Is holistic approach subjective? Check. Is it opaque (that is, the universities do not release the exact criteria they use)? Check. What is the “wild assumption”?
Yes. The essay is graded on:
Complexity of thought
Substantiality of development
Facility with language
In the context of the language portion of the SAT that is as objective as it can get. If the two readers’ scores differ by more than one point, a third reader scores the essay. Fewer than 5 percent of all scored essays call for a third reader. That shows consistency in scoring.
I don’t think crackpot means what you think it means. I can find a dozen articles and dozens of statements that Asians are disadvantaged in the admissions process by virtue of being Asian. This are statements by professors and former admissions officers not by paranoid conspiracy theorists. That is neither a crazy or eccentric statement. You undermine your credibility by pretending that I am presenting a crazy or eccentric argument, it also undermines an already weak argument.
This is why it is tough to take you seriously.
I show you that Asians on average must score 50 -140 points higher on their SATs to get the same admissions results. I show you Asians suffer a three to one disadvantage to whites with the same scores. And you think its playing the race card? Perhaps you don’t understand what the phrase “playing the race card” means or implies: Race card - Wikipedia
Ah so you are not saying that people are using race as a proxy, they are actually getting to know the applicants well enough to make the determination youa re talking about?
No, I don’t know that. What cirteria would you use to pick a dozen or so people to interview out of a stack of 200 resumes of recent college grads? How well would you try to get to know these 200 applicants or would yuo use grades and school as a filter?
What? I am using entirely objective critieria (you don’t seem to approve of my use of this particular objective critieria but its objective) and I don’t discrimriminate based on race because I think it is starting to look a little too Asian around the office. I am criticizing schools for using race as a factor in admissions. In fact I’m saying that they are using this “we are looking really closely at the students as individuals” to exclude Asian students.
First of all, I hope that I would feel this way regardless of my race. Second of all, I do not indiscriminately hire people based on school alone. GPAs matter. I’m not going to hire the guy who graduaated at the bottom of his class at Stanford and I am probably going to take a good look at anyone who gradauted near the top of their class at any national school.
I believe I was saying that where you went to college affects the jobs taht are available to you. I gave myself as an example. You said you thought that was very lazy of me.
My point isn’t to argue that my hiring methodology is perfect or ideal. My point is that I don’t think I’m unique at all in considering colleges in the hiring process and so the argument that I havfe seen put forward a couiple of times that “he, don’t worry, you may not get into Harvard but you’ll get into NYU and you do just fine” is weak sauce.
There is also the small matter that your beloved race-blind policies well generally help White enrollment numbers as they disproportionately benefit from other admissions preferences still in place (eg. legacies).
[/quote]
You should really read the entire article and the cites embedded within the article.
They didn’t go race blind. They ended affirmative action.
From your cite:
“the real problem facing Asian Americans — that we are not victims of affirmative action per se, but of plain and simple racial discrimination. That is, Asian American college applicants tend to be held to a higher standard than other applicants for no apparent, justifiable reason.”
From a link on your cite:
“Now, a new study argues that it’s not really affirmative action that hurts Asian Americans, it’s actually just racial discrimination, pure and simple”
From another link in your cite:
“The key finding of the Princeton study is actually that Asian Americans suffer from what law professor Jerry Kang has called “negative action.” In truth, Asian Americans are being treated differently — that is, worse — than White applicants with similar qualifications. Asian Americans are held to a higher standard than Whites, without any rationale.”
“Another appropriate description of the situation is that Whites are enjoying a form of affirmative action vis-à-vis Asian Americans. So the problem isn’t the existence of efforts to achieve a “critical mass” of historically excluded and under-represented minorities. Rather, the problem is long-standing practices that work to the advantage of Whites and harm Asian Americans. The former is constitutional; the latter, illegal.”
These cites are saying what i have been saying all along. I have no problem with giving an advantage to underrepresented minorities, I have a problem with disadvantaging Asians in favor of whites. Whites don’t need it just for being white (if they have other factors like family income and history of college education in the family that should be considered then fine but those are objective and measurable).
There is something wrong with that math. White, Asian, Black and hispanic opnly account for 89% of the population pre-Prop 209 and only 80% of the population post prop 209. Where were the other 11% pre-209 and why did this unaccounted for populakton increase to 20% post 209?
When you check the article, its on page 8 and there is supposed to be a footnote citing teh source of these numbers (footnote 17) but the footnote is blank. You are linking to a work in progress, a draft that doesn’t have cites for its numbers.
I think we have already seen cites to the shifts in these numbers and they represented significant increases in the asian population.
Here is a better cite from the UC system.
www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/Flowfrc_9504.pdf
Once again, why do you think this happened? Were these racists that didn’t want to go to these school with significant Asian minorities or were they no longer competitive for admission after Asians start aplying to these schools? It should be noted that White applications at berkeley have increased since 2005 at about the same rate between whites and Asians and the acceptance rate for Asians has start to approach or slightly exceed white accpetance rates at berkeley. The Asian freshmen population has increased about 20% at Berkeley from 2188 (out of 7771 in 1995) to 2601 (out of 7840 in 2004).
You keep focusing on one individual, I am talking about systemic discrimination. I never said that scores are the ONLY critieria that should be taken into account. I said that race should NOT be. Heck I didn’t even say that, I am OK with affirmative action for underrepresented minorities but I don’t think that the entire burden of that balance should be borne by an overrepresented minority.
Sure they have a point but then they should admit it and defend their position in court because while we know it is constitutional to preference underrepresented minorities based on race, we do not know if it is legal to handicap a minority because they are overrepresented.
It very well may be (I doubt it) and if the courts says that then I will continue to make my case that this is unfair but at least it will be transparent and it will be open knowledge that the Asian kid from NYU could probably could have gotten into Cornell if they were white.
I don’t know why you would think I am filtering just for schools. Are you saying that schools are not a useful vector in filtering 200 resumes for a single position?
Those metrics you described are not objective. They’re subjective. As in, subject to opinion. Also, how many people do you think sit on admissions committees, making decisions?
You also make two sketchy assumptions, here:
Holistic evaluation has subjective components
The evaluation process isn’t fully opaque
Therefore this means they could be discriminating against Asians.
For one thing, just because there are subjective components doesn’t mean it’s fully subjective. Again, spend some time on an Ivy campus. You will be surrounded by some of the brightest people you’ll ever come across in your everyday life. It’s not like they’re admitting a bunch of EC-driven dummies, here. Like I said, the 75th SAT percentile of the SAT at Harvard is 2380, virtually a perfect score. Most people at Ivies are at least top 5% of their class. They are smart and they do more than just get grades/scores, on average.
Furthermore, countless books have been written on this subject. The methods of evaluation are well-known and pretty darn opaque as they can get. Can you explain to me the exact criteria you use in accepting one job applicant over another? Are your results always going to be the best? The fairest? The most consistent?
The position you’re taking here is unfalsifiable. You’re basically saying “Look, admissions is subjective, so admissions officers can decide whatever they want. Colleges place a priority on things like diversity. Asians tend to do better on things like the SAT, which I think is objective. Since our colleges aren’t admitting more Asians because they’re giving spots to others for the sake of diversity, this means colleges are discriminating against Asians.”
The problem is that the data doesn’t support your position, and you basically invoke a conspiracy-theoretic mentality in assuming motives behind admissions officers where no evidence of such mentality exists.
The fact that you think the SAT is “objective” (and the fact that you think the writing section is objective and then go on to cite obviously subjective metrics) is a pretty blatant indicator that you’re taking a crackpot position on this whole thing.
I don’t know if you were the one that claimed to have taught a lot more standardized test classes than me but if you had, you would know that the numbers you present below are significant.
Yeah 6 questions there is a difference between someone who can consistently get 0-2 questions wrong on the SATs and one who can consistently get 5-7 questions wrong on the SATS.
There is no way I will consider those two test scores comparable 16 questions wrong? That’s about 10% of the questions wrong.
Of course you are wrong. The notion that SATs are not a useful metric because you can take test prep courses at the top end of the scale is ignorant (to use your words).
And Unlike Terr, I am not proposing a test scores and grades alone metric but I have trouble believing that Asians are so socially retarded (compared to similarly credentialed whites) that their non-objective measures put them at a three to one disadvantage in the admissions process.
The policy might be racial balancing. Plenty of schools have copped to considering racial balance while firmly denying any discrimination. What ehy have not copped to is that their quest for racial balance doesn’t merely advantage underrepresented minoriities over others it also disadvantages overrepresented minorities under [?] other.
See berkeley 1995 to 2004. I’m not arguing that we should get rid of affirmative action for underrepresented minorities, I’m saying the impact of affirmative action on others should be shared proportionally. It seems to me that the fact that the 6% reduction in underrepresented minority population went overwhelmingly to Asians supoports the notion that the admissions committee was handicapping Asian applciants based on race.
NOTE: I am not saying they were saying +1 black so -1 Asian. Only that the discrimiantion against Asians caused them to ultimately bear the entire burden of affirmative action.
Sorry if hurt your feeling, but I told you that I shouldn’t have said that. If that’s not contrite enough for you then we’ll have to agree to disagree. I think yopu are strawmanning because you have weak arguments that only stand up if you recharacterize my positions (as you have been doing).
I don’t know, because it might be illegal?
You are confusing and conflating issues.
You tried to undercut the argument by saying this litigant is a jilted lover and i was trying to focus on the greater issue and not on this one guy.
Epenshades study uses more than scores. I suppose there are more variables that we can consider but youa re asking us to believe taht these variables fall three to one in favor of the thie guy over the Asian guy.
And yet a 2100, roughly the 25th percentile SAT score at Harvard, is still at the 95%+ percentile of the nation. A 2380 is well into the 99%+ percentile.
Also, you’re making the assumption that someone with a high score will always get that high score. Even among top test-takers, the variance is not as small as 0-2 questions across all three tests. I mention (again) that Ivies superscore the SAT, which means they take the best of each section across all the instances in which you take the test.
No, it’s not. Harvard tends to admit people who score at the higher ends of the scale. At these sufficiently high levels, the difference between scores comes down to a handful of questions that fall within reasonable variance across multiple tests.
Like I said, a 2100 is -5.3 questions per section or so. A 2300 is -2 per section or whatever it was. Do you really think coaching isn’t good enough to teach people how to shave off a couple questions off the entire test? If I am missing 5 questions in Math, for instance, then across the three Math sections in that test, I’m basically trying to improve each section by 1 question. You make it sound like this sort of improvement is massive and totally renders the scores as being unfit for comparison. The guy with the higher score must be better. Note: I should mention that I used to tutor the SAT in NYC, so yes, I have a pretty good (if not explicit) idea for what kind of gains are possible.
Not the point. “Objective as possible” is meaningless insofar as it doesn’t change the fact that it’s still subjective and at the whims of only a couple people.
College admission decisions also try to be as “objective as possible” when assessing soft criteria, and those committees are much larger.
You argued the SAT was objective and I gave you clear examples of why it’s not. You’re not going to strengthen your point by moving the goalposts to “Well, it’s objective as possible regarding a soft subject!” The fact that there are soft subjects being evaluated is the entire point, here. What do you think is getting evaluated in a holistic admissions process? A lot of it is “soft” in nature (even hard numbers like SAT and GPA are assessed in context of background).
If you’re not even going to pretend to hold onto a consistent position here, I’m not going to reply to you any more.
Universities have no interest in being objective. Being objective in admissions does not lead to a better quality education, and indeed leads to a poorer quality education for everyone. A university with purely “objective” admissions would be at a sever disadvantage and would not be offering the best to their students. If it were such a good idea, don’t you think at least one selective university in our huge and diverse higher education market would do it?
They aren’t the worst, but they are far from the best predictor. GPA, as complex and variable as it is, is a much better predictor. Holistic admissions is an equally accurate predictor. There really isn’t much value to the SAT, which is one reason why many schools are going SAT optional. Honestly, schools would be happy to ditch it, because it doesn’t really add much new information, but parents and rating agencies have become so fixed on SAT defined “selectivity” that they are locked in a bit of an arms race and it’s tough to disengage.
This is incorrect. Numerous studies show that race-blind holistic admissions results in more diversity without a change in academic performance. In other words, looking at people individually does, in fact, raise diversity One way it does this is by downplaying the one admissions criteria (SAT scores) with a documented racial bias.
The “subjective” judgement on whether the essay meets the standards of language competency and the “subjective” judgement on whether the candidate is “interesting” enough to be accepted are miles apart in “subjectivity”.
No you didn’t.
According to posters here it’s whether the candidate is “interesting”, or comes from a tough background, or “overcame adversity”, or is “passionate” or is “diverse”. Quite a bit of difference from evaluation of language competency.
Yeah, I think you are missing something. It turns out that after correcting for variables including the specific classes and professors taken, GPA correlates amazingly well with SAT scores.
I’m not sure what you point is.
I’m not familiar with modern test taking practices (back when I was taking them, you needed a pretty good explanation for taking the test a second time otherwise they tended to average your scores). Are you saying that I can take the SATs multiple times, concentrate on only one section do really well on that one section and cobble together a 2400 out of three different tests? If that is what you are telling me?
I am making the assumption that people who are going to get 2400 on one exam are not likely to get 2300 on a second pass.
Its been decades since I taught this stuff in the classroom and as a tutor (also in NYC) but in the late 80’s if someone was breaking 1500 regularly, they were not likely to test below 1450. If someone is scoring below 1400, they were not likely to break 1450. Sure, it happened form time to time but it was pretty rare.
Of course SATs are teachable, so are interviews.
I know that there is a racial disparity in SAT scores but what documented racial bias do the SATs have? I have heard that there may be cultural bias (I am not sure how immigrant Asian children seem to be unhampered by this bias (perhaps they all came to America on a regatta ).
More importantly, how does this bias disadvantage whites so much that they should end up with triple the acceptance rate of an Asian with the same score/gpa/athletics/socioeconomic background?
Do you think the SATS measure ANYTHING?
They’re a bit more of a crapshoot for a top score/gpa Asian student than a top score/gpa white student. A perfect score Asian student (1600) has the same chance of admission as a 1460 white student.
It doesn’t have to be deliberate and intentional to be discrimination.
I’ll use the death penalty for black criminals as an example. On similar objective facts of a criminal case where the death penalty is being sought, there was a time when black defendants were MUCH MUCH more likely to be convicted and to be sentenced to the death penalty than white defendants. Decades and decades of data showed this phenomenon. Were the black defendants that much more likely to have committed the crime and that much more likely to have committed it in such an awful way that their rate of receiving the death penalty was several times that of a white defendant? What if we also found out that DNA testing would exonerate black convicts at a much higher rate than white convicts.
Let say I can prove through mind reading and a time machine that none of the jurors was deliberately and intentionally discriminating against the defendant because he is black.
Is there discrimination going on?
Sure, I know the response. There are some “soft factors” that account for the difference inn Asian acceptance rates. Well, you went to a top ivy league school. It sounds like you are fairly young so there was probably a noticable Asian population at that school. Was it apparent to YOU that the Asian students were any more boring than the white students or the white students being more charismatic than Asian students.
Was this difference in soft factors apparent enough to you that you would say “Yep, white students should be accepted at three times the rate of Asian students”
Soft factors indeed.
Jeez, I have seen people being less vague when describing the face of God.
That would make sense if British admissions was remotely akin to US undergrad. But they aren’t- it is more like admissions for 2nd year transfer students who have already completed university level work on a 3 focused subjects which are measures by subject knowledge tests. Totally different than high school kids with a broad general education in 6-8 subjects and measured by a cognitive reasoning test with no specific subject knowledge.
Now show us how much weight SAT scores are given in the overall admissions decisions. Without knowing that, your results are meaningless.
Obviously, any school with affirmative action is using race as a proxy for certain things.
How about work experience, or internships? Or you could actually interview them one by one until you get someone you like. I can understand why you don’t want to do that, but it doesn’t make your system and less crude and unfair.
It’s not objective given that the college one is admitted to is not based on objective metrics. Furthermore, if you “know” college select away from more talented Asian students, than your decision to interview a White guy from Harvard instead of an Asian guy from NYU only strengthens their brand, and allows them to keep discriminating against Asian people with no repercussions.
And I am saying that you are part of the problem you are want to be fixed.
Only because people in position of power (like you), do not practice what you preach. Honestly, this is really not that hard to follow. If you think the elite schools cap the number of Asian students, which results in a less talent incoming class, then the brand should suffer. Yet, the brand is not degraded at all when you are filtering resumes. You say you “depend on the colleges to do the filtering for you”. I say THAT is weak sauce.
Fair point. What do you think the practical difference between the two is?
The study is commenting on both issues. The point they are making is more accurately illustrated by this quote:
That said, the case he makes isn’t particularly compelling. The gist of it is that actual post race-blind Asian admission offers lagged behind predicted values, and thus, that gap is the byproduct of negative action. It’s in interesting theory, but hardly compelling by itself.
I don’t agree with this parsing of the data. The problem is that once you get of race as a criteria, other criteria, in which Whites have an absolute advantage of Asians play in their favor more often.
The numbers could be off, or it could be international students and other/unknown races. Regardless, the numbers track pretty closely with you site’s raw numbers.
Okay, so scrolling down to Berkeley, and looking at the year before and after the race-blind criteria went into place, Asians went from 42.3% of those enrolled to 43.7%. About the same as the last site indicated. Also note the White representation barely budged. In fact, the number of White admissions actually went down.
Probably some of both. It’s hard to know without any data.
Why? Should the NBA have to go to court to prove is not biased against the short, the handicapped, elderly, or White? Honestly, this kind of attitude just makes me think you believe colleges should have to answer to you for some reason. First, it’s that they are not admitting the right people. Then it’s an admission that you expect them to filter job applicants for you, and now you think they need to explain how they decide who to admit.
Or that criteria under which Asians happen to do better (like SAT scores) were given more relative weight in a system where race was not a factor.
A second ago, you were arguing it was negative action, not affirmative action that was a (greater) detriment to Asians. Which is it?
I appreciate the apologize, but I don’t see where I have mischaracterized anything you have said. Please feel free to point out where I did. I will be happy to apologize if that was the case. I get that it’s kinda annoying and stressful to respond to these long posts when multiple people are challenging you, but I really am trying to do my best in understanding where you are coming from.
I was imagining you have a moral objection to it. Is that not the case?
No I am not. The kid sued because he was denied admission. What gives you the impression that confused about any of the surrounding issues.
Then why did you question my characterization of this one guy, if you were trying to focus on the greater issue?
Do you understand how these regressions are done? Your cite goes into a little detail. To quote:
So first, the model the data they have. Then they try to identify predictor variables. Here is the problem with that. We don’t know the variables they use. We just have something that seems to model the data. There are countless examples of these models failing, especially when the data is subject to countless, discrete, subjective individual decisions (in aggregate) as college admissions are. This is why economic models routinely break. It’s why they say it’s much easier to predict the past, than the future.
Note that this model didn’t actually accurately predict the real data the very next year. Also note it doesn’t even to take into effect things like class rank, grade point average, AP/IB classes, High School reputation, extracurriculars, etc. Do you really want to hang your hat on the accuracy of such a model? One known to have failed the very next year.
Colleges assign a non-zero weight to SAT scores (I would say they assign significant weight to SAT scores). That makes this huge perisistent disparity meaningful.
Obviously? Cite.
So you are saying that colleges are using race as a proxy for what exactly? Poverty? They can already select for that. Family educational history? They can already select for that. Are you under the impression taht they are selecting for personality or some “soft” skill? They select for underrepresented minorities because they are underrepresented minorities not because they tend to have other characteristics.
I’m not going to argue with you over how your system of recruiting is better than teh system used by anyone that actually hires people from these schools.
In favor of who?
If ALL top schools engage in this sort of discrimination, how is one school better than another. Sure, UC and Cal Tech don’t discriminate against Asians but there are only so many of these folks who want to apply to move to DC. The top liberal arts colleges don’t discriminate against Asians but their Asians populations are not that high (yet).
Affirmative action helps underrepresented minorities at the expense of the general population. Discrimination against Asians just hurts Asians.
And what white advantages (other than the color of your skin) do you think cause this three to one disparity in acceptance rates? You really think that Whites at top schools are that much cooler and charismatic than Asian students?
I gave you data. You seem to be able to make all sorts of unsupported assertions about white superiority in areas that Asians are weak and yet you cannot divine anything from the data that we have? I mean we do know that White applications are rising at about teh same rate as Asian applciations over th last 20 years or so. You say they were going down before that. You can’t hazard any sort of guess why these sort of things might have happened?
Because the NBA uses pretty objective criteria. Sure they don’t hire a lot of Asians but they can point to concrete objective critieria that says that there aren’t many Asians who make the cut. You on the other hand point to unsubstantiated theories and stereotyping to assert that top white students have better soft skills than top Asian students.
Yeah, and all the other things that were considered before reace blind admissions are STILL being considered and ALSO have more weight now because race is no longer a factor. The only factor that has been removed is race.
I’m not saying that affirmative action is WHY colleges started discriminating against Asians. I am saying that colleges discriminate in favor of underrepresented minorities because they are underrepresented. They don’t say “well we let in a few browns so we’re gonna have to cut our quota of yellows so we can keep letting in the white kids”. I’m saying that their discrimiantion against Asians has resultyed in (not intended to) Asians ultimately bearing the burden of affirmative action in the admissions process. I submit that ifwe had affirmative action and race blind admissions for Asians and whites, the burden of agffirmative action would be borne by BOTH asian and white applicants.
No worries, I misunderstood some of your positions in the beginnning. I thought you were denying race based discrimination. Now I understand you to mean that there is in fact race based discrimination (not because of any antipathy towards Asians but because of stereotyping, or correlations and archetypes) but it is justifiable discrimination.
I will post my position separately because these posts are getting long and i want to put it in one place. I think you have been characterizing my complaint as a complaint about racism in the Jim Crow sense. its not.
Wait. You don’t think there is a moral distinction between geographic discrimination (which i don’t particularly like either, like too many things in this country (see US senate) it favors rural hicks from underpopulated states, but I suppose Asians could always more to less competitive states) and discrimination based on race.
Because, there is nothing he can get out of it. He isn’t acking for money, he isn’t asking to be admitted, he is asking that Princeton be forced to stop this practice. Are you inclined to condemn those to sue former employers for discriminatory firing (where there is evidence of discrimination) as being jilted or vindictive?
because you are trying to undercut the argument by tying it to one case and then dismissing that one case as sour grapes.
You do realize that this peer reviewed paper is significantly more credible than the draft paper that broke out filipinos but had missing cites for its data or the one from Australia with all the typos.
Sure I understand how modelling works. They break down all the time at the tails (see 2008 financial crisis) and the tails may be fat but absent tail events, if the regression uses enough data points the these models (when constructed properly) have predictive value.
Cite for the failure of the model to predict admissions the following year? I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t as predictive for future years as it was for past but can you point to where the model “failed” the next year?
My position is, top schools have experienced a tidal wave of highly qualified Asian applicants and it has gotten to the point (its been this way for a while now) they don’t want “too many” Asians so they effectively impose higher admissions standards on Asian applicants than they would on white applicants. I don’t think that there is significant evidence that Asians are social retards compared to their white counterparts, certainly not enough to explain away the sort of disparities we see. I think it is simply discriminating against Asians based on race, not because they are malicious racists or even because they are stereotyping Asians but simply because they feel they have too many Asians.
I agree that you can preference underrepresented minorities in the interests of diversity, a 2000 student (while measurably different in ability than a 2400 student) is capable of completing their degree at any school (with honors) if they are sufficiently motivated and there is a value to increasing the population of well pedigreed college graduates in these communities and society in general. I do not agree that you should be able to handicap overrepresented minorities any more than you can handicap the majority, I see no social good that comes of that in a society that is already dominated by whites.
I think that the gaps in SAT scores and the three to one discrepancy in admission rates of similarly credentialed whites versus Asians is prima facie evidence of discrimination and it is up to the schools to explain away this disparity.
Thats what I currently believe (frankly, I did not realize the disparities were this large), I have seen no evidence that my position is unreasonable (although some seem to think I’m a crackpot). I have only seen people use strained logic, theories, and stereotypes to try and explain away a glaring and obvious disparity.
The reason why it’s a crackpot position is that you have absolutely no evidence of selective discrimination taking place and yet you seem to be ignoring the evidence that suggests otherwise. Promotion of diversity isn’t done with the intent of keeping Asians out of top schools. Diversity is done for the sake of helping underrepresented minorities and to add a wider base of different talents and backgrounds. It’s not like for every black student they admit, they subtract one out from the Asian pool or something like that. Doesn’t work that way. It’s just that after diversification has been implemented, obviously some races are going to be statistically impacted more than others.
But this is completely different from trying to argue that they’re trying to discriminate against Asians because there are too many Asians.
Is this really that complicated for you? Let’s say Harvard has a basic system where any SAT score over 2000 is weighted the same. The fact that Asians may have an average score of 2350, while Whites have 2300, and Blacks have 2125 does not mean anything to them. Seeing as how your cites are supposing this disparity is based on relative SAT scores, they are assuming that the higher score result in a higher likelihood of admission, which may or may not be the case. The only way you would know if it was is if you know how the schools weight the data.
Affirmative action is largely based on the premise that diversity will be enhanced by included people of various races. The proxy there is that race is being substituted for cultural differences and perspectives.
Wrong. The idea is that having more, for example, Black people, will give other people exposure to different perspectives and outlooks. The problem with that Will Smith’s son is likely far more similar to other non-Black rich kids than he is the average Black kid. Thus, him getting preferential treatment is seen by many as unfair.
Schools that don’t discriminate against Asians. Or, knowing that most do in your opinion, you can decline to use college as a filter.
You have not proved there is discrimination against Asians. I explained whyt he one site you proffered detaining “negative action” is not particularly compelling. I have also explained to you several times why the other sites you mentioned regarding relative likelihood of acceptance is bogus as well. Do you care to response to why my challenges are problematic in your opinion, or are you just gonna keep repeating the same thing?
You are confusing different states. The acceptance rate for Asians in 1997 an Berkeley was 29.6%. Meaning, of the Asians that applied to Berkeley, that percentage were offered admission. Note this was before race-blind admission were in effect. for Whites, the acceptance rate was 30.7%. So no, there is no 3-1 disparity. What you likely meant to say was that the White students with comparable scores were 3 times more likely to get admission than Asian students. The problem, as I have stated to you several times, is that those two student are being compared only on the basis of a few metrics whereas admission officers are grading on many more. We don’t know the weight given to those scores, so the apples to apples comparison you are attempting to make is anything but.
I did hazard a guess. I would not be surprised if many Whites thought the two schools in question were becoming too Asian.
No they don’t. Few sports do. That’s why Moneyball and Sabrmetrics were so revolutionary. Sports teams act on data and past performance, but they use humans to parse that data, and inject the own “helpful” biases.
Geez. You should really become more acquainted with the data, and understand statistics better. There are number of reasons why Asian students will likely be the primary beneficiaries of race-blind policies. In the case of CA, there are more of them applying, and they on average have better scores and grades. If you take away the artificial bump given to under-represented minorities, it would makes sense that the most numerous group that tends to have better scores would benefit more greatly. Your solution is not only more complicated and politically untenable, but it makes me wonder why you support affirmative action given that you seem to think under-represented minority literally cannot compete. So much so that you have to use a completely different pool of spots.
Fair enough, my apologies.
Not particularly. I can understand how people are wary to use race to discriminate, as it’s been used for evil far too many times, but I think the principle is basically the same., Assuming one’s motives are pure, and the metric is used in a positive sense, I don’t see the problem.
In his case, there is no evidence. That is the point. Regardless, just because someone uses the legal system without having anything to gain personally doesn’t mean their case has any merit or that their motives are pure. Prop 8 proponents don’t gain anything by denying gay people marriage.
No, I am not. That said, this one case is sour grapes. Can you admit that?
The two pieces of info you are resting your opinion on are largely in opposition. So I don’t see how you can pretend like both papers are true. The first says Asians are discriminated against because of affirmative action. The second claims it’s mostly negative action. Which supposition do you support?
Who is to say they are constructed properly? You saw the metrics they used. Do you really think just those alone are truly predictive of admissions rates? Yes, or no?
Wow. Your paper on negative action is largely based on this discrepancy. That why they care claiming there is negative action. To quote:
The model predicted 3,141, the saw 2,369. That failure is why they say there is negative action. So, you can argue the model was right, and there is negative action. Or you can reject the model. Given that is seems to suck at predicting things, and because the metrics they used were woefully inadequate, I think rejecting the model is more appropriate. Especially since it’s hard to imagine how a race-blind admissions policy still somehow manages to discriminate against one race.
The UC system has pretty poor financial aid for out-of-staters – Cali also has a high Asian population, and Asians also tend to have higher grades/scores which are weighted more heavily in the UC system. The results shouldn’t be all that surprising.
So significant disparities based on obective critieria is “absolutely no evidence”
And vague references to how race is a proxy (stereotyping) and how Asians are actually less interesting and stuff than white applicants is evidence that shouldn’t be ignored?
I’ve asked you before if you think the “evidence” you have presented accounts for the signficant disparities and you respond by refusing to admit taht SAT scores and GPAS are valid metric to make comparisons. :dubious:
So tell me. Based on your experience as an ivy league student. Did you notice the social retardadion of teh Asian students? Were they boring enough to jstuify the 3 to one preference for white students over Asian students?
I think you’re putting words in my mouth. I never said it did.
).