<p>Xiggi, thanks.</p>
<p>These forums may seem like a repetitive exercise for someone like xiggi but it is actually a necessary component to tracking progress. Many posters, as well as readers, are parents. It just goes to show that being race-neutral or race-blind is still not a universally accepted concept and that parents are still defending and espousing programs that openly acknowledge race preferences.</p>
<p>Are children born bigots or are they taught? But surely, they do not believe they are bigots and don’t appreciate being labelled as such. </p>
<p>History really does repeat itself in interesting ways. Separate but equal was the law of the land and was supported by the Supreme Court. After much litigation and over 50 years of discriminatory practice, the Supreme Court reversed course. Is the plight of Asians in competitive college admissions another Separate but equal but re-shaped such that they need to be separated and treated differently than other minorities…and yet, still deemed equal to the other matriculants in caliber?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, but we can discuss Sander’s previous work or the work of Arcidiacono et al. What a surprise that you have chosen not to do this.</p>
<p>Oh, Fabrizio, give it a rest! You really are such a bore! </p>
<p>It is obvious that I have addressed Sander previous work with greater balance than you could ever do. I have provided links to critics and supporters, including the review by Kahlenberg. As I did here about Mismatch:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you really expect me to go dig every review that might be remotely supportive for the purpose of pleasing you? Seriously! I have noted that it is not unusal to have disagreements in terms of academic publishing. And, have YOU posted anything that come close to a criticism of Sander? Have you, self-indulgent know-it-all? </p>
<p>The point, however, remains the same. I claim that the research quoted in the brief is not published and has not been peer-reviewed. If you have reasons to believe that my claim is erroneous, please share why it is wrong, instead of reverting to your perennial questioning style of arguments you happen not to like. This is not complicated: it is about the numbers attributed to Sander and Uppala that are RELEVANT to the Harvard claim. </p>
<p>Put or shut up! </p>
<p>You cite the popular press; [I</a> cite academic research](<a href=“"Race" in College Admission FAQ & Discussion 11 - #1205 by fabrizio - Applying to College - College Confidential Forums”>"Race" in College Admission FAQ & Discussion 11 - #1205 by fabrizio - Applying to College - College Confidential Forums), which you proceed to ignore and then have the arrogance to state that I have stayed silent on this issue.</p>
<p>FYI, the paper I linked to in that post was published in Quantitative Economics ([Impact</a> Factor 1.556](<a href=“http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1759-7331]Impact”>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1759-7331)) and was peer reviewed. No more BS dodging from you, xiggi.</p>
<p>And why stop with one paper? [Here</a> is another published, peer-reviewed paper](<a href=“Home page | IZA Journal of Labor Economics”>http://www.izajole.com/content/pdf/2193-8997-3-7.pdf) from Arcidiacono et al. What did they do, and what did they find?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What a surprise. xiggi once again shows that he’s all bluster. I put up; now you shut up.</p>
<p>Haha – what is that you did put up? A criticism of Sander? How hard do you think it would have been to post a series of links of the debate triggered by the original paper in the Stanford Law Review? Do you really think that this would have garnered much interest here? Seriously! </p>
<p>That you can’t follow the simplest of arguments is neither surprising than it is new. But I really should stop this silly debate, which is really nothing but an annoyance. </p>
<p>This goalpost shifting is just pathetic. xiggi states, “As it stands, none of us can discuss the Sander and Uppala purported study as it is unpublished, unvetter [sic], and unreviewed.” Fine. I present to him two published, peer-reviewed papers in economics journals. xiggi’s reply? “Haha – what is that you did put up?”</p>
<p>If I was black, I would want to go to one of the schools on the left. Notre Dame and Williams look pretty good too.</p>
<p><a href=“Black Student Graduation Rates at High-Ranking Colleges and Universities : The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education”>http://www.jbhe.com/2013/11/black-student-graduation-rates-at-high-ranking-colleges-and-universities/</a></p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Because it is clear that the papers you suggested are in response to the unpublished paper by Sander and Uppala? I am glad one of us has a crystal ball about the scope and contents of Sander and Uppala. </p>
<p>And I am glad you understand what balanced view means … so well. </p>
<p>@dstark - interesting so many women’s colleges on the left!</p>
<p>@dstark Interesting to sort that by black grad rate, period, not in comparison. Harvard and Amherst top that one, I think, followed by more Ivies and Stanford.</p>
<p>Why is Berkeley the lowest?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it is clear the papers I linked to are recent academic research, published in peer-reviewed journals, finding evidence consistent with mismatch or failing to refute the existence of mismatch. I’m not surprised that you are trying your hardest to avoid addressing them.</p>
<p>OhMomof2, yes. It is interesting that there are many women’s schools on the list.</p>
<p>Berkeley takes a bigger chance with admissions. Berkeley looks at opportunities students had. There are way more poor students at Berkeley. The students on Pell Grants is a little under 40 percent.</p>
<p>Berkeley is also a sink or swim school. Not as much handholding. </p>
<p>Yeah OhMom2, Look at all those blacks failing to graduate from Harvard. ;)</p>
<p>dstark This is what I mean by what happens when xiggi plants the graduation rate of Harvard in people’s head rather than the graduation rate of Black students who wanted to obtain their intended degrees. Most Black’s who started out in STEM do not graduate in STEM. Compare those results with STEM students at Howard University that graduates most of those who start out in STEM. </p>
<p>Why do you think that Howard University produces more Black MDs, PhDs, and Engineers than any elite college by far? You have been sucked into a sound bite vortex that fails to address a real concern about the consequences academic mismatch for Harvard’s Black students because Harvard practices AA.</p>
<p>It’s great the Blacks are graduating at Harvard, but it would be better if they graduated with a degree that they wanted rather than have to transfer out to some other major for practical reasons.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The tragedy is that they may have had to settle for English and History degrees, too. I mean where does that go? Law school? The supreme court? Politics? Business? Useless.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>@voiceofreason66 - I’d like to see where you got that info if you can recall. Mainly because I’d think Morehouse would logically have more as it is more selective, maybe not.</p>
<p>But, maybe the answer is that Howard has 7,000 students, 93% of whom are black, and thus has more black graduates, period, than Harvard does? Harvard only has about 600 (6% of 10K). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So do you have an answer as to why, at least for those years at Duke, black students switched majors at higher rates than white students? And whatever your explanation is, is it also consistent with the fact that black students who were as qualified as their white peers switched at the same rates?</p>
<p>People change their minds about majors. Both my kids were stem majors. So what? This stem issue is a stupid issue. </p>
<p>VOR, to make a point, did you use an example of a school with more than ten times the amount of blacks? </p>
<p>I hope that is not true. </p>