So, less than $46K a year for a family of 4 to qualify for a reduced price lunch. Or less than $25K a year for free lunch.
Hey, I’ve got news for you. Even $46K a year is poor in New York City. Doesn’t stop the Asians. But it sure does seem to stop the other groups, which include many of the children of immigrants. I believe that supports what @UndeservingURM was saying.
@ChangeTheGame said:
I too would be interested in seeing these results. If I had to make a hypothesis about the UCs, it would be that while the situation is dramatically improved, there will still be some residual effects that show minor under-performance relative to whites. But I also suspect that if you controlled for quality of high school education (byusing income by zip code as a proxy), that this discrepancy would disappear.
The reason for this is due to my interpretation of UC’s primary mandate, which is to educate the strongest students from across the state. Not simply the strongest students in the state, which would be dominated by places like the Bay Area, but also the strongest students from areas like Fresno, Inglewood, and Merced. I think there is a good case to be made that this is the best way to improve the education of the state as a whole, with a nice side benefit of ensuring broad political support.
But in terms of quality of high school education, Palo Alto and Inglewood might as well be on different planets. A bright student at Inglewood who never had to study in high school could find a place like Berkeley or UCLA overwhelming. In contrast, the students at Palo Alto who ended up at UCLA/Berkeley had to compete against hundreds of either very strong students. They are already battle tested, and college might actually be easier.
The 6-year graduation rate gap between races are often even larger at the few highly selective colleges that apply lesser racial preferences. Specific numbers from the most recent IPEDS year are below.
Lesser Racial Preference
Caltech – 92% White, 80% Black
Michigan – 92% White, 80% Black
Berkeley – 91% White, 71% Black
Average – 92% White, 77% Black
Greater Racial Preference
Harvard – 98% White, 94% Black
Yale – 98% White, 100% Black
Princeton – 98% White, 97% Black
Duke – 95% White, 95% Black
Swarthmore – 95% White, 95% Black
Cornell – 94% White, 92% Black
Williams – 94% White, 95% Black
Amherst – 94% White, 89% Black
MIT – 93% White, 88% Black
Johns Hopkins – 93% White, 88% Black
Harvey Mudd – 92% White, 100% Black
Average – 95% White, 94% Black
When I see data like that, showing that graduation rates by race are actually closer in schools known to engage in aggressive racial preference, my initial reaction is that they evidence a weakening of graduation standards generally at those schools.
Schools that use large preferences to ensure diversity will also go to great lengths to make sure all students graduate. Whatever it takes.
(We shouldn’t forget, though, that there may be simple financial constraints at the public universities listed that prevent them from supporting their URM students, who are likely to be on average lower SES than non-URM.)
Another possible explanation is that the non- or lesser-preference schools lose the upper range of their admitted URMs to other schools to a greater extent than they lose the upper range of their admitted non-URMs to other schools. I.e. their URM and non-URM admit pools may be similarly distributed in academic strength, but the URM and non-URM matriculant pools may not be similarly distributed in academic strength.
This phenomenon could be increased by the negative marketing aspect involved, in that URM students with other attractive choices (i.e. the stronger ones) may choose to go elsewhere because they feel “not welcome” (whether or not that is actually true). This was noted around the time of Proposition 209 in California.
[/QUOTE]
Differences in SES and other characteristics (gender, intended major, first generation to college, etc.) would have to be adjusted for to make a conclusion.
Other than those of us who defend the system as is or who want complete removal of race consideration, what do we want with the system’s future?
Personally, I see necessity of racial diversity in the current level, due to the social reality as I pensive, regardless of my personal interest and feelings. It’s not for the fairness or correcting historical injustice, but for the greater overall good of our society’s present and future. Value of diversity is real and has been academically studied extensively.
However, I want the system to be more transparent; If there is a specific written rule for racial consideration not part of holistic review of at the discretion of each admission officer, it should be known as is. Checking “Racial/ethnic status” on CDS is so vague it is completely meaningless unless it checked at “Not Considered.”
If universities are proud of their policy which I am sure they are, they should openly announce it and try to defend it with clear logic and data, which also I am sure they have and used in making the policy.
Maintaining secrecy because they think the people wouldn’t understand or support, which some of the people sure wouldn’t, is betrayal of democracy as long as they are substantially funded by the people’s tax money, and is elitism they are not entitled; Top universities are not entitled to decide what’s the people should do, which is exactly what they have been doing with the current practice.
The end result of the openness may just be the same as now. But at least those who are benefiting should realize what they are getting, whether they believe they are entitled or not.
More importantly, those who are required to sacrifice their interest for the greater good of the society must be informed on what they are asked to give, and how the world becomes a better place from it. They deserve that much.
SculptorDad there is zero objective evidence about your statement about diversity. That is your personal opinion which is fine. The point here is that using race as a determinant is against the law. Expecting current 18 year olds to sacrifice for the wrongs of 50 years ago is insane especially since the ones doing the majority of the sacrifice are not white, weren’t even here 50 years ago, and are completely innocent of any racial offenses.
For a start, I don’t want to hear that the elite admission is a crap shot for everyone. Because it clearly isn’t for some one, while it is more so for another. Claiming so while hiding the actual policy and data is unnecessarily unfair to those who give.
And I don’t want to hear that it is fault of some students being too academic either. It just isn’t true any longer for the academically top students applying to the elite colleges.while neglecting EC. Still insisting it is insulting their intelligence. Anyway, how have we come to blame students aiming higher education for studying too hard? Because that too, is not good for the great good of our society facing ever advancing technology and innovation.
That’s exactly why I started that paragraph with “Personally.” And I only said “is real and has been academically studied extensively.” And there are those studies. I have read some of them and am convinced, personally.
You have, we have talked extensively if it is beneficial or legal. And you have already been clear on your personal opinion that it is neither. Those of us stayed in the conversation also became rather well versed on what’s going on at the court. And most of opinions shared were doubtful that the result would be a sudden end of all racial consideration.
Let’s also have a chance to express what personal opinions we might have regarding alternative resolutions. I feel that it can be very enlightening.
I never said it would be totally reversed with the Harvard case but that rather this will occur rather quickly over a few years. It just isn’t credible to for the colleges to spout about the value of diversity and then systematically discriminate against Asians. I’m not sure where you live but the new political power of the Asian Community is very very visible in coastal CA and they will only get much much stronger in the future.
^ I stand corrected on the detail. Still my suggestion of sharing alternative solutions that some of us might have, rather than what we think is going on in the court, remains. You of course can choose to do whatever you want to do. But please leave this particular little survey with its purpose, if you wouldn’t mind.
P.S. Not all Asians, even not all Asian applicants think that race consideration is a systemic discrimination against Asians, or that it should end, whether it is fair to them or not. I don’t.
So you think the Asians will prefer to suffer systemic discrimination. Wow that’s some way out there theory without a shred of proof. How about this for proof you are very wrong.
The coalition of over 100 Asian-American organizations sent a letter to Christ in response to her Aug. 20 welcome address, in which she stated Berkeley’s goal to become an “Hispanic Serving Institution” over the next 10 years. For a school to qualify as such, 25 percent of the student body has to be Hispanic.
The University of California, Berkeley is a public educational institution receiving government financial assistance on both federal and state levels. As such, the university must comply with pertinent federal and state laws as well as relevant government guidance on higher education,” the letter reads.
I think you will find that the vast vast majority of people don’t like to be on the receiving end of discrimination.
@Data10 Thank you for the great data as always.
I thought that the academic outcomes at the 6 year mark might close the gap some in the data, but that was a pleasant surprise for me to see. @SatchelSF and @ucbalumnus both pointed out the financial constraints that may affect both UC Berkeley and Michigan (they can not do financial aid like the private elites) and I would personally toss out Cal Tech due to it’s very small data footprint (3-5 African Americans enroll most years). But the numbers prove one expected point for me. The financial considerations are huge when it comes to African Americans and that component is mostly removed from the schools with the best graduation rates and students. There is still a question about URMs in general and African American students in particular being at the bottom of the class at most of these schools. That concerns me some, but I saw an article recently claiming that the 20th percentile student at Harvard has a 3.2 GPA. With that type of either grade inflation or just great students (I am an optimist so I like great students better) the graduation piece is much more important to me, but the narrative (African American students being admitted mainly because of their race) would look so much better if our students actual GPA results were statistically insignificant.
@SculptorDad I am against racial preference being a factor as a black man because it is mainly affecting another group significantly (Asian Americans) and I was raised to believe that “2 wrongs don’t make a right” even when it could help my children. I am in the minority amongst my own people (and family as well), but I believe we should be looking for a better way (I am okay with a holistic admissions policy that is clear and transparent to all applicants and that doesn’t give preference to race, legacy, or non-revenue generating athletes unless they are Olympic caliber athletes at elite institutions). Standardized tests for me would just have a starting point (whatever number that would show that students could do the work of my institution based on detailed statistical analysis of previous classes). I would give everyone on my team a few “saves” from the standardized test reject pile for late bloomers/compelling story to get reviewed further and would accept a certain number (Maybe 50-100 out of 2000 student class). Grades and Rigor matter most. EC’s and jobs show interests and time management skills but are not weighted much. SES is reviewed to see who has made more with less. Statistical analysis ran to show high schools who have produced great students for my institution. Essays not weighed much as one doesn’t always know who is writing them, but I would look for certain themes (hunger to succeed/passion to learn when no one is looking). Recommendations from trusted sources matter, but look for perceived weaknesses in candidates noted. Quick communications (by phone or video chat) with borderline candidates on the edge of admission. Just my thoughts but pretty sure I would fire myself (I would be haunted by some of the students denied admission).
I forgot to add that my late bloomer accepted students would have to come to summer program before freshman year on the schools dime to start to prepare them for what’s coming (take a couple of classes and go through seminars on study skills, time management, and team building amongst that group of students) and would be in the program all 4 years with support to make sure expected outcome (graduation) is reached.
Which may eventually happen automatically, due to California demographics (already, about half of California high school graduates are Latino). Note that UCB for some reason has lower yield among all other US ethnic groups (including Latino) compared to Asian admits, while many other UCs have higher yield among Latino and black admits (UCLA is closer than UCB to the HSI 25%, in part due to higher Latino yield, and several other UCs are HSIs). In many of the other UCs, Asian yield is lower than Latino yield.
AACE’s web site looks like it is mostly focused on supporting the SFFA/Blum lawsuit against Harvard.
@ChangeTheGame, @Data10, @hebegebe
As I mentioned on pg 165, I believe that the universities with racial preferences banned are still actively trying to game the admissions process and purposely increasing the weight of factors correlated with URMs in order to increase the number of URMs. The problem is that without the ability to literally discriminate based on race, they have trouble separating out the rich, elite URMs at private and magnet schools from the rich, elite Asians/whites. The factors that can be gamed correlate more with the lower class, less academically fit URMs than the academically talented rich URMs. UT Austin and other state schools practice the local context type of admissions that UCs do that is used to bring in more URMs.
I found a cool graduation rate source for state schools [1] :
…UT Austin, Ohio, UCB, UIUC, UMich, UMTC
Total…81.0% 83.0% 91.0% 84.0% 91.0% 78.0%
White…84.0% 84.0% 91.0% 87.0% 92.0% 82.0%
African American 69.0% 72.0% 74.0% 75.0% 79.0% 58.0%
Hispanic…72.0% 82.0% 85.0% 80.0% 88.0% 70.0%
Asian… 84.0% 88.0% 94.0% 86.0% 92.0% 71.0%
The white-black graduation rate disparity at UMTC is an astounding 24%. Someone needs to look into their admissions processes.
Excluding the outlier, the median/average gap is ~14%.
I thought ucbalumnus’s explanation about URMs choosing better ranked schools where they got affirmative action boost is also very reasonable.
@ucbalumnus: About immigrant achievement, [2] shows high NY state test disparity between races from the same school with similar income. The data shows that disparities exist even when removing income and school as factors. Asian students are more likely to be from immigrant households than African American and white American students.
[1] http://www.txhighereddata.org/Interactive/Accountability/UNIV_Complete_PDF.cfm?FICE=003658
And Asian immigrants are more likely to have high educational attainment than non-immigrants overall, so it is not really a surprise that their kids tend to be above average in school. But it is not race or ethnicity per se, but how the selection of immigrants happens to give patterns that appear to be racial due to the varying percentage of high educational attainment immigrants compared to the entire racial population as a whole (white and black immigrants are a much smaller percentage of the overall white and black American populations than Asian immigrants are of the overall Asian American population, so the kids of white and black immigrants do not have as much effect on the white and black stats compared to the kids of Asian immigrants on the Asian stats).
Note that educational attainment in places like China and India is lower than in the US. Immigrants from those countries to the US are not a representative sampling of those countries’ populations with respect to educational attainment.
About the UC discrimination:
California Asians have already getting screwed hard by the UC system for years. The UCs lowered the weight of standardized test scores and increased the weight of local context (GPA, class rank) to increase URM presence more than 10 years ago and have been gaming and changing the admissions processes to accept more URMs [1] [2].
The only reason why the top UC schools are still a high percentage Asian is because a large percentage of the most educated, wealthy Asian Americans live in California :
[1] https://nypost.com/2018/09/01/california-passed-an-anti-affirmative-action-law-and-colleges-ignored-it/
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/education/edlife/lifting-the-veil-on-the-holistic-process-at-the-university-of-california-berkeley.html
I’m not sure if you actually looked at the link. There are huge disparities when normalizing for income and school and even at the low income level. Asian parents with low income are most likely not educated.
Highly educated Asian immigrants have been a new phenomenon. Asian countries didn’t rise out of poverty until the early 90s for Korea/Hong Kong/Taiwan and the 2000s for China/India. Children of Asian immigrants overachieved even back in the early 90’s when most Asian immigrants were poor and uneducated (Asian enrollment at Ivy leagues peaked in the early 90s and have plateaued since the early 90s [1]).
Many Asian immigrants living in the suburbs and in California do have higher educational attainment but Asians living in the city (like in NYC) generally are still very impoverished and uneducated. 61% of Chinese Americans in NYC have limited English proficiency (this includes American born Chinese) [2].
Children of native born Americans have families that have enjoyed the opportunities of living in a first world country for decades, that are native English speakers and that are accustomed to American culture/bureaucracy/education. From an opportunity perspective, they should be ahead of immigrants after normalizing for income and school.
[1] https://www.ivycollegeadmit.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/trends-1030x532.png
[2] http://www.aafny.org/cic/briefs/chinese2013.pdf
Those are some good points about the difference in financial aid between publics and HYPSM… type privates, and influence on graduation rate. The numbers below limit to the 6 publics with the highest graduation rates, as listed in IPEDS. Berkeley and Michigan still have the largest racial gap in graduation rate, but the difference is smaller than when comparing to highly selective privates.
Virginia -- 95% White, 91% Black
William & Mary -- 93% White, 90% Black
UNCH -- 92% White, 85% Black
Michigan -- 92% White, 80% Black
UCLA -- 91% White, 83% Black
Berkeley -- 91% White, 71% Black
Financial aid is no doubt a key reason why there is this apparent graduation gap between highly selective publics and highly selective privates. Portion of families coming from not high income families is another. I expect various others family/community variables also have an influence such as portion coming from high schools with weaker academic preparation, portion coming from families that prioritize education, portion with a good number of highly educated role models, etc. There are also many differences in the colleges themselves besides FA that influence graduation rate. For example, highly selective privates often have better counseling, are more assisting about temporary leave for personal/family issues, make it easier to declare and switch majors, have a greater degree of grade inflation, are more proactive in assisting at risk students, have fewer transfer admits (one report found that ~20% of transfers to Berkeley college of chemistry were on 1st year academic probation with GPA below 2.0), etc. Students who fail to graduate from HYPS… type privates almost never fail out. It’s quite rare to even have GPAs below 3.0, regardless of race. I’d expect more common reasons for failing to graduate in 6 years relate to financial, family, and personal issues; non-academic pursuits; and combined degree programs.