<p>"What is it about Asian history and culture that makes some Asian Americans so resentful --downright bitter--about AA for African Americans?"</p>
<p>Perhaps because they don't have the guilt complex of many whites whose forefathers might have been involved with slavery. They see that if they can fight the anit-asian sentiments of many posters here, the URMs can also fight that on their own. Many believe that after about 2.5 generations those things are not needed.</p>
<p>Siserune,</p>
<p>Hardly evidence for your position. You are assuming that which is to be proved: that societal injustice is responsible for the poor academic performance of minorities. Since upper middle class blacks perform at the level of poor whites on standardized tests and since standardized tests over predict the academic performance of African Americans in college (citiations available earlier in the thread), I hardly think this point is self evident. I might have accepted this at face value in 1960 but I think this assertion requires proof today. An interesting slight of hand in your own quote by the way. Are you now including asians as minorities?</p>
<p>That's incorrect. The only assumption (run the numbers yourself to see that this is all that's needed) is that, once simultaneously controlled for ALL factors other than race, the rate at which minorities present each given level of admissions credential would be on average AT LEAST HALF that of whites. All factors means: income, health, parental education, quality of schools, extended family assets, social milieu, social class, occupation of parents, grandparents' education, etc; a population with no relevant statistical disparity relative to whites. Do you have any reason to contest that assumption?</p>
<p>Siserune,</p>
<p>Yes I do. It's in my prior post.</p>
<p>Siserune,</p>
<p>Is your point just that if blacks and other URMS performed academically at the same level as whites that there would be fewer whites admitted to elilte instituions? If so I agree. And it would be a great outcome! How do we get there from here?</p>
<p>I include URM, not Asians, as the "minorities" whose applicant numbers would rise. I specifically stated that, per Espenshade and Chung, admissions for Asian males might go up in a race-equalized admissions environment. There is a huge gap between noting some underperformance of minorities and assuming (as you must, to escape the logic outlined above) that it is so great that even after equalizing everything under the sun there would be FEWER THAN HALF as many who attain any given level of credential compared to whites. No "overprediction" reaches that level, nor does the comparison by income (uncontrolled for all the other factors) come close to predicting such a deficit. You in effect would need to assume some built-in incapability of the minorities; good luck selling that.</p>
<p>Your arguments that were "in the posting" were added in edit several minutes after I posted, so I see them only now. The above is in reply.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Fab,</p>
<p>You forgot Jian Li v. Princeton.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thanks. Let's add him into the list. He'll be the first "angry Asian male" and will thus add a much welcomed "diversity."</p>
<p>Edit</p>
<p>At my orientation yesterday, we were all "asked" to watch a video on diversity. I was pleased that the diversity the students and faculty described was nothing like the "diversity" I see thrown around here.</p>
<p>I did not once hear a statement like "Adding rich white students to campuses reduces diversity."</p>
<p>I heard no hyperbolic statements like "Diversity could go down!"</p>
<p>Some of us support racial diversity because we actually enjoy spending time with people of all races, and believe that our lives are enriched and more interesting because of it.</p>
<p>Oiram, ephiphany and others: please tell me how AA cannot be construed as payback for slavery and oppression of African Americans? The basic idea is that blacks have not been give a fair shake in the past and we are now trying to right past wrongs. If this is incorrect, please educate me. </p>
<p>I agree that in the past there have been terrible injustices and affronts to humanity. My question relates to post #170. When will the black community ever feel that enough is enough and be willing to stand on their own, abandoning racial preferences conferred by Affirmative Action? It seems to me that if Affirmative Action is here to stay...forever...it has failed in its goal to equalize opportunities, and perhaps even has caused more of a subtle division between the races.</p>
<p>When the sun has set in one of the world's poorest nations and the floodlights come on at Gbessia International Airport, the parking lot begins to fill with children.</p>
<p>It's exam season in Guinea, ranked 160th out of 177 countries on the United Nations' development index, and students flock to the airport every night because it is among the only places where they can count on finding the lights on.</p>
<p>Groups begin heading to the airport at dusk, hoping to reserve a coveted spot under the oval light cast by one of a dozen lampposts in the parking lot. Some come from over an hour's walk away.</p>
<p>"I used to study by candlelight at home but that hurt my eyes. So I prefer to come here. We're used to it," said 18-year-old Mohamed Sharif, who sat under the fluorescent beam reviewing notes on Mongolia for the geography portion of his university entrance exam.</p>
<p>If African American students study that hard, they don't need racial preference.</p>
<p>Learning against all odds</p>
<p>Or you may want to see some pictures here</p>
<p><a href="http://www.pratham.org/camera/ourcamera.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.pratham.org/camera/ourcamera.php</a></p>
<p><a href="curious14:">quote</a>
since standardized tests over predict the academic performance of African Americans in college
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I hope you are not suggesting that, in the hypothetical fair admissions model (i.e. applicants from a statistically race-equalized society plugged into Espenshade and Chung regression model), black SAT scores should be discounted because they are obtained by blacks. That would be the discrimination you claim to oppose, right? Much like the current practice of giving extra credit for SAT earned by "disadvantaged" minorities, right?</p>
<p>If in the hypothetical scenario the suddenly fully enfranchised blacks earn so-and-so many scores of 2250 on the SAT, the assumption (E&C regression model) is that they would be admitted at the same rate as white or Asian applicants with the same numbers. What you need to explain is why FEWER THAN HALF as many as whites are expected (by you) to attain the same numbers, after controlling for absolutely everything.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some of us support racial diversity because we actually enjoy spending time with people of all races, and believe that our lives are enriched and more interesting because of it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you suggesting that I do not “enjoy spending time with people of all races, and believe that [my] live [is] enriched and more interesting because of it”?</p>
<p>Supporting racial diversity is not a sufficient condition for supporting racial preference; the statement “If I support racial diversity, then I support racial preference” is not true. Since it is not true, its contrapositive is not true. However, you have frequently implied that the contrapositive, “If I do not support racial preference, then I do not support racial diversity,” is a true statement when it is not.</p>
<p>I support racial diversity. I am opposed to racial preference. I hope I have made myself clear on this issue. I fear, though, that my efforts are in vain as it appears that racial preference advocates are incapable of understanding this point. I have written this so many times, but it never sticks.</p>
<p>"Thanks for the numbers, sybbie. As you stated, and comparing those numbers to the census, one can see how African-Americans, Hispanics (and even Whites!) are under-represented in the Ivy League, while Asian-Americans are over-represented.</p>
<p>2000 Census:</p>
<p>African-American 12%
Asian-American 4%
Hispanic 14%
Native American 1%
White 74%"</p>
<p>Are you implying that elite colleges should reflect the general population demographics? The jewish population in US is about 1.7%.....Their presence at elite schools is much larger than that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I support racial diversity. I am opposed to racial preference. I hope I have made myself clear on this issue. I fear, though, that my efforts are in vain
[/quote]
I thoroughly understand your point! ;) I agree with you that racial preference should not be the means to the goal of racial diversity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you implying that elite colleges should reflect the general population demographics? The jewish population in US is about 1.7%.....Their presence at elite schools is much larger than that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Last I checked, I saw the following statement on the college application:</p>
<p>If you wish to be identified with a particular ethnic group, please check all that apply:</p>
<p>�� African American, African, Black
�� Native American, Alaska Native (date enrolled Tribal affiliation )</p>
<p>�� Asian American (countries of family’s origin __________________________)</p>
<p>�� Asian, incl. Indian Subcontinent (countries __________________________)</p>
<p>�� Hispanic, Latino (countries _______________________________________)</p>
<p>�� Mexican American, Chicano �� Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander</p>
<p>�� Puerto Rican �� White or Caucasian</p>
<p>�� Other (specify ________________________________________)</p>
<p>Don't remember seeing a check off box indicating Jewish, Christian, Catholic, Hindi, Muslim, Buddist, etc. (as I am quite sure you will correct me if I am wrong)</p>
<p>so??? what are you trying to say?</p>
<p>lkf, I don't want to go into a huge academic discussion on this, which has been discussed on many other threads over the last 2+ years minimum on CC. But I will just say that the better way to look at (because it's the way the colleges mostly look at it) is that it is a positive <em>for</em> rather than a negative <em>against</em>. If you read AdOfficer's posts on this thread, as well as searching her/his posts over the last year on CC, you will see at least that institution's rationale for providing opportunity. He/she also says on this very thread that the more salient point to the over-wrought hair-pulling (not yours, just cumulatively in general from all sources, is what I mean) is that the URM's getting a bump at the expense of OTHER racial groups is minuscule. First of all, not many U.S. URM's even apply. Second, a percentage of those URM's that do apply to elites, are in the same competitive category as most non-URM's to those same schools: stat-wise, e.c.-wise, & in demonstrated potential. That leaves a tiny portion of URM applicants who have lower stats than what might be typical of the rest of the applicants, but nevertheless clearly have shown they can do the work. There aren't pity admits or huge risks taken, because no private U of such stature wants to risk a reputation, nor are they interested in risky investments, which a 4-yr enrollment commitment is. They want from all their students, high graduation rates & likely success in the world of work.</p>
<p>If you read the literature on this, from current and ex-admissions officers, for example, you will see that most often, applicants who are rejected or waitlisted largely 'lose out' to students similar to themselves in SES and ethnic category. Combine that with geography, and you have a triple whammy. </p>
<p>To provide educational opportunity to a handful of capable students seems to pale in comparison to the number of white athletes (Lacrosse, rowing, golf, swimming, tennis, esp.) and white legacies who are given 'bumps' with sometimes not better stats than the few URM's we're talking about. Some of those hooked admits will and do have great scores, etc., but not all of them. Many of them -- leaning on their wealth & connections -- have slacked off in h.s. & are not as competitive, GPA-wise, as they should be for an elite institution. But there's not a lot of hand-wringing about that significant category of hooked admits, is there? (Not relative to the hand-wringing about AA.)</p>
<p>The same URM's I'm discussing -- not middle-class or even wealthy URM's that may have higher stats & be equal in profile to other applicants -- usually are also economically disadavantaged. Therefore, access to an elite institution will provide a unique & singular opportunity versus more plentiful opportunities (because of income) that a middle-class white or Asian student has access to. That is because of the generous endowments & financial aid policies at the elites. Because some of the Ivies are also committed to low-income -- in addition to racial diversity -- they will try to admit low-income from all of highly qualified students of whatever ethnic groups those are. That obviously includes poor whites & poor Asians, who are admitted to elites along with middle class & upper class whites & Asians, as space allows & within a balance. (choices have to be made because not all goals can be satisfied equally, given the overabundance of applications & overabundance of excellent students who apply.) </p>
<p>Who gets rejected from elites? (Again according to those sources):
Qualified middle- and high-income whites.
Qualified middle- and high-income Asians
Qualified low-income whites
Qualified low-income Asians
Some (fewer) qualified URM's
....
and IF suddenly lots of qualified (more than now) URM's made up a large portion of the applicant pool (such as whites & Asians make up now), the rejected pool would include more qualified URM's from various economic strata. An institution is not going to completely sacrifice one goal for another. AdOfficer has already indicated on this thread (I think) that he/she has denied some URM's based on various aspects. </p>
<p>The positive thrust is the opportunity thrust. Universities maintain that they represent an important element of opportunity in a participatory democracy and in a country which professes to strive to provide maximum economic opportunity, regardless of one's origins. (The exposure and the "name" of an elite may open doors to a passionately determined URM who has shown prior to college considerable drive & potential regardless of circumstances.)</p>
<p>But there are other rationales, also mentioned by AdOfficer & other ad reps: the idea of a maximally diverse institution as a microcosm of society at large, & therefore a 'learning lab' in that regard -- at the very least by virtue of exchange within classrooms themselves. </p>
<p>But again, I just think this whole AA issue is always blown way out of proportion to its dynamic in the admissions process, relative to how competitive those applications really are: all the excellence evident. I can't imagine that any private U in this country is going to redefine itself formally or by its practices, to become primarily an institution of social engineering. if they did, excellent students would stop applying. The U is not aiming to choose diversity OVER excellence. If five almost-as-excellent URM's are accepted, "over" slightly more excellent, somewhat wealthier non-URM's, but the latter have been accepted to equally fine institutions with aid not quite as generous, but which those families can still afford, is this such a catastrophe? .... because I think it's this kind of comparison that is more realistic. Keep in mind that genuine stars, from any ethnic group, tend to get into at least one and usually several elites. And "stars" is a narrow group. A 4.0, 2400 is not a 'star." Not according to the Ivies, anyway. A star is the kind of student who comprehensively fleshes out on CC results threads why he or she towers over other applicants, even while most of those posts are stated modestly. It's so obvious, to any of us in education, why those non-URM's got admitted. </p>
<p>Keep in mind that Latinos get a boost, and this has nothing to do with slavery. They get a boost because they are still under-represented. (They do not get any automatic admit; several high-scoring ones have been rejected from elites just this last cycle.) When they start applying in larger numbers, and when U.S. blacks start applying in larger numbers (if they do), both those groups will start getting "punished." This is not about punishment and reward. It's about balance and opportunity, within excellence.</p>
<p>Without digressing from the topic, I answered your question you asked and now I am pushing back to you to show me where on a college application where it asks if you are jewish, catholic, protestant, muslim, buddist, or any other religion.</p>
<p>I have yet to read any Dean of admissions stating that for the incoming class of ____</p>
<p>_____ % are Jewish</p>
<p>______% catholic</p>
<p>______% Protestant</p>
<p>______% Episcopalian</p>
<p>______ % Christian</p>
<p>______ % Atheists</p>
<p>If you have seen this information given from the college that your child attends, or at the colleges where you live, I (and probably a few others) would love to be enlightened.</p>
<p>No sybbie: You first presented a table, Bay amplified the table further with a census data and made the conclusion that asian-american are over-prepresented. So I asked her a question should the enrollement figures represent the population demographics. If so then Jewish population is small, but have a very large presence.</p>
<p>I don't care if the question is asked or not, and I don't care if 90% of the campus is jewish, hindu, protestant or catholic. If you feel that some groups are over-represented then perhaps the they should ask question such that they have accurate information and 'balance' their enrollement demographics.</p>