<p>Don’t join a Spanish club unless you like spanish. Or do ‘hispanic’ activities. </p>
<p>I’m mexican and while I don’t go out of my way to be an URM-like person, I think its deceitful to ‘act’ like an ethnicity you quite frankly, aren’t. You can refuse to put down your ethnicity, but don’t masquerade as something you’re not.</p>
<p>Don’t you think the adcom can figure out the same thing? Hispanic sounding last name and you don’t put down your ethnicity to use the URM hook ??</p>
<p>Do you think the admission committe have so such time rationalizing stuff like that? Then they might also assume its a hispanic who is trying to avoid using the URM hook too?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The same analysis applies to any other metrics that might be used. As long as the selection is aiming at latent traits that can’t be directly observed (intelligence, IQ, drive, likelihood of graduating with high grades, expected future earnings), you either use the information at your disposal to gauge it as accurately as you can, or you introduce correlations between the variables you DON’T use and the outcomes. This is a statistical/mathematical fact regardless of what you personally consider fair or discriminatory. It is apparently true of “socioeconomic AA” and of assuming that “an SAT score is an SAT score” ; for Asian applicants both policies will show up as statistically equivalent to a race-specific boost. The admissions result would be Asians displacing some more qualified non-Asians. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You wrongly equate discrimination, use of race information (together with other data), and disparate impact (of processes not using race information). Certain medical judgements are made using race information, for example; the interpretation of body-mass index is sometimes adjusted for Asians because its distribution differs in that population. This adjustment may be wrong in some cases, just as BMI itself is not a perfect measure for individuals or populations. But on the whole it leads to more accurate judgements in whatever contexts BMI is used. So it is with SAT, test scores, grades, and any other indices that are used.</p>
<p>As crazy as it may sound, are you sure you aren’t actually Hispanic? There are ancestral ties between Asians and Hispanics, especially amongst those of Filipino descent I believe. You may want to research your familial ties.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Given that my post #376 has not received a response, I do not believe that I have misunderstood. I am merely pointing out what I believe is a fair standard: those who use jargon should be willing to define that jargon. I do not view this as an unjust or excessive request. Quite the opposite, in fact. Hence, I believe that one who frequently employs the terms “overrepresented” and “underrepresented” should be willing to explain what they mean. One does not need to be the originator of a term or represent an institution that originated the term to define such terms. To me, the only requirement is frequent usage of the term.</p>
<p>That people who share one’s convictions readily agree with one’s opinions does not surprise me in the slightest. For example, the likelihood of accepting intelligent design as plausible is strongly correlated with theistic, especially Abrahmic, beliefs. I myself am much more likely to agree with Dr. Thomas Sowell than Dr. Neil Rudenstine on the issue of affirmative action. No mystery here.</p>
<p>I have not persecuted anyone. Again, I am simply pointing out that it is entirely fair to ask people who use specialized vocabulary to explain it. Should I view defensive remarks as tacit acknowledgments that nothing I have requested is unjust?</p>
<p>“Wholeheartedly support[ing] AA in all its aspects” is too strong a standard, in my opinion, for deeming whether one is passionate. I refer back to the four criteria I listed and ask whether any of them is an unfair criterion.</p>
<p>Lastly, I am curious as to why it is OK for me to “direct [my] anger [sic] to the proper sources,” but it is wholly unacceptable for Jian Li to do the “same.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>siserune, I do not understand the last sentence. How does applying socioeconomic preferences or refusing to “dig deeper” into an SAT score result in “Asians displacing some more qualified non-Asians”? Perhaps before I ask that, I should ask under what metrics the qualifications are being assessed?</p>
<p>“I refer back to the four criteria I listed and ask whether any of them is an unfair criterion.”</p>
<p>The first three are features of an expert witness positing facts. I would say that epiphany is not ambivalent about wanting us to keep our facts straight.</p>
<p>If you feel disdain, it’s not because you’re against AA, but because of your ascerbic tone and your misstating her position.</p>
<p>They will know you’re not Hispanic if you have SAT scores above cut off points and were not designated a Hispanic Scholar (may not be using proper term). You would have checked the Hispanic box on the SATs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Every one of the above listed criteria can be and probably are assigned a numerical score or designation by the adcoms.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure. But are these three features unique to expert witnesses? Can they not equally apply to individuals who are passionate about a certain topic, which in our case is affirmative action?</p>
<p>Perhaps I am defining ambivalence definitely than others here. To me, the term implies being on the fence; that is, it suggests uncertainty. Maybe A is right, maybe B is right, I don’t know.</p>
<p>Given my understanding, I find it very difficult to agree that any individual who regularly posts on affirmative action and explains its merits far more quickly than its demerits can be considered “on the fence.” I don’t associate regular posting with ambivalent individuals; their lack of certainty on an issue tends to cause them to read more than they write. Furthermore, qualifying support for an issue is not an automatic negation of passion. If one is quick to point out the benefits of affirmative action and only acknowledges the existence of costs without specifically listing them, one can hardly be deemed “ambivalent.”</p>
<p>Edit</p>
<p>Criterion number four actually referred to Jian Li, not myself.</p>
<p>Well, again I will say that I might be a genius at guessing other people’s hidden motives, but then again I might not. So let’s try to keep the discussion focused on observable overt behavior of college admission committees and publicly verifiable statements of college policies, and let’s avoid speculating on the motives the august participants here have for joining the discussion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some are, some are not. Even Michele Hernandez’ earlier book (now updated) stated as much for Ivies, re Academic Index and various ways of quantifying. However, it is also true that in the end there will be lots of ties, lots of them, in that final round and on decision day(s), and ultimately subjective judgment calls are often the deciding factors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your question was merged into the FAQ thread, slightly altering the previous order of posts. </p>
<p>Of course you have to put your full name on your college application. Of course you are not permitted to lie on your college application (because you affirm you didn’t lie when you submit the application). It is the law that you do not have to designate any ethnicity or race category when applying to college. (See the first few posts in this long thread, with links to official federal websites with the current rules.) </p>
<p>Lots of applicants have lots of reasons for not filling out the optional federal ethnicity questionnaire on college applications, so there is not a particular reason to expect colleges to make one inference or another because a student exercises the right not to fill out the questionnaire. [A</a> lot of of great colleges admit a lot of students whose race and ethnicity are unknown](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063172559-post8.html]A”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063172559-post8.html), so I wouldn’t worry about this too much.</p>
<p>My African American son’s first and last name can “make” him Irish.</p>
<p>In order to be considered as URM, you need to check the ethnicity box. No school will use a name for any type of consideration. They need a person to check the box and then it becomes official. If later you are found not to be of the ethnicity, then they can reject your application (lying on the application). </p>
<p>I am sure they are aware of Asians with similar names so I do not believe it would be an advantage. I do not think that you would like to misrepresent yourself and hence I would strongly suggest that you mark yourself as Asian and take your chances.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1995 SAT data are below. Broken down by race and income range, they are fairly well described by an equation:</p>
<p>Average SAT = 675 points + (30 points per 10K/year of income) + (race bonus) </p>
<p>where the race bonus equals 225 points if Asian, 175 if white, 75 if Hispanic, zero if black.</p>
<p>Some of these race and income effects result from attributes of the test-takers themselves (not their parents, not their upbringing or environment). To simplify the analysis, assume that two thirds of both the income and race effects are endogenous to the SAT-takers and directly reflect whatever qualities a meritocratic selection should be interested in: IQ, willingness to work, knowledge and preparation that will affect college performance. These are effects that a “pure merit” selection would want to retain, even though they vary by socioeconomics and by race.</p>
<p>The key point is that the remaining one third comes from effects that are exogenous: attributes not of SAT takers themselves, but of their parents or of their environment. For example, the wealthier SAT-takers (on average) have more ability to hire tutors, or schools where SAT is better integrated into the curriculum; whites might live in towns with better libraries; Asians are more likely to be enrolled in afterschool academies or have parents who allocate more of the family income to education; Mexican students might be more often expected to take unskilled jobs outside of school hours.</p>
<p>This means that if you process SAT in a way that does not adjust for income, on average you award applicants 10 SAT bonus points per 10K/year of income.</p>
<p>Because the race and income effects are independent of each other, ignoring race has a similar effect, except that the winners and losers are determined by race instead of income. Thus, ** “socioeconomic AA” (that is, adjusting the SAT scores for income but not race) would be statistically equivalent to awarding a different SAT bonus to each racial group**. In this example Asians would get 75 points; whites 58, Hispanics 25, blacks 0 — an affirmative action system favoring Asians. The admissions implications of that are self-evident.</p>
<p>[File:1995-SAT-Income2.png</a> - Wikimedia Commons](<a href=“http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-Income2.png]File:1995-SAT-Income2.png”>File:1995-SAT-Income2.png - Wikimedia Commons)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I mentioned, the “either use it or abuse it” nature of observable information (SAT, race, income etc) applies no matter what qualification metrics are used, as long as the metric can’t be directly observed (latent traits, as explained above).</p>
<p><a href=“3”>quote</a> you have stereotyped views of U.S. black students; others would use a more common derogatory term to describe that stereotyping.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is what I call a “divide and conquer” strategy. To have any potency, it must be directed at an Asian American (or Jewish American), not a Canuck. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How about presenting the data as in the Duke study, and on a year to year basis? Some poster has already suggested that the profile differs from elite to elite. I respectfully disagree, based on my hypothesis. This information would prove one of us wrong. I know I have no trouble modifying my position, if and when necessary. No dogmatist here.</p>
<p>Too many posters are obsessed with a definitive answer to this issue. All I am asking for is additional data to add to one side of the argument or the other. In other words, it is time to treat this more as a science and less as a religion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly what credible anecdotes and circumstantial evidence point to a quota or other structurally different processing of Asian and white applications? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The denials were of the existence of evidence for a quota. The religious faith here is the conviction, without evidence, that a quota exists, or that Asians could reach Berkeley-like numbers at the elites were it not for quotas holding them down. The latter is a fantasy of Chinese parents with little basis in reality.</p>
<p>There certainly exists evidence against a quota, such as the fact that it’s illegal; that the turnover is too high and the pay too low in admissions work, for a conspiracy not to leak; that quite a number of Asians work in those elite college admissions offices and admissions committees; the year to year fluctuations in Asian admission figures; and best of all, the Espenshade and Chung statistical finding that no matter how the admissions are carried out, the white share of admission stays about the same. The elite white share would change, which is why athletic, legacy and donor preferences are retained instead of admitting purely on academics and allowing the middle-class white nerds (and Jews and immigrants) to dominate the white enrollment. The impact on Asians is a side effect. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Releasing data is a lose-lose proposition. It can and will be misrepresented, revealing discrimination where it exists and also where it does not. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Espenshade & Chung is suggestive but they didn’t actually find clear evidence of discrimination. They certainly didn’t find any specific evidence for structural discrimination (quotas, pooling of the Asian applicants) as opposed to disparate impact (of non-racial variables that they didn’t consider), or stereotyping by the admissions readers. There are also a number of explanations for some, most, or all of their 50-point Asian SAT penalty that are totally race-neutral. </p>
<p>For example, whites are equal or slightly higher than Asians in grades and, due to lesser geographic clustering, higher in class rank. Including these variables would have reduced the magnitude and the statistical significance of any Asian-specific effects, as they are admissions predictors with considerable impact separate from (i.e., not totally correlated with) SAT. The study didn’t separate the SAT scores into math and verbal components, but the two parts aren’t weighed equally in admission and although race-neutral, the weighting favors whites (verbal counts more). This would falsely appear as an Asian SAT discount when you run the regression in the form that Espenshade & Chung did, using only total SAT as the predictor. Other particulars of how SAT appear in their data would also show up (falsely) as an Asian disadvantage. For instance, they find that “SAT above 1500” is the single strongest advantage (more than being an athlete), and is equivalent to around 250 extra SAT points. However, Asians would statistically receive less of this advantage, because their scores are likelier to be 800 M 720 V than the more impressive 800 V 720 M ; high math scores are far easier to attain than high verbal. This effect would be further strengthened in Espenshade & Chung’s study because most of their SAT scores are from before the 1995 recentering, and at that time the SAT verbal was much harder than the math at the high score range, and thus weighed more. </p>
<p>Also, if admissions detects SAT prep or other SAT-inflating factors (at least in some applications where it is visible or suspected), this would disproportionately impact the Asian applicants, even if the method of screening is race neutral. If Asians prefer harder subjects such as engineering and pre-med, the competitor applicants and the requirements of the major both dictate higher SAT entrance requirements, so the difference in fields of interest between whites and Asians would again appear in the regressions as an SAT discount for Asians.</p>
<p>Re #417</p>
<p>I suspect that any regressions obtained from the data embedded in the [linked</a> graphic](<a href=“http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-Income2.png]linked”>File:1995-SAT-Income2.png - Wikimedia Commons) are not valid. In any case, I thought it would be good practice to brush up my R. For those who are interested, I’d be happy to provide a *.csv of the data. Just PM me.</p>
<p>I obtained the following regression: Score = 658.21 + 180Asian + 161.43White + 54.29Chicano + 23.30Income, where Asian, White, and Chicano are dummy variables, and Income is measured in tens of thousands. To avoid the dummy variable trap, I omitted the dummy variable “Black.” All variables were statistically significant at the 1% significance level, and the adjusted R-squared was 0.967.</p>
<p>I do not interpret the coefficients preceding the dummy variables as “race bonuses.” To me, the 180 figure simply suggests that being Asian is associated with an 180 point increase in SAT Score, holding Income constant.</p>
<p>Thanks for answering, siserune, I appreciate it. But, I’d like to point out that I have taken two semesters of econometrics, and while I am far from a being an expert, I cannot be so easily fooled. I feel that there are too many assumptions in play between “Some of these race and income effects…The admissions implications of that are self-evident” for the arguments contained within to be convincing.</p>
![http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-Income2.png]File:1995-SAT-Income2.png](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-Income2.png%5DFile:1995-SAT-Income2.png){kind=link}
![http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-Income2.png]linked](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-Income2.png%5Dlinked){kind=link}