As in so many things, social acceptance overrides truthfulness (we also saw this with surveys of whether voters would vote for Trump). When couched as whether “diversity” is a good thing, respondents say yes. But when simple questions regarding satisfaction, rigor, standards, race relations, etc. are asked, the researchers found a strong negative correlation with the actual level of underrepresented minorities. As we see with the Penn Law situation now, the presence of underqualified minorities actually restricts campus freedom and leads to an enforced orthodoxy that stifles - rather than encourages - thought.
By the way, the University of California eliminated race preferences in admissions over two decades ago, and black representation at flagships UCB and UCLA subsequently fell dramatically, and has not recovered. There have apparently been no negative implications for prestige, selectivity, attractiveness (as measured by application numbers), rankings, etc. Maybe just the opposite, although of course correlation is not causation.
Diversity is sold as a benefit, a benefit that overrides our legal and moral revulsion at discriminating on the basis of race in education. In other words, the empirical results outweigh the moral implications.
Suppose that research were to confirm definitively (or at least to the satisfaction of a democratically acting people) that segregation actually works “better” in terms of the outcomes we want as a society: higher achievement, better race relations, faster narrowing of income and status gaps, etc.
Would we then be justified in overriding our moral revulsion at the race discrimination inherent in segregation by pointing to the empirical benefits?
And of course, the corollary question naturally follows. Even if diversity is an empirically demonstrable good, why do we accept the morally repugnant discrimination on the basis of race that must be used to achieve it?
(This is actually exactly the legal issue presented in the aftermath of Bakke, and the difficulty of facing this and similar questions explains both the tortured jurisprudence of the later decisions as well as the unwillingness of academics to explore seriously whether diversity does in fact benefit the institution of education generally.)
On the K-12 level, historically (i.e., way back in the 20th century), schools which were both of high quality and homogeneous racially did a better job of educating and producing happy citizens than some of the models that came along later. And that’s why the modern homogeneous urban charter schools were actually born: out of an explicit desire to answer the needs of a culturally and racially homogeneous group.
The NY Times article doesn’t touch on the intellectual benefits of diversity just the social reaction from it. They should repeat the exercise next year and see if things have changed much in 20 years.
Also, my class president got accepted into USC and UCLA, I don’t know why UCI didn’t accept her. If it’s because of our race then this is so unfair!!! But I don’t know. If anyone does please help. Thank you!
I got rejected by UCI, I’m applying for appeal. But somehow I heard that UCI is not accepting any Asian this year. Can someone tell me if this is real or not, I’m so confused. There is this boy in my school, his SAT and GPA are lower than mine, he doesn’t do lots of services and he doesn’t have any work experience, he got accepted into UCI because he’s not an Asian. All the Asians in my school got rejected by UCI, surprisingly my class president also got rejected, she’s the class president and the president of Key Club, also her GPA is 4.9 and her ACT is somewhere 30-32, she’s an Asian, a Filipino. I don’t know if is real or not, but if it’s then this is so unfair for me, or people who worked so hard, and much more talented and much more deserve.
These guys all know the Pareto Principle. Harvard knows it could probably choose up to half its class randomly out of high school picture books (do schools still have those?) and it wouldn’t make a bit of difference for its long term academic and economic prospects. The largest share of the achievement, however measured, is going to come from a relatively small proportion of the students, certainly not more than 20%.
@venus12 that’s really upsetting. Do you think it’s that they literally accepted NO Asians, or do you think that based on your stats they thought you guys would go to the other schools? Do the UC’s talk to each other and try not to accept all of the same students? I’m not saying that would be right or fair at all, just wondering what’s going on there.
@SatchelSF are you at all suggesting that we might be better off if we went back to “separate but equal”? I think that proved to be a huge flop, no?
And also my friend in Maine, he’s not in my school. His SAT is 1300, GPA is 4.9, he won some prizes in Robotic, and he has many work experiences. But he also didn’t get into UCI, first we didn’t know why, but all these cases I saw, considered me that did UCI not accepted us because we’re Asians and they already had too many Asians, but still, why race matter? Isn’t UCI just look at how you did during your high school year?
A 4.9 high school weighted GPA from your high school is meaningless, since high school GPA weighting systems vary (and your high school’s weighting is almost certainly extremely exaggerated).
UCs recalculate high school GPAs, all of which will be significantly lower than 4.9. They also admit by division or major, and some are more competitive than others for capacity reasons.
Of course, the history of segregated K-12 schools showed that only some members of the favored group got quality education, while outgroups got forced into lower quality schools (and many members of the favored group did not get good quality schools either).
@venus12 As a someone having a senior graduating from a CA public HS this year I know exactly what you are talking about and how you feel from this year’s UC results.
UC holistic admission can involve many factors beyond UC GPAs and test scores; those can be geographical location, social-economic status, personal circumstance, etc. It is more predictable if you compare with kids from the same school, same SES etc. Anecdotally though, it does seem that some Ca suburban public schools are getting smaller share of slots from UCs this year. But these are just my own observation and speculation from local HSs; I would be interested to see other data points too.
“there is no way that a college is going to commit academic and economic suicide by admitting half-qualified students. The college cares way too much about its reputation in the marketplace of ideas and way too much about how successful its graduates are.”
They’re probably not half qualified but not as qualified as Asians (according to the lawsuit brought by Asians). And as Satchel implies, Harvard is not going to be impacted by anything, especially in its undergrad. It’s reputation is based on its grad schools, so it’s far more important to them that Barack Obama attend Harvard Law and George W Bush, Harvard Business than Jared Kushner, the undergrad school.
UCI and all other UC colleges always accept a good portion of Asian students and no doubt will continue to this year. As other posters mentioned, the UC system is legally bound to not directly give preference to race. I expect you are instead seeing an increase in selectivity
You can view race percentages in the UC system in different years at https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter/fall-enrollment-glance . The percentage of non-international Asian students has been dropping, but total number has had less significant changes. For example, in 2012 there were 11,100 undergrad non-international Asian students at UCI, which was 50% of the student body. Last year, there were 11,200, which was 38% of the student body.
One more person who believes everything he hears. The college knows who is qualified and who is not, and without access to every file of every applicant, no filer of any lawsuit would know who is comparatively more, less, or as qualified as anybody else – relative to that particular college, its standards, its priorities, its academic goals and profile, etc. While there are a few exceptions among colleges and universities, most of them do not consider there to be an absolute hierarchy of qualification, such as test scores, first; grades, second, etc. Very often overriding or at least limiting the evaluation of GPA is the LOR. If a lawsuit filer has not read every teacher LOR and has the experience to understand what is being said by the teacher between the lines, then that lawsuit filer is utterly unqualified to determine the qualifications of who is admissible to an institution the filer is not a member of.
I have been a poster on CC for 14 years and have read every argument and every story connected with the so-called charge of “discrimination” and the so-called assertions of “better qualified.” They are all founded on faulty premises and manipulated data. All of them.