From p. 7:
I thought the point was to look at actual persistence-in-STEM rates after AA ended? Why would they not use the years of data that would make their point?
Because people could say that their results are confounded by the problem that was mentioned in the sentence that you quoted: “the campuses changed their admissions selection criteria in order to conform with Prop 209.”
That would provide evidence that “better matched” students stayed in STEM though, if that actually happened.
And it would also be susceptible to a criticism that the results are confounded by changed admissions criteria. Notice how in this case, there would be an alternative explanation to mismatch had they used data after 1998? Notice how you don’t have an alternative explanation to mismatch for the results in the “Duke STEM switch” study?
I don’t see how. The data before and after 1998 presents an opportunity to see if it actually worked the way they thought it would. Since this paper was apparently published long after that, I can’t imagine whey they wouldn’t look at that. It would be better than their guesses.
What I asked for here were schools where better matches produced better STEM persistence results and you linked this paper as an answer. I’m not seeing the answer.
Is this another case of you pretending not to understand? You quoted their answer: “there is evidence that the campuses changed their admissions selection criteria in order to conform with Prop 209.” That introduces a confound.
You asked if “I was speculating about that or I’d seen some evidence that it was true.” That paper provides some evidence. It is not perfect, but things rarely are. Again, the difference is instructive: they mention a potential alternative explanation to mismatch were they to use data after 1998; you have offered no alternative explanation to mismatch to explain the “Duke STEM switch” study.
Umm, OK. They had a unique opportunity to look at the same schools before and after AA policies changed and they didn’t. There are any number of reasons why they didn’t follow that road, I suppose, but the result is that they didn’t so we still have no evidence that correcting such mis-matching would make a difference.
Oh well.
By all means, feel free to pretend that they didn’t explain why they did what they did and that you didn’t quote them explaining why they did what they did. Oh well indeed.
Firstly, my son is a 15 year old sophomore in high school, so I will not tell you which school he attends, but I will say that he is one of only a handful of African Americans in his entire school. He has not taken any SATs yet, but I don’t expect him to do much worse than his dad (1520/1600). He’s taking tougher classes than his dad took at this stage of the game.
Secondly, I don’t blame society as a whole for questioning my son’s accomplishments, just people like you who publicly cast doubt as to whether I am telling the truth about him simply because he is black. I am convinced that you would not have dared to question my kid’s credentials as you have above were we to have stated that we were Asian like you.
Thirdly, the future of race-based preferences is not in my hands any more than it is in yours. Please don’t take your anger over the existence of AA out on me and my family, and don’t assume that all African Americans fit neatly into your stereotype of us. My 15 year old “anecdote” and his accomplishments are just as much a part of the larger story of the African American experience as your stats.
Zeke the sad part of the effects of racial preferences is that your son will be lumped with lower achieving preferred URM at an Ivy. The good part is that your son will almost be assured of admission to an Ivy if he scores better than his dad. And he will most likely fit right in at any Ivy and not suffer academic mixmatch issues assuming your son does as well as his father.
However, if you son was born to Asian parents, the admission prospects to an Ivy drop precipitously even if born into a poor Asian family where he would have been the first to go to college. I’m guessing that if his father scored 1520 SAT he is not from a poor family but from at least an upper middle class SES. Who in this case would have suffered greater disadvantage, the upper class Black student or the poor Asian student or even against a poor White student? I would give the nod to those from poor upbringings.
Way to make assumptions voiceofnonreason. You assume Zekesimas dad was upper middle class…maybe he was, but just the fact that you assumed because he was high scoring and black, what does that say about you and your beliefs? Low income AA kids can’t score high? Do tell.
I was just looking through the Harvard acceptance thread from about 2013 and saw that and Asian student with a 2150 got in as well as a white student with a 1950. I am sure no one questions the appropriateness of their acceptances. Neither do I. I don’t know their stories, just a couple of their stats. I never claimed to be a spokesperson for AA. Please don’t assume that I am simply because I am black. Nevertheless, my 5 kids are growing up in a place where AA will be part of the evaluation process. I didn’t ask for it. Honestly, my kids probably won’t “need” it. But it is there, and those who resent it will hold it against them. If the Ivies are full of bitter people like some who have vented in this thread, then you can have them. Forgive me if this sounds racist, but some people will not be satisfied until the elite schools are all 50% Asian, and .0005% African American (an Asian CCer by the penname of Mavant said in a recent thread on this site that until the ethnic makeup of the elites/Ivies resembles UC Berkeley’s, one can conclude that Asians are still being discriminated against).
Zeke Won’t argue with you about individual results, my concern is with general results. As to your comment that “some people will not be satisfied until the elite schools are all 50% Asian, and .0005% African American” may be true but that is not the goal of the vast majority’s belief nor mine. I would think that most would like the admission process to be fair and that there not be huge racial preferences given in the admission process. As I stated in prior postings, if a URM is in the average range of a student body, I would have no issue in giving the nod to the disadvantaged but when the racial advantage is in the 400+ point range in SAT that is too large. The academic mismatch is going to adversely affect those who are admitted with that large a preference.
GAMom Yes, I generally assume that high scoring/achieving individuals black white hispanic asian are generally quite successful. In Zeke’s case the son’s father scored 1520/1600 SAT, if my assumption is incorrect please correct me. I grew up in the bottom SES and scored a little lower than the above father and am successful. My friends who have scored in the similar range are all successful as well. Are ALL high scorers successful, of course not, but great percentage are.
As to your question that “low income AA kids can’t score high?” I don’t know why you would think that, of course there are low income AA kids that score high on SAT as there are from any ethnicity, in fact, I already stated that there are more quantity wise of high scoring low income students than those who are in the upper SES in prior postings.
It appears that your biases are clouding your reading of any post that doesn’t fit what you want to believe.
Obviously, if there were many, many, many black students like your children, there would be no need for racial preferences. It clearly makes no sense to give preferential treatment to a group that is performing as well as any other group.
But why do people such as yourself always imply that in the absence of racial preferences, elites will be .0005% black? Or, as OHMomOf2 derisively implied, without racial preferences, blacks will concentrate at “yeehaw directional state” universities? What, you think without racial preferences, blacks cannot be admitted to flagship state universities? They cannot be admitted to the kinds of LACs and universities that pro-racial preference parents at CC always say Asians should be looking more carefully at? Like I always say, it’s funny: apparently what is good enough for whites and Asians is not good enough for blacks.
Fabrizio,
I was merely stating that SOME won’t believe that admissions standards are fair until that black admits are that low. I don’t believe this to be the case myself. I live in CA under prop 209 and see that AA-free admission are leading to 3% black student bodies.
I just read your last point more carefully, Fabrizio (it’s getting late). Uh, I never implied that the elites schools are all that matter. I just want my son to know that he can apply ANYWHERE he wants to, including the elites. He can try for HYP etc. if he wants. It’s his choice. My personal preference is actually for him to attend a school like UA or Louisiana Tech where he’d get a full ride based on his stats (he wants to major in engineering). So, no, I have no disdain for the “lesser” schools at all–please don’t accuse me of that.
Kids of all colors/stripes switch majors all the time. It’s great if they WANT TO. It’s a tragedy if they HAVE TO, because they can’t cut it academically.
I don’t think it was your race that kept you from getting into those colleges or firms. It was more likely your ego.
My apologies. It really peeved me when OHMomOf2 implied that in the absence of racial preferences, blacks would concentrate at “yeehaw directional state,” but those were her words, not yours. BTW, if your son is interested in engineering, I have to mention my alma mater, Georgia Tech. If he has the stats, he should be competitive for the top scholarships there.
I’m pretty sure OHMomOf2 knows exactly what the point is and understands the difference between wanting to switch / being almost forced to switch. She just doesn’t want to admit that mismatch explains the facts very simply, and she has no alternative explanation.
We all speak for ourselves, but for this one, I have to emphasize that you are definitely not speaking for everyone, or even every Asian who is against racial preferences.