact data massaging and associated assumptions about discrimination. Go see what Espenshade said about his own study. you can google that, too.</p>

[GMTplus7]

<p>

Everywhere I’ve read it, it’s %at a school relative to % population in the US

That begs the question why should it be relative to the population of the US? It’s not like the races are uniformly distributed across the US. </p>

<p>% racial breakdown by state, from the 2010 Census:</p>

<p> Blk NatA As Pac Hisp Wh state
13.2 1.2 5.3 0.2 17.1 62.6 USA average
1.4 0.7 1.1 0.0 1.4 94.0 Maine<br>
2.3 0.4 37.7 10.0 9.8 23.0 Hawaii<br>
2.5 10.4 1.6 0.2 47.3 39.4 New Mexico<br>
37.4 0.6 1.0 0.1 2.9 57.5 Mississippi </p>

<p>Maine is very, very, very, very white
Hawaii has a plurality of asians & a large Pac Islander population
New Mexico has a plurality of hispanics & a large native american population
Mississippi has a large black population</p>

[drcharisma]

<p>Admissions officers should take race out of the process. All it does is take up deserving spots for more qualified students. In the end, the Asians get screwed over by this.</p>

[GranTurismo330]

<p>@drcharisma‌ touche my friend. I read one article reporting that in 1999 Harvard gave the equivalent to a 400 point increase on a 1600 scale for the SAT to an African-American student compared to an Asian student… Only because he was born black.</p>

<p>Not even MLK would approve this. He preached equality of races, not for blacks to be valued like gems in a society. He wanted society to be viewed with a colorblind lens. </p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Everywhere I’ve read it, it’s %at a school relative to % population in the US. YMMV.

</p>

<p>Could you give an example (i.e. a link) where “underrepresented” was explicitly defined this way?</p>

[OHMomof2]

<p><a href=“URM (Under-Represented Minority) Application FAQ”>URM (Under-Represented Minority) Application FAQ;

<p>

What is a URM?</p>

<p>As noted earlier, URM is an acronym for the phrase Under Represented Minority. Much confusion surrounds the “underrepresented” portion of the acronym, thus frequently rendering the entire term unclear. A URM is, quite simply, **a minority group whose percentage of the population at a given law school is lower than their percentage of the population in the country. **This also means that at some schools URM applicants may be treated differently than at others.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://web.mit.edu/provost/raceinitiative/exec-a.html”>http://web.mit.edu/provost/raceinitiative/exec-a.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

The federal definition of a minority employee includes all U.S. citizens, both naturalized or permanent residents that have African, Hispanic or Native American heritage. A broader definition of minority group includes Americans and permanent residents of Asian descent, including Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders. At MIT and most other STEM institutions, the underrepresented minority (URM) refers to those minority groups that are not represented in the STEM fields in numbers proportional to their composition in the U.S. population, which would not include the Asian group. It should be noted that the Initiative team recognizes that although Asians as a group are not underrepresented in the science and engineering fields, Asian women are significantly underrepresented among the ranks of faculty in all fields at MIT.

</p>

<p><a href=“https://www.aamc.org/initiatives/urm/”>https://www.aamc.org/initiatives/urm/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

The AAMC definition of underrepresented in medicine is:</p>

<p>“Underrepresented in medicine means those racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population.”

</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>Thank you. Do you find it merely coincidence that your examples all come from graduate / professional school admissions and/or faculty hiring?</p>

[OHMomof2]

<p>No, just the top google results. Do you think undergrad schools define “URM” differently?</p>

[OHMomof2]

<p>

A “historically underrepresented” student refers to any student who belongs to a group that has been historically underrepresented in various contexts. In the college admission context, we are generally speaking about Latino, African American, and Native American students. Some institutions may have a broader definition of “historically underrepresented” students that may include socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, physical disability, etc. For example, **most Asian students are not considered “underrepresented” within the college admission context. This is because in many disciplines Asian students are represented at a higher percentage than their *percentage of the population. ***This is not true for every academic discipline, but it tends to be the case within the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. That being said, one should be cautious of generalities, as certain Asian subsets, such as Hmong and Cambodians, are still underrepresented in higher education.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/counselors-and-parents/parents/articles/college-journey/why-diversity-matters-college-admissions/”>http://www.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/counselors-and-parents/parents/articles/college-journey/why-diversity-matters-college-admissions/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[fabrizio]

<p>I think undergrad admissions offices would prefer not to define “underrepresented” explicitly and keep its definition ambiguous. I made a mistake by not asking you for a more specific link, so I would accept criticism that I “moved the goalposts.” Nonetheless, I want to point out / reiterate that two of your examples come from non-official sources and two deal with faculty hiring or professional school admissions.</p>

[GMTplus7]

<p>@OHMom, in contrast to what that admissions coach in your linked article is saying,

As a college admission coach for Latino students, I am constantly amazed by the many incorrect assumptions regarding diversity in the college admission process. For example, when I cite examples of my student success stories—including admission to selective universities or a national scholarship award, a typical response is, “They were chosen because they are Hispanic, right?” Or, “I assume they were admitted through Affirmative Action?”

it appears that at some selective schools, URM applicants do indeed get admitted on account of their race.</p>

<p>UMass Amherst’s website frankly states it deliberately has a higher admit rate for URMs:
<a href=“UMass Amherst: Commission on Campus Diversity”>http://www.umass.edu/campusdiversity/challenge2.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

Admission and Acceptance –
…The acceptance rate for Black, African-American students (expressed as the percentage of those who applied that the campus accepted) rose from 42.4% in 2002, to 55.1% in 2003, to 63.8% in 2004. Similarly, for Hispanic-Latino students, the acceptance rate rose from 48.3% in 2002, to 76.1% in 2003, to 78.1% in 2004. Clearly, the campus has worked hard to ensure the admittance to campus of greater percentages of those minorities who apply.<br>
…As a reference, the acceptance rate for White, non-Hispanic students also remained mostly stable with 27.9% in 2002, to 30.9% in 2003, to 29.9% in 2004.

</p>

<p>There are more numbers in the UMass linked page. Interesting that UMass doesn’t state the admit rate for Asians. It must be pretty bleak… </p>

[OHMomof2]

<p>@fabrizio you can find undergrad, school-specific, “official” URM definitions too. For example:

While ethnic and racial groups that have historically comprised a minority of the **U.S. population **are growing in size and influence, they remain underrepresented in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics both nationally and at Brown.

<a href=“Minority groups underrepresented in STEM fields - The Brown Daily Herald”>Minority groups underrepresented in STEM fields - The Brown Daily Herald;

<p>I’m not sure what you are disputing and looking for links for…is it that “URM” is not generally understood in undergraduate admissions to mean race/ethnicity as a percentage of population or are you looking for something else here?</p>

<p>@gmt007 I’m not saying admissions considering URM status are this or that, merely reporting the definition as it is used by…most every school I am aware of. It would not be incorrect, using that definition, to say that Asian students are URMs at some LACs or departments within universities, or at many universities for that matter. But I mean, when I say that, that there are fewer Asians in those places than there are in the US population. </p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

I’m not sure what you are disputing and looking for links for…is it that “URM” is not generally understood in undergraduate admissions to mean race/ethnicity as a percentage of population or are you looking for something else here?

</p>

<p>One of my points is that “URM” does not have an obvious definition, and I believe most undergrad admissions offices would prefer to keep it that way rather than make it explicit. You should note that in some of the links you provided, it was implied that the definition isn’t obvious. For example, [the</a> AAMC](<a href=“https://www.aamc.org/initiatives/urm/]the”>https://www.aamc.org/initiatives/urm/) page states that “before June 26, 2003, the AAMC used the term ‘underrepresented minority (URM),’ which consisted of Blacks, Mexican-Americans, Native Americans (that is, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians), and mainland Puerto Ricans.” After March 19, 2004, they changed the definition so that the groups were no longer fixed but rather variable subject to “numbers in the general population.” This change wouldn’t have been needed if it were always obvious.</p>

<p>In addition, in the Brown student newspaper article you linked to, the author referred to groups that have “historically comprised a minority of the U.S. population.” Going back to the MIT page you linked to, you yourself quoted a portion that said, “it should be noted that the Initiative team recognizes that although Asians as a group are not underrepresented in the science and engineering fields, Asian women are significantly underrepresented among the ranks of faculty in all fields at MIT.” So again, “URM” is not obviously defined because at MIT, in the context of faculty recruiting, a subset of a group that is “not underrepresented” is “significantly underrepresented.”</p>

<p>A more important point is that the very terms “URM” and “ORM” imply that it is possible for there to be “too many” of one group. I find that abhorrent.</p>

[OHMomof2]

<p>

This change wouldn’t have been needed if it were always obvious.

</p>

<p>It may not have been obvious to all but they didn’t change the definition, only clarified it. All of those groups they listed explicitly still meet the % of population vs % wherever-we-are-talking-about definition.</p>

<p>

“URM” is not obviously defined because at MIT, in the context of faculty recruiting, a subset of a group that is “not underrepresented” is “significantly underrepresented.”

</p>

<p>I took the point of MIT to be that Asian WOMEN are underrepresented in science and engineering (compared to their % of the population) vs Asian men who are not underrepresented (again, using the widespread population definition). This is not surprising, women as a whole are underrepresented in science and engineering are they not? I know my daughter has URM status at most any engineering school she’d want to apply to, and she is white. On the other hand, at most LACs, she is definitely an ORM.</p>

<p>I actually can’t find a description of URM that uses any measure other than % of population by which a group (race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, whatever) is determined to be “under”. </p>

<p>Can you?</p>

[voiceofreason66]

<p>@OHMomof2 Putting the definition of URM aside, my biggest concern is with institution that limit minority enrollment . I would like all schools to breakdown the admission data by ethnicity like they did in the past. Not sure why Washington and Lee decided to publish the admission data broken down by ethnicity in 2012-2013 Fact Book, but they won’t be doing that anymore given the skewed admission rate between URM and White applicants. </p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

It may not have been obvious to all but they didn’t change the definition, only clarified it. All of those groups they listed explicitly still meet the % of population vs % wherever-we-are-talking-about definition.

</p>

<p>Oh please. The “clarification” in question is a change. They themselves said that the revised, “clarified” definition helps accomplish a quote, “shift in focus from a fixed aggregation of four racial and ethnic groups to a continually evolving underlying reality.”</p>

<p>

I took the point of MIT to be that Asian WOMEN are underrepresented in science and engineering (compared to their % of the population) vs Asian men who are not underrepresented (again, using the widespread population definition). This is not surprising, women as a whole are underrepresented in science and engineering are they not? I know my daughter has URM status at most any engineering school she’d want to apply to, and she is white. On the other hand, at most LACs, she is definitely an ORM.

</p>

<p>They were not talking about just science and engineering: “…Asian women are significantly underrepresented among the ranks of faculty in all fields at MIT.” Thus, for purposes of faculty recruiting at MIT, Asian women are “URM.” Is that obvious from the words “underrepresented minority”? I don’t think so.</p>

<p>Again, my main point is that these terms - “URM” and “ORM” - imply that it’s possible for there to be “too many” of any group. That is abhorrent to me.</p>

[OHMomof2]

<p>

Oh please. The “clarification” in question is a change.

</p>

<p>Oh? Were those groups over represented in terms of population before, or after this clarification? I think not.</p>

<p>

Again, my main point is that these terms - “URM” and “ORM” - imply that it’s possible for there to be “too many” of any group. That is abhorrent to me.

</p>

<p>Understood. Doesn’t change the meaning of the terms though.</p>

[GA2012MOM]

<p>Fabrizio, since you seem to be an angry man, does this make you as mad?,.
ATHLETIC RECRUITS, COLLEGE ADMISSIONS FAQ & DISCUSSION 11</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Doesn’t change the meaning of the terms though.

</p>

<p>Yes, my opinion does not change that the terms are not “obviously” defined. Again, prior to 2004, the AAMC did not define “URM” based on “numbers in the general population.” They defined it as being a part of one or more of four groups. You can call the revised definition a “clarification” all you want; you aren’t changing that prior to 2004, “numbers in the general population” was not part of the definition. And again, at MIT, for purposes of faculty recruiting, Asian women are considered “underrepresented” in all fields, not just science and engineering. That hardly seems “obvious” from the term “underrepresented.”</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Fabrizio, since you seem to be an angry man, does this make you as mad?,.
ATHLETIC RECRUITS, COLLEGE ADMISSIONS FAQ & DISCUSSION 11

</p>

<p>I find racial preferences to be a perversion of the idea of equal treatment, therefore I am “an angry man.” Sounds about right. But to answer your question, no, I am not bothered by athletic preferences. Athletes are recruited because they are good at something. </p>