"Race" in College Admission FAQ & Discussion 9

[lookingforward]

<p>PMom, I am not sure whether I agree with all your posts here (not going back right now) but do agree with what you suggest in 320. I believe a discussion is needed, yes. I have my own tales of minority individuals I have seen advance, over time or from one generation to the next, based on these seemingly arbitrary distinctions and boosts and the higher level of education or work experience they brought. But, my tales or anyone else’s aren’t enough.</p>

<p>What is needed is some survey info re: how AA or EO have, in the past x years, worked out. To throw it out, as some would do, or to label it liberal apologizing, is too simple and too focused on any one person’s opinions or position.</p>

<p>Thanks for the clar on racism vs discrimination.</p>

[akebias]

<p>When I started my research for college, I was advised to never let my children admit to being Asian on school documents. With their slavic last name provided their father, they could easily hide that part of their identity. This is a strategy used widely in the ivy league for those that can. In the end, D1 decided to apply as mixed-race. I advised D2 that she could do the same. Whether you choose to not identify is up to you. If you feel that it will put you at a disadvantage and your last name is not dead give away - then don’t tell them.</p>

[siserune]

<p>

"As selection difficulty is progressively raised, of course you need higher and higher levels of talent AND effort to pass. It is only the relative importance of effort compared to talent that decreases. Super-talented people who do not make enough effort will be eliminated at some stage no matter what, often an early and not very selective stage. But at the top levels it becomes more and more difficult to substitute effort for talent and the rank ordering starts to look the same as the ranking by talent.

</p>

<p>I don’t buy this whatsoever. There is not a single person out there who reached the top without working their B&t& off even though they have talent.

</p>

<p>As the boldface indicates, of course you need to work enormously hard regardless of talent levels. However, the role of work is mostly negative, to remove lower-effort competitors from the selection pool, not to rank or select the competitors (at the upper level selections) in a pool where the lazy have been filtered out and everyone is working hard. There is a saturation point where all the competitors are putting in similar amounts of work (because there are not enough hours in the day to do more) so that the difference between X doing 19 hours a day and Y striving for 20 hours a day will make much less difference than X having 10 more points of IQ or 15 percent more of “talent”, making him more productive per unit of effort than Y. </p>

<p>There is no ceiling on the “talent” equivalent to the 24 hours per day limit on effort, except in some sports that run up against limits of what is possible biomechanically, and this is another reason why talent is more effective than effort in spreading out the competitors at the upper ranks.</p>

[siserune]

<p><a href=“fab%20qw0tz%20book%20re:” title=“[…Asians] exert more effort on academic activities.”>quote</a> : </p>

<p>I then argued that “exert[ing] more effort” was synonymous with “work[ing] harder.”

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The point at issue was whether Asian academic behavior patterns really involve more effort, not the linguistic question of whether “effort” and “work” are exact synonyms.</p>

<p>

You disagreed, [saying] “Asians spend more time on school but it is wrong to describe this as exerting more effort.”

</p>

<p>Yes. I contested the substantive content of the description, not its word choice.</p>

<p>It is misleading to speak of Asians expending “more effort” (vs more time) or “working harder” (vs working more) without specific evidence of strain or difficulty. The passage you cited, and the whole book, only refer to a greater Asian allocation of time and energy to schooling, with nothing particularly difficult about it other than spending less time with friends to allow more for homework. There are many reasons why doing much more academically, though it takes more time, lowers considerably the difficulty of performing the necessary tasks. Family and social support also contribute. Roughly, an “Asian” strategy involves more time spent doing things that, on the whole, are easier (even if objectively more advanced, such as studying calculus when others are studying algebra).</p>

<p>

you authoritatively state that the sentence [from the Steinberg et al book] only indicates that Asians spend more time; they do not exert more effort.

</p>

<p>I stated, authoritatively or not, that under a plain reading the sentence expresses an idea that is incorrect, misleading, contestable, or (at best) oversimplified, i.e., the summary of Asians’ academic behavior as “working harder”.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

The passage you cited, and the whole book, only refer to a greater Asian allocation of time and energy to schooling, with nothing particularly difficult about it other than spending less time with friends to allow more for homework.

</p>

<p>No, it does not. Steinberg et al. wrote, quote, “Because Asian-American students worry more than other students about the possible repercussions of not doing well in school, they devote more time and energy to their studies and exert more effort on academic activities.” They did not write, “…they devote more time and energy to their studies” (full stop).</p>

<p>

I stated, authoritatively or not, that under a plain reading the sentence expresses an idea that is incorrect, misleading, contestable, or (at best) oversimplified, i.e., the summary of Asians’ academic behavior as “working harder”.

</p>

<p>Wow, so even a “mass market book” must be (selectively) read from a sociologist’s perspective! When they say “devote more time and energy” as well as “exert more effort,” I’m supposed to use plain English to read the “time and energy” part, but I can’t use plain English to read the “exert more effort” part. Amazing!</p>

<p>Look, siserune, our mutual dislike of each other aside, if your entire point is that what Steinberg et al. meant by “work[ing] hard” and “exert[ing] more effort” isn’t necessarily what “Asian race warriors” mean when they say “work[ing] hard,” fine. I accept that.</p>

[siserune]

<p>

your “pure academic selection” obviously cares about the amount of time spent in preparation.

</p>

<p>An optimal selection process, whatever its goal, cares about everything that is observable and is predictive of outcomes. If Harvard had a way of magically knowing “amount of time spent in preparation” for each applicant, they would be extremely interested in that information. It is because you can’t observe everything that variables like ASIAN (which do not by themselves cause anything, but correlate with important underlying factors) carry a lot of predictive information.</p>

<p>

You advocate “discount[ing]” scores that are likely to have been achieved as a result of time spent rather than innate characteristics like ability.

</p>

<p>I don’t advocate anything. I explained what a predictively accurate academic selection process would entail. If instead you want race-based affirmative action for Asians, go for the selection process that disregards the ASIAN variable and gives full credit for accumulative striving. Given Espenshade’s regressions, plus the Asian underperformance after admission, and the conspicuous absence of any CCNY-Jewish phenomenon, where Asians admitted race-blind to the UC and “discriminated” Asians at the Ivy League should (but never do) overperform after admission, it is possible that the Ivy League schools are doing this in a way: they discount Asian credentials but not as much as meritocracy within the (white + Asian) pool would involve. If so, Asians would be in the interesting position of appealing to notions of meritocracy while in fact fighting for the right to gum up the system with more underperformers. Quite the postmodern civil rights issue!</p>

<p>

Prof: Wow! You really have a point there! I’m going to meritocratically discount his grade to 85 to reflect that he spent five hours studying while you didn’t study at all.

</p>

<p>Try again after noticing what “predictive” means.</p>

[siserune]

<p>

@fabrizio

The passage you cited, and the whole book, only refer to a greater Asian allocation of time and energy to schooling, with nothing particularly difficult about it other than spending less time with friends to allow more for homework.

</p>

<p>No, it does not.

</p>

<p>Nowhere in the book is there a reference to any source of strain, pain, difficulty, or sacrifice other than Asians spending less time with friends. Your quotation is not an example.</p>

<p>

Steinberg et al. wrote, quote, “Because Asian-American students worry more than other students about the possible repercussions of not doing well in school, they devote more time and energy to their studies and exert more effort on academic activities.”

</p>

<p>Steinberg et al, as I stated, do not give any example of “exerting more effort” that involves any process or consequence different from “devoting more time and energy”. Whether their word choice is a matter of redundancy and rhetorical emphasis, or a non-redundant expression of opinion that is not substantiated in the book, is not for me to say.</p>

<p>That I have read the book, and that you have not other than to search some of the fragments that are available online, gives a certain surreal flavor to answering a stream of sloppy complaints based on loose, lazy skimming of that book. Even if only for a change of pace, maybe you could work harder for once and actually read the material.</p>

[texaspg]

<p>Siserune - I get the feeling you are in academic ivory tower without a clue about real life.
As someone once told me if you are project manager, you seem to be the type that would expect 9 women to deliver a baby in one month if it takes one woman nine months based on some project management book you read.</p>

<p>So I will stick to people who make sense to me.</p>

[Bay]

<p>The (comparatively simplistic) way I look at it is: Is our goal to achieve a nation of 4.5/2400 high school students, or something else? Can the vast majority of our kids achieve the vaunted 4.5/2400 in tandem with all of the other important things in life (like spending time with friends and family, working, developing fulfilling relationships other people, sports, travel, taking vacations, taking risks, having fun and being happy)? Will creating a nation of 4.5/2400 achievers make us a better place to live, with a better quality of life? If so, then we should strive for that. If not, then we should identify a different definition of perfection and cultivate that goal.</p>

<p>PS
I am not directing these comments at any particular RACE, just for clarification. They are directed at the idea of HARD WORK. In a nutshell, hard work is irrelevant if it doesn’t make the world we live in a better place to live.</p>

[texaspg]

<p>Bay - I think perfection in NJ schools is at 5.33. 4.5 puts them in state schools.</p>

[Bay]

<p>^lol, tpg…</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

An optimal selection process, whatever its goal, cares about everything that is observable and is predictive of outcomes.

</p>

<p>Sure. So let’s go back to your argument from post #298.</p>

<p>

If score on the SAT is a function of, let’s say, “talent” and “effort”, with more of each increasing the score, then the estimate of talent from observing a score of 750 on a particular section of the test is lower if you have reasons to estimate effort higher than otherwise.</p>

<p>If being Asian, or some other observable attribute, correlates with effort it has to correlate negatively with “talent” (or whatever the variables that cannot be influenced much by effort) when given the score.

</p>

<p>If you fix the dependent variable (e.g. 750), then yes, an increase in “effort” necessarily means a decrease in “talent,” since the score is held constant and effort and talent are assumed to be additive with positive coefficients. For simplicity, we can ignore the error term and assume the relationship is deterministic.</p>

<p>But in no way does that imply that “talent” and “effort” are negatively correlated; they are independent variables. You may retort that that is why you introduced a third variable known to be positively correlated with “effort” and subsequently argued that this third variable (an indicator for Asian) had to be negatively correlated with “talent.”</p>

<p>I’d like to see your proof for that, as I don’t think it’s correct. Of course, I doubt you will provide the proof. Rather, you will make some comment about how you are not my unpaid research assistant and that I should work harder to prove something I don’t think is correct to begin with.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Nowhere in the book is there a reference to any source of strain, pain, difficulty, or sacrifice other than Asians spending less time with friends. Your quotation is not an example.

</p>

<p>Does it have to be an example? No. I’m quoting from their book directly: “Because Asian-American students worry more than other students about the possible repercussions of not doing well in school, they devote more time and energy to their studies and exert more effort on academic activities.”</p>

<p>And what do you do? Conveniently argue that plain English is to be used when reading “more time and energy” but not “exert more effort on academic activities.” No, for that part of the sentence, a “mass market book” has to be read through a sociologist’s lens. Right.</p>

<p>Steinberg et al. did not write “…, they devote more time and energy to their studies” (full stop). There is an additional component to the sentence: “and exert more effort on academic activities.” Only then does the sentence end.</p>

[siserune]

<p>

Nowhere in the book is there [an example] of strain, pain, difficulty, or sacrifice other than Asians spending less time with friends.

</p>

<p>Does it have to be an example?

</p>

<p>If your argument is based on personal psychic powers, then no, there is no need to go to the trouble of giving an example. It will suffice to just give an assurance that you can read the authors’ minds to ascertain that they knew of examples. It is superfluous to even tell us what these mysterious examples are that were telepathically detected or “read between the lines” of a 200-page book; we will just take your word for it that they exist and prove that there is a difference, whatever it is, between Asians devoting more “time and energy” to learning, and Asians “working harder” (with all the privation that implies).</p>

<p>

I’m quoting from their book directly: “Because Asian-American students worry more than other students about the possible repercussions of not doing well in school, they devote more time and energy to their studies and exert more effort on academic activities.”

</p>

<p>Your argument is that the use of two phrases (A = “devote more time and energy” and B = “exert more effort”) shows that some researchers who studied Asian academic behavior believe that there is some functional distinction between Asians “devoting more time and energy” and Asians “working harder” in the sense of this discussion (e.g., incurring strain, pain, suffering, or sacrifice, unlike the painless activities such as starting earlier, planning farther, complying with external standards, and others that I listed as more accurate substitutes for the “work harder” meme). Although we cannot determine based on the entirety of the book what that distinction might be (since no example of such is provided in the book), the authors’ presumed expertise or their employment at Stanford or [some other special qualification] constitutes proof by authority that the distinction exists, even if the rest of us reading this CC thread cannot discover what it is, or have you reveal for us what the distinction might be. Excellent!</p>

<p>The linguistic part of the argument, ignoring the appeal to authority, fails on its own terms. The sentence can be read equally well as saying that A and B are different, or that A and B are the same. Earlier I provided one example of the latter reading (repetition for emphasis, which is consistent with the overall polemical/persuasive nature of the book), and another is that the intended distinction in the sentence is between between “studies” and “academic activities” and not between A and B.</p>

<p>Because the book does not contain any example of an Asian academic behavior falling in category B (“more effort”) but not A (“more time and energy”), no amount of textual analysis can answer the question of whether the authors were assuming that there is any difference. We are left with fabrizio’s psychic powers to answer the question. Hey, whatever works.</p>

[siserune]

<p>

If score on the SAT is a function of, let’s say, “talent” and “effort”, with more of each increasing the score, then the estimate of talent from observing a score of 750 on a particular section of the test is lower if you have reasons to estimate effort higher than otherwise.</p>

<p>If being Asian, or some other observable attribute, correlates with effort it has to correlate negatively with “talent” (or whatever the variables that cannot be influenced much by effort) when given the score.

</p>

<p>If you fix the dependent variable (e.g. 750), then yes, an increase in “effort” necessarily means a decrease in “talent,” since the score is held constant

</p>

<p>Right.</p>

<p>

and effort and talent are assumed to be additive with positive coefficients.

</p>

<p>It’s not necessary to assume an additive relationship. Only that the score (distribution) increases when either variable is increased.</p>

<p>

For simplicity, we can ignore the error term and assume the relationship is deterministic.

</p>

<p>Sure. It makes no difference to the argument.</p>

<p>

But in no way does that imply that “talent” and “effort” are negatively correlated; they are independent variables.

</p>

<p>I said they are negatively correlated **given the credential<a href=“such%20as%20a%20test%20score%20or%20set%20of%20them”>/b</a>, as is the case in an admissions selection. In probability jargon, when conditioning on the score, there is a negative correlation. </p>

<p>

You may retort that that is why you introduced a third variable known to be positively correlated with “effort”

</p>

<p>The importance of the third variable (e.g., ASIAN) is that it is observable and can therefore be used in estimating and modeling outcomes.</p>

<p>

and subsequently argued that this third variable (an indicator for Asian) had to be negatively correlated with “talent.”

</p>

<p>I said nothing about a correlation between Asian and “talent” in general (i.e., unconditionally). If you like you can assume that Chinese are brilliant relative to Europeans, it does not affect the argument.</p>

<p>Where the overall relation between ASIAN and “talent” does play a role is when selection is done on a population of Asians and non-Asians and not only individuals. If Asians generally work harder they will underperform their credentials on an individual basis (almost deterministically so if effort is a relatively uniform trait of Asian culture), but differences in the ability distribution can conceal this effect for populations. Thus, if the Asian talent distribution is higher (so that ASIAN correlates positively with talent, due to immigration of scientists or the Chinese being a super-race or whatever other hypothesis), then for any admission process that doesn’t discriminate too strongly in favor of Asians, the Asian population share will continually escalate at the higher selections. For example, the Asian to white ratio of academically admitted applicants in one cohort might be (e.g.) 2:3 at Harvard academic admission, 1:1 for graduate fellowships, 2:1 for Ivy valedictorians, 4:1 for Putnam exam winners, 8:1 for Nobel prizes — unless you admit a lot of less talented Asians through pro-Asian affirmative action. This is the type of escalation predicted by the “shifted IQ distributions” paradigm that is popular in some circles (including a few Asian supremacists on CC). That this does not actually happen, and in fact the opposite occurs – Asian group underperformance is seen at hard selections post-college, UC Asians are not dominating graduate school or accomplishing much on undergraduate contests – suggests that either the paradigm is wrong, or that any differences in the white vs Asian talent distribution are much smaller than the effect of Asian “hard work” (plus the effect of any pro-Asian affirmative action caused by insufficient discounting). </p>

<p>Basically, the data on relative (population) underperformance set a limit on how much higher the Asian ability distribution could be, and the Asian dominance on measures like the SAT or AMC or college admission set a limit on how much lower the Asian distribution could be. It is also possible that the white and Asian distributions are effectively the same, or are better understood in terms of subpopulations (e.g., distinguishing Jews or Indians or high-income whites), or that the two groups tend to rank in different order for different skills, as is seen on IQ tests.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

we will just take your word for it

</p>

<p>Apparently, we’re supposed to take your word for it that one part of a sentence in a “mass market book” is supposed to be read with plain English while the second part should either be ignored, treated as redundant, or read from a sociologist’s perspective.</p>

<p>

I said they are negatively correlated **given the credential<a href=“such%20as%20a%20test%20score%20or%20set%20of%20them”>/b</a>, as is the case in an admissions selection. In probability jargon, when conditioning on the score, there is a negative correlation.

</p>

<p>No, there isn’t. Talent and effort are independent variables, therefore they have no correlation with each other.</p>

<p>Oh, you say, you’re not talking about an unconditional correlation. So what? The “conditional correlation” you describe is purely mechanical; given a fixed score and positive marginal effects for each independent variable, if one goes up, then the other has to go down. That’s not “negative correlation” because as stated, the two variables are INDEPENDENT.</p>

[lookingforward]

<p>So, without any examples of schools that discriminate against Asian-American applicants, and with figures that do show a disproportionate percentage of AA’s in a freshman class at Ivies, relative to national percentages, and with the knowledge that holistic reviews look for more than stat-based performance, and an awareness of both the immense competiton and the similarities among so many candidates, does an AA kid really need to hide his ethnic origin?</p>

<p>And, if he/she feels it’s necessary and worth the brain cells expended on the decision, what does that tell us about critical thinking and the ability to seek qualified evidence? </p>

<p>And, a nagging question: regardless of whether it’s work harder or put in more effort or if the two can be seen as the same or close enough (or interpreted in 10 other ways,) what happened to work smarter?</p>

<p>Btw, as an Ivy reader, we try to see: that this kid is prepared for the academic challenges of this college. (Gpa is not a predictor in a vacuum- must be reviewed in the context of that high school’s rigor and opportunities; and to some extent, how far the kid went to exceed the offerings (limited or grand) at that hs- the extra-ordinary effort that shows awareness, vigor and willingness.) That this kid is likely to integrate well into campus life, take advantage of social and engagement opportunities, etc- and add to campus vitality. That this kid is likely to take the overall experience at this college and grow and thrive as a young adult, post degree, based on what this college experience offers, our unique style and personality and other particulars. That this kid is likely to accomplish something, post college. And more.</p>

<p>AND, that “accomplishment” is not always about the common measurements touted in media stuff. It’s not always about how many top earners are produced or how many go off to grad programs- we want teachers, ministers, social workers, creators, as well- a range of grads who will, through their own smarts, education, abilities, motivation and perspective, do some sort of good out there and, as our grads, reflect glory back on us. It’s not all about stats.</p>

[Bay]

<p>If I were Asian, I wouldn’t leave the race question blank unless I knew the admissions chances for the undeclared were higher than for Asians.</p>

[siserune]

<p>

@fabrizio

Apparently, we’re supposed to take your word for it that one part of a sentence in a “mass market book” is supposed to be read with plain English while the second part should either be ignored, or […]

</p>

<p>The point at issue (focus, fab, focus!) was about whether Asians’ academic strategies entail any significant difficulty compared to the lifestyle of non-Asian students during the same years. Not the meta-analysis of what you say I said some other authors meant – in a book that provides no evidence that Asians experience greater difficulty in their studies. But since you keep barking about the always irrelevant meta-issues, (“like a dog chasing a mailman”, as you once said to another CC poster), the answer is as follows, just for the record and for anyone watching at home.</p>

<p>I did not offer any words about how the sentence is “supposed” to be read.<br>
I did point out that (1) *if your reading of the authors’ words is correct<a href=“i.e.,%20that%20%22more%20effort%22%20means%20Asian%20students%20undertake%20greater%20strain%20and%20difficulty%20and%20not%20only%20larger%20investments%20of%20time”>/i</a> then their assertion is factually wrong, and not factually supported by the contents of their book; and (2) that readings contradicting yours are equally reasonable and are supported by the book. You did not dispute either point, and unless you are able to refute the first point (say by providing an example from the book of any Asian-specific difficulties) it would appear that you are out of bullets.</p>

[evitaperon]

<p>

So, without any examples of schools that discriminate against Asian-American applicants, and with figures that do show a disproportionate percentage of AA’s in a freshman class at Ivies, relative to national percentages, and with the knowledge that holistic reviews look for more than stat-based performance, and an awareness of both the immense competiton and the similarities among so many candidates, does an AA kid really need to hide his ethnic origin?</p>

<p>And, if he/she feels it’s necessary and worth the brain cells expended on the decision, what does that tell us about critical thinking and the ability to seek qualified evidence?

</p>

<p>It’s easy to speak from a perspective of privilege.</p>

<p>It’s simple – observe situations where affirmative action was banned, e.g. admissions for Asians went from 20% to 40% for UC. Take TJHSST in Virginia; when discrimination based on race was banned, admission rates similarly increased drastically for Asians.</p>

<p>

with the knowledge that holistic reviews look for more than stat-based performance, and an awareness of both the immense competiton and the similarities among so many candidates

</p>

<p>This is ridiculous. We are as diverse as you can get; our hobbies and passions myriad – but of course all you white privileged people can do is perceive us as some faceless “yellow horde” because your racist psychology prevents you from seeing our internal diversity. </p>

<p>Time and time again the racial stereotype of Asians as studious, boring robots with no passions for the community or for social affairs has been repeated in this thread. It’s funny because if I tried to label the Jews similarly I would be called an Anti-Semite, but when white people do it against us it is called “holistic admissions”. What hypocrisy.</p>