“they still get the benefit of classrooms discussion”
There’s very little class discussion in stem courses, you learn theory, solve problems, you don’t debate whether dividing by zero is bad in Calculus. Students are not going to say, oh yeah, in my high school we were told dividing by zero was ok.
@theloniusmonk Definitely not the case with STEM, I’m not sure what your personal experience was but if there is no discussion or collaboration with others in your STEM classes I find that rather sad.
Sciences? Discussion and collaboration.
Engineering? Discussion and collaboration.
Tech - let’s say CS - discussion and collaboration.
Even in math class - your example - there is discussion and collaboration as students discuss concepts and work on problem sets together.
You don’t have to challenge fundamental mathematical concepts in order to discuss them with each other and learn from each other. Students will always have different approaches to problems. Different ways of learning, questions.
Honestly I can’t imagine learning a discipline of any kind without discussion, help from others (or helping others myself), possibly a study group…try to go to MIT without working out problem sets in a group! http://uaap.mit.edu/node/2012
UBC I am correct. After drop outs it’s very close to 50% and in the stem majors much higher
UC Berkeley’s latest rate for four-year freshman graduation is the second highest in the UC system at 75.8 percent — the campus is bested only by UCLA at 78.2 percent. The two schools’ six-year rates for freshmen are on par, with UC Berkeley at 91 percent and UCLA at 90.6 percent. Transfer graduation rates at UC Berkeley follow a similar trend: The campus’s two-year rate of 60.6 percent sits behind those of UCLA and UC Santa Barbara, while its four-year rate of 91.5 percent ranks first in the UC system.
The drop out rate is not proportional across all races as you would expect.
OHMom you seem to be confusing LAC’s with the top Universities. They are very very different animals. My kids attended a couple of different top universities and in the STEM classes are just like STEM classes everywhere. it’s just not accurate to pretend the students have lengthy daily discussions or collaborate at either H/S in these types of classes.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
Let’s move on from debating whether or not discussion exists in STEM classes, please.
Here are the numbers.
UC Berkeley admitted 4,170 Asian Americans; about 43 percent of its incoming class. UCLA admitted 3,666 new students, slightly less than 40 percent of its incoming class.
UC San Diego admitted 8,205 Asian Americans, more than 44 percent of its new students; while UC Irvine admitted 9,852 Asian Americans, 46 percent of its new class.
@say , admitted is not the same as enrolled. Also, you may have missed this line at the bottom of the article you quoted
http://www.dailycal.org/2018/09/17/clog-report-uc-berkeley-freshman-fall-dropout-rate-increases/
EDIT: Hmmm, looks like the article you quoted in the link (about how students are fleeing Berkeley) has been edited out.
UBC and Dreamer you guys also seem to forget that the UC’s really don’t know because these days many Asians have learned not state their ethnicity since it’s optional. For various reasons I spend time on these campuses and on most days all you see is a sea of Asians. I was at UCSD recently and it was overwhelming.
UCs don’t use race in admissions (which I do believe is true), so you don’t have to hide your race.
So true! I recently had a very troubling conversation with the parent of a student at a top elite private university. He stated that there is absolutly no tolerance for any diversity of opinion. If anything other then establish liberal docterine is uttered, the conversation is shut down and the student is ostrocized in person and on social media. This is at one of the nations “best” institutions. This complaint was also coming from a fairly liberal family. That is not the college atmosphere that I remember, nor is it one I want for my own kids. I believe in the value of diversity — of thought as well as experience.
@SAY and @gallentjill That is why I have not worried about my own (my son has a punchers chance) of attending some of the elite institutions we have talked about. Being able to express an opinion and have a point/counterpoint discussion is something that is an important part of an education (and what I love about CC). Diversity of ideas should be an important hallmark of any institution of higher learning and that freedom of ideas has either died or is in hiding due to a fear of being ostracized. That “group think” may be a threat to us all, so I hope there will always be brave souls to give alternative views of thought. I will not like some of those views, but I believe in the art of debate and to listen to those who do not think the way I do.
That’s because colleges are too much focused in teaching Liberal Arts. Some of them even have nerve to call themselves Liberal Arts Colleges.
The totals are below, as listed in IPEDS. IPEDS excludes persons checking multiple races, as well as international.
Percent Asian
UCB – 35% of undergrads, 34% of students obtaining a bachelor’s, 58% of STEM bachelor’s*
UCLA – 29% of undergrads, 29% of students obtaining a bachelor’s, 46% of STEM bachelor’s*
UCSD – 36% of undergrads, 39% of students obtaining a bachelor’s, 60% of STEM bachelor’s*
*Defining STEM as CIP codes 10, 11, 14, 15, 26, 27, 30, 40, 41,
What an informative thread. So the general consensus is that if the SFFA wins over Harvard, the Asian-American proportion should go up a la Caltech and Berkeley at the expense of other minorities, right? How does the SFFA lawsuit against Harvard going to affect the legacy (mostly white) admission? Will the proportion of white enrollment go down (again a la Caltech and Berkeley)?
Maybe. But it won’t be a dramatic change.
Since legacy preference would not be affected, Harvard could adjust how heavy its legacy preference is to get to the desired (for its marketing purposes) percentage of white students.
Isn’t SFFA lawsuit about Harvard should be admitting students based on merit? If SFFA wins, wouldn’t that principle apply to underperforming privileged (i.e. legacy, mostly white) kids as well?
No. It’s a challenge to affirmative action (or consideration of race in admissions) only. Not to legacy, development or the largest preference group - recruited athletes. Not even close to admitting based on merit, just removing race from the equation - and theonly place race is legally IN the equation is in affirmative action policies.
In my opinion SFFA is now using the idea that AA hurts Asians to advance its cause which is all about white students, and always has been. If SFFA is successful in toppling AA watch it drop the Asian cause like a hot potato. They are useful allies and something to hold up that looks legitimate, right now.
The issue of discrimination against Asian applicants at elite college where that may exist, is completely separate from Affirmative Action policies, except indirectly - if Harvard has black students making up 10% of its class and half of those “don’t belong on merit” then that 5% opens up to - Asians. Or white students. Or more legacies, or anything else.
You might enjoy reading this rather balanced essay written by two Asian American students at Harvard.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/7/18/chung-zhang-sffa-harvard-wrong/
…andif you have time, a little background on Blum who leads SFFA: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/magazine/voting-rights-act-dream-undone.html
He has filed multiple lawsuits to overturn the voting rights act in addition to his affirmative action challenges. Useful to know who is leading this charge and what his motives actually are.
I see. Whether the motivation behind the SFFA lawsuit is about eliminating discrimination against Asian-American students or is about abolishing Affirmative Action, the SFFA win should result in less qualified kids not being admitted to Harvard, right?
The color of the under- or unqualified kids shouldn’t matter since “consideration of race in admission” would be removed - which, to me, means less qualified kids whether black, white, green, or purple would not be admitted over more qualified Asian-American kids. Am I getting this wrong?
Not really. Athletes, legacies, development, etc kids would all retain their admissions preference (and they form a much larger group than affirmative action-aided admits).
Many people would say they ARE qualified. Their athletic ability, their money, their connections to alumni, are clearly valued by Harvard. Noting in this suit would prevent Harvard from keeping the preference for these groups.