99% of the time it comes from disgruntled high schoolers throwing a hissy fit because they didn't get into the school of their dreams. They find out about Affirmative Action, immediately assume that a bunch of minorities undeservedly were given THEIR spot, and in comes the cavalcade of lawsuits.
To be fair, the admissions process in private schools, especially the "elite" household-name ones, is so fucked beyond recognition that there's plenty of very qualified students being turned away from one reason or the other. Affirmative Action admissions has some cons, as no system is perfect, but it gets shit on needlessly because it's an easy target.
Generally speaking, of course extending to college admissions. I have a rich African American friend who had the way paved for him to the Ivy League and now med school, despite having a GPA and test scores way below my own.
The funny thing? He's only a quarter black. He looks white. But he's actively recruited as a minority student.
How many inner city and poor immigrant blacks and Hispanics do you think will get the same treatment?
Taking one part of this post, the wealthy angle... that's what gets me so angry about the actual practice of admissions and the impact of affirmative action at the very top. The elite schools can't be bothered to give a fuck to help the people who need it. They would much rather check their boxes with whatever wealthy half-this, immigrant-that they can. That poor black kid from the South Bronx with the almost-as-incredible application doesn't mean much to Columbia when they can pluck the kid in your post from Park Slope and call it a day.
That's not an argument against AA. It's an argument against awful admissions practices at elite schools and a failure to use AA in a positive, helpful manner for minorities.
I hate to quote Fox News, but: "The lawsuit cites a 2009 study by Princeton sociologists that concluded that while the average Asian American applicant needed a much higher 1460 SAT score to be admitted, a white student with similar GPA and other qualifications only needed a score of 1320, while blacks needed 1010 and Hispanics 1190."
That is, unfortunately, the reality of it. Now, I wouldn't mind if Asian Americans had the same admission standard as white students, even though we face racism and hurdles that the average white student will never face. But the fact is, we have to work HARDER than white students for the same spot, due to affirmative action enabled quota policies.
I definitely agree that Black and Hispanic students deserve affirmative action based on existing and historical socioecononic oppression they faced. But whites shouldn't have it easier than Asians.
Having seen college admissions processes first hand - this is way closer to the truth than anyone would like to admit. It's basically a racial percentage modifier to test scores / GPA; and a tie-breaker when needed.
Having seen college admissions processes first hand - this is way closer to the truth than anyone would like to admit. It's basically a racial percentage modifier to test scores / GPA; and a tie-breaker when needed.
he first myth is that race is no longer a significant factor in American life, that somehow we have gone through the era of Brown v. Board of Education and all of the decades of cases since then, and we are now in a position in which race no longer matters in American life. In large part, that is a myth. That should be even clearer now, after the last six months, than it was before. In the lawsuits, the University of Michigan makes the case that it is a myth through statistical analysis, demographics, and other expert testimony. Wishing that race is no longer a factor in American life doesn't make it so.
Americans of different races lead surprisingly separate lives today. Metropolitan Detroit is now the most segregated metropolitan area in the entire country; and Livonia, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit, is the whitest city in the United States of over 100,000 people. These two extremes reside right next to each other. Indeed America as a whole is more segregated today than it was at the time of Brown v. Board of Education. Ninety-two percent of the University of Michigan's white students and 52 percent of its African American students grow up in racially separate communities. The result of this separation is that Michigan's incoming students have rarely had the opportunity to get to know and learn from peers of different races before coming to campus. And the same circumstance exists across the country. Some estimate that by the year 2030 (by the 25th college reunion of the students who are applying for college this fall) forty percent of Americans will be members of a racial minority group. Where will these different parts of society come into contact so that they can learn from one another - about their differences but also about their commonalties - if not in our system of public and private higher education? Race still matters.
The fourth myth is that the process of admissions is essentially a process of rank-ordering the candidates by credentials - by SAT scores, grades, and so forth, and then we draw a cut-off line: above the line, you get in; below the line, you get on a waiting list or are denied admission. And then we take into account race, and we make sure that we have a critical mass of minorities - and that race is the one exception to the decision-making process. That is a myth, a fundamental misconception about the way the admissions process works.
Most public and private universities across the country, including Michigan and Columbia, use a variety of factors to determine a student's admissibility. These include, among others:
High school grade point average;
The rigor of the high school courses taken;
Alumni relationships (parent, sibling, or grandparent);
Quality of the essay;
Personal achievement;
Leadership and service;
Socio-economically disadvantaged student or education;
Athletic ability;
Underrepresented racial or ethnic minority identity or education; and
Residency in an under-represented region.
Any or all of these factors can influence a student's admissibility because they are all characteristics that contribute to the quality of the University and the diversity of the student body. No one factor is determinative. Obviously each year, the limited size of the entering class means that thousands of talented applicants cannot be admitted. The task of the admissions office is, using good judgment and a fair and legal process, to assemble a student body it believes collectively will provide the best possible learning environment.
Admissions officers are alert to the potential of those who may not have had full opportunity to manifest their talent (immigrants, for example), those who have served the country (including veterans), or who have unconventional talents (oboe players and talented sculptors and athletes). They must be responsible to the communities from which they derive (e.g., state residents) as well as to the nation itself (through geographic diversity). By employing admissions policies aimed at a comprehensive diversity -- of which racial and ethnic diversity is an important part -- the University is able to achieve its mission of educating students to participate fully in our heterogeneous democracy and the global economy.
It is important to understand that admissions offices are not making thousands of individual, unrelated decisions; they are trying to make the best judgment about individual applicants in order to form the strongest class that will study and live and interact together over an extended period of time - three or four years. The question for each applicant is what can he or she contribute to the whole, not where they stand in splendid, isolated comparison with everyone else. Applicants have a right to be treated fairly within the admissions process, but there is no right to be admitted to a university without regard to how the overall makeup of the student body will affect the educational process or without regard to the needs of society after they graduate.
Are we, for example, really prepared to say that medical schools cannot consider race in determining who will be available to provide the medical care for our nation? We know that minority physicians are more likely to practice in areas where there are high concentrations of minorities; therefore diversity among practicing physicians and medical administrators increases the availability of health care within underrepresented minority communities. And while the minority population in our country is growing, in absolute and percentage terms, the number of African Americans and Latinos admitted to medical schools has declined markedly in recent years. It is clear that the changes in admissions policies in California and Texas have contributed significantly to this decline. And so the stakes are high not only for medical and health education - but also for health care in this country - if an adverse decision in these cases in the end imposes a federal constitutional bar to the consideration of race in admissions.
The fifth myth is that the gap is too big. One can understand how important diversity is, and how central it is to the educational process, but there is a sense on the part of some that the "plus factor" in the admissions process given to underrepresented minorities is too large. Well, I would say, the gap is too big or too small or just right depending upon your educational premises and depending upon our judgment as to who can do the work at the university. If your educational purposes are such, as I have argued, that a sense of empathy and a presence of different points of view and experiences are central to the educational process for all students, and if all the students whom you admit can do the work, then the leg up is not too big. Nothing is too big or too small except in relation to purposes and values.
The sixth myth is that we can achieve diversity using other means. Could the Michigan Law School, the undergraduate program, or the Medical School obtain a racially diverse class with a "colorblind" process, by placing greater emphasis on socioeconomic factors? The answer is no; racial diversity and socioeconomic diversity are not the same thing (because, in short, most of our poor people in this country are white). When a colorblind process emphasizing socioeconomic diversity was adopted at the law school at the University of California at Berkeley, African American enrollment in the entering class fell by approximately 60 percent.
In his opinion in Bakke, Justice Blackmun wrote (and he was joined in this by Justices Brennan, White, and Marshall), "I suspect that it would be impossible to arrange an affirmative-action program in a racially neutral way and have it successful. To ask that this be so is to demand the impossible. In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently. We cannot - we dare not - let the Equal Protection Clause - perpetuate racial supremacy." That was right in 1978, and it is still right today.
The last myth is that this policy, well-intentioned and even important as it is, materially diminishes the likelihood of a white student being admitted, and is therefore unfair. This notion that enormous numbers of whites are being denied admission because of the preferential treatment of under-represented minorities is simply false. In fact, admissions policies such as Michigan's do not meaningfully affect a white student's chances of admission. The numbers of minority applicants are extremely small compared to the numbers of white students who apply to universities across the country. It is not mathematically possible that the small numbers of minority students who apply and are admitted are displacing a significant number of white students. In their book The Shape of the River, William Bowen, former president of Princeton, and Derek Bok, former president of Harvard, looked at the nationwide statistics concerning admissions to selective universities. They determined that even if all selective universities implemented a race-blind admissions system, the probability of being admitted for a white student would only go from 25 percent to 26.2 percent.
There isn't a lot of Asian-GAF that wants to contribute on this topic, huh?
Anyway, as an Asian-American.. yeah, I know this already. We all know. Asians are held to a higher academic standard than white, black, brown, and red students, especially in college admittance.
Asians gotta do better academically to be given the same spot.
Also, for everyone saying, "it's not just grades," we all know this. Asian Americans often participate in extra currcs school like the school newspaper, music, science teams, math teams, speech&debate, MUN, moot court. There are also a high number of high performing Asians in some sports, just not basketball and football. But tennis? Golf? Track & field? In any area with Asians, you'll usually find them in those things. Of course, that's really not as important to colleges-- colleges want football players for sports.
The one thing I will say that I didn't see too many Asians n student leadership. Even in my 40% Asian high school, we had no yellow faces in student leadership.
Sure, there are students (especially oversea students) that focus ONLY on grades and don't participate in anything else. That's an outdated stereotype. Many of us Asian-Americans do volunteer, do other things, etc. Using the whole "well colleges don't just look at grades" is stereotypical and outdated. That's not a legitimate excuse anymore to explain why Asian Americans are discriminated against in college admittance.
We have the SATs and the SAT2s.
Everyone that applies to those 10 spots, all 75 students, may have a perfect score. I have two friends, both Asians, from my high school, that made the 2400 score. One of them went to Harvard for her undergad, but she was also the newspaper chief editor, captain of the water polo team, and first chair in orchestra. Not to mention, she volunteered a lot outside of class.
I'm actually Asian-gaf (Vietnamese more specifically) and got into an Ivy League school. I feel like I was one of the few Asian kids at the school who didn't score a perfect 1600. Hell, my SAT was actually below average for the engineering school. Luckily I had a great a GPA and extracurriculars.
One of my major problems with the label Asian-American is that it assumes we are a homogeneous group. I'm not sure if I was subject to the same higher standard required of Asian Americans but there's a big difference between Cambodian/Laotian/Hmong Asians and Chinese/Japanese/Korean Asians in terms of socioeconomic strata which obviously affects your potential as a college student. This might not also be the case everywhere and from my experience, you're just "Asian American" to school admission.
I haven't researched it enough to have a strong stance on AA but I know I'm not against it. Some Asian Americans are vehemently against it because the prevailing thought is "why does this person get in because of ethnicity when I'm better qualified". That line of thinking ignores the fact that the person who got in is also qualified maybe not as qualified as you are but it's not like they're letting in unqualified kids. After a certain point, it becomes at the discretion of the admissions office.
It'd be pretty interesting to see the statistics of races admitted into graduate school who are given financial aid. Its this whole diversity thing colleges have going on which is why a diversity department is there in the first place. However, it is kinda effed up that a Caucasian in the same economic situation as a Black/Latino won't get the same financial opportunities.
To be fair, the admissions process in private schools, especially the "elite" household-name ones, is so fucked beyond recognition that there's plenty of very qualified students being turned away from one reason or the other. Affirmative Action admissions has some cons, as no system is perfect, but it gets shit on needlessly because it's an easy target.
It's easier to shit on it than to shit on the overall system. Just like it's easier to point to it and pretend that the system isn't made specifically to ensure that the elite stay the elite.
Generally speaking, of course extending to college admissions. I have a rich African American friend who had the way paved for him to the Ivy League and now med school, despite having a GPA and test scores way below my own.
The funny thing? He's only a quarter black. He looks white. But he's actively recruited as a minority student.
How many inner city and poor immigrant blacks and Hispanics do you think will get the same treatment?
How good were his "credentials" compared to other African American students?
Since we are relying on personal experience (anecdotal), I know my fare share of inner city or poor African American and Hispanic students who got into Ivy league schools because they had good grades and were involved in the community and extra curricular activities.
Now, did they have the same or better credentials than white or Asian candidates? I have no idea, probably not, but they outpaced the average GPA and test scores in their respective race groups.
I'm actually Asian-gaf (Vietnamese more specifically) and got into an Ivy League school. I feel like I was one of the few Asian kids at the school who didn't score a perfect 1600. Hell, my SAT was actually below average for the engineering school. Luckily I had a great a GPA and extracurriculars.
One of my major problems with the label Asian-American is that it assumes we are a homogeneous group. I'm not sure if I was subject to the same higher standard required of Asian Americans but there's a big difference between Cambodian/Laotian/Hmong Asians and Chinese/Japanese/Korean Asians in terms of socioeconomic strata which obviously affects your potential as a college student. This might not also be the case everywhere and from my experience, you're just "Asian American" to school admission.
I haven't researched it enough to have a strong stance on AA but I know I'm not against it. Some Asian Americans are vehemently against it because the prevailing thought is "why does this person get in because of ethnicity when I'm better qualified". That line of thinking ignores the fact that the person who got in is also qualified maybe not as qualified as you are but it's not like they're letting in unqualified kids. After a certain point, it becomes at the discretion of the admissions office.
I agree with you completely on how people lump in all these different types of people under the Asian category. I almost never care about the Chinese vs Taiwanese thing (although a lot of people do) but being the child of Taiwanese immigrants was worlds apart from my fiance's experiences of being the child of mainland Chinese immigrants.
I hate to quote Fox News, but: "The lawsuit cites a 2009 study by Princeton sociologists that concluded that while the average Asian American applicant needed a much higher 1460 SAT score to be admitted, a white student with similar GPA and other qualifications only needed a score of 1320, while blacks needed 1010 and Hispanics 1190."
That is, unfortunately, the reality of it. Now, I wouldn't mind if Asian Americans had the same admission standard as white students, even though we face racism and hurdles that the average white student will never face. But the fact is, we have to work HARDER than white students for the same spot, due to affirmative action enabled quota policies.
I definitely agree that Black and Hispanic students deserve affirmative action based on existing and historical socioecononic oppression they faced. But whites shouldn't have it easier than Asians.
I don't doubt that asians are being discriminated against. I just don't think it works exactly as you claim. Again I think all minorities are discriminated against. Check out this article.
Maybe it was because he was rich, or for a variety of other factors? You only mention GPA and test scores when there are a variety of other non-racial factors at play
Oh, absolutely, the connections he had because he was rich helped. But you bet he was recruited to med school so that they could check off a "minority" spot.
That's the whole point I've been making over and over again about affirmative action and "holistic" admissions processes. When it's "holistic", admissions officers will naturally tend to select people with similar experiences as their own. Who do you think the white admissions officer will pick, when given the choice between two applicants with the same GPA and SAT: the white applicant from the suburbs who played varsity soccer and who's parents paid for an abroad "service" trip, or the inner city Chinese kid who likes science and works in his parent's Chinese restaurant to help make ends meet? I have the feeling the "former" will contribute more the "diversity" of the school than the latter.
Oh, absolutely, the connections he had because he was rich helped. But you bet he was recruited to med school so that they could check off a "minority" spot.
That's the whole point I've been making over and over again about affirmative action and "holistic" admissions processes. When it's "holistic", admissions officers will naturally tend to select people with similar experiences as their own. Who do you think the white admissions officer will pick, when given the choice between two applicants with the same GPA and SAT: the white applicant from the suburbs who played varsity soccer and who's parents paid for an abroad "service" trip, or the inner city Chinese kid who likes science and works in his parent's Chinese restaurant to help make ends meet? I have the feeling the "former" will contribute more the "diversity" of the school than the latter.
Trying to figure out the best way to say this, but let's just say I have direct first-hand experience managing work for one of the admissions offices mentioned in this article and now have experience with the equivalent office at a similar-tier University. I was awed at the care, respect and fairness of the people at that office. The talk about 'legacy' admissions and such undermines their efforts and is overblown. Serious consideration is given to each applicant and donor information vs. application information are kept VERY separate. I can't speak or dissuade anyone from thinking there may be shady dealings that would have certainly been above me, but legacy or donor status and its correlation is nowhere near as direct as you might think.
Honestly, coming from a background of also having taught in urban Memphis I have mixed thoughts and emotions on these processes, but I wanted to at least say that.
I hate to break it to you, but when you have to go through an entire application, including essay, in 1-2 minutes (the best in our group could consistently do it in sub one minute), "holistically", how complex do you think this decision process is going to be? You have tens or hundreds of thousands of applicants in a compressed period of months with a handful of staff.
The reality of the situation is that we apply modifiers. It's the only consistent methodology usable within the constraints of the application process.
The study Fox News <jumps into shower, cleans self off> cites is from 2009. :/
I went to an Ivy League school. I faced a TON of racism there, much more than growing up in a pretty diverse community in NJ. Tons of "ching chong" and small penis jokes, people straight up saying to my face that I was the "Asian competition". I'm applying to medical schools now and I have to face the same kind of admission bias all over again. I'm living the experience, which is why I feel like I'm qualified to talk about it.
Not to mention there's absolutely nothing self-serving about Lee Bollinger's glowing comments about the beauty of the admissions committee as President of Columbia University...
Acceptance into med school is pretty race-based, too.
Friend got into a discussion with two profs in Dentistry (our Dentistry and Med schools take the same curriculum for the first few years) stating that there's a quota for Asian people.
I went to an Ivy League school. I faced a TON of racism there, much more than growing up in a pretty diverse community in NJ. Tons of "ching chong" and small penis jokes, people straight up saying to my face that I was the "Asian competition". I'm applying to medical schools now and I have to face the same kind of admission bias all over again. I'm living the experience, which is why I feel like I'm qualified to talk about it.
Im not saying you didn't face racism. I said you have no idea what you're talking about because you said he was accepted to check off a box. Which is silly. That's not what happens.
I think he's saying if there are 100 spots, and 500 asians apply, 400 whites, 50 hispanics and 10 blacks, then the absolute numbers will play a significant role in the acceptance rate. Without those numbers and without accounting for how many people those percentages come out to, the chart isn't very helpful
Upbringing aside, if you worked your ass off to get into Harvard and far exceeded the academic requirements than a minority candidate, you wouldn't feel cheated if they got in instead of you?
It's easy to stand back and feel empathy for those less fortunate, but when it has to do with your own future and dreams, looking out for oneself is top priority.
Any kind of acceptance process, employment or education, should be completely merit based. End of discussion.
We don't yet live in a world in which entirely merit-based admission would work.
High schools in the US are very different. The school I went to would be a completely different from one from a poorer tax base. While my high school offered about 2 dozen AP courses, all for free, some high schools have none. If they have any, there will be an $80 fee.
Affirmative action helps try to equalize that. In the 21st century more than ever, a college education is almost essential to escape poverty. Due to the world we live in, young minorities (especially Black or non-white Hispanic people) probably need these opportunities more than white people. White felons are more likely to get hired than innocent Black people.
I think he's saying if there are 100 spots, and 500 asians apply, 400 whites, 50 hispanics and 10 blacks, then the absolute numbers will play a significant role in the acceptance rate. Without those numbers and without accounting for how many people those percentages come out to, the chart isn't very helpful
Yes, and i'm saying % accepted is that way because they don't want to accept too much of a certain group because of affirmative action.
Because there's only 50 hispanics who applied, affirmative actions and quotas ensure that their acceptance rates are higher. Similarly, this data supports that asians are gated, and that their acceptance rates are lower because colleges only want to accept a certain number.
I think he's saying if there are 100 spots, and 500 asians apply, 400 whites, 50 hispanics and 10 blacks, then the absolute numbers will play a significant role in the acceptance rate. Without those numbers and without accounting for how many people those percentages come out to, the chart isn't very helpful
The last myth is that this policy, well-intentioned and even important as it is, materially diminishes the likelihood of a white student being admitted, and is therefore unfair. This notion that enormous numbers of whites are being denied admission because of the preferential treatment of under-represented minorities is simply false. In fact, admissions policies such as Michigan's do not meaningfully affect a white student's chances of admission. The numbers of minority applicants are extremely small compared to the numbers of white students who apply to universities across the country. It is not mathematically possible that the small numbers of minority students who apply and are admitted are displacing a significant number of white students. In their book The Shape of the River, William Bowen, former president of Princeton, and Derek Bok, former president of Harvard, looked at the nationwide statistics concerning admissions to selective universities. They determined that even if all selective universities implemented a race-blind admissions system, the probability of being admitted for a white student would only go from 25 percent to 26.2 percent.
I don't doubt that asians are being discriminated against. I just don't think it works exactly as you claim. Again I think all minorities are discriminated against. Check out this article.
Thank you! You are a great source of interesting articles during a normally boring workday. But I have to agree with backslashbunny in that the article does show the "bump" that Asians need. I know that you said you agreed with the perception that Asians need to work harder, but I'm not sure what you mean by it not working exactly as I claim. I actually don't know how it works. Just that statistically it seems that Asians have to work harder and that there is a general perception that this is true, which is IMO negatively impacting young Asians in America.
Referring more to academics. Once we're out of school, black people get fucked completely moreso than anyone else.
Anecdotal example: My FOB Asian boss threw the biggest hissy fit in the world when my American company hired a *gasp* BLACK person to work in the finance team. He flat out refused to cooperate with her, give her info, etc. All because she was black.
I was the only person that stood up for her in our (all Asian) accounting team, but that's because the others were scared of losing their jobs. I talked with her and referred to her as part of our team-- for that, he (literally) yelled at me for an hour, in front of our ENTIRE department.... then called us in a couple days later to his office, and then proceeded to yell at me some more.
Unfortunately for me, she turned out to be a thief, and attempted to steal $20,000 from the company within her first two weeks.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, I totally agree that it's true outside of school.
What this image shows is the "extra bump" you get on your score according to your race.
For example, a student with a score of 1000 would be seen as a 1310 scorer if s/he were black, 1130 scorer if s/he were Hispanic... and 860 scorer is s/he were Asian. White person gets to keep his/her score of 1000.
So yeah, in terms of college admissions, Asians need to work harder for less, more than any other ethnicity. See also below -v
Meh. I think affirmative action should be based way more on socio-economic status than race, but I get your point. I do wish Asians weren't so shafted when it came to this stuff.
That's true. I think some schools now do make a differentiation between the types of Asians, which happens to be more about socioeconomic status (again).
I'm not against AA. I don't have a problem with it. If you can get into a school, and you can compete with your fellow students, then good for you. The people that shouldn't have made it in will wash out anyway.
(BTW, I feel like I know way more kids from 'richer' families flunk out of college than from poorer families, probably because the poorer kids actually had to work really hard to get to where they were, whereas many of the rich kids, once away from their nagging parents, didn't have self-discipline and drive. So.. it balances out IMO.)
The last myth is that this policy, well-intentioned and even important as it is, materially diminishes the likelihood of a white student being admitted, and is therefore unfair. This notion that enormous numbers of whites are being denied admission because of the preferential treatment of under-represented minorities is simply false. In fact, admissions policies such as Michigan's do not meaningfully affect a white student's chances of admission. The numbers of minority applicants are extremely small compared to the numbers of white students who apply to universities across the country. It is not mathematically possible that the small numbers of minority students who apply and are admitted are displacing a significant number of white students. In their book The Shape of the River, William Bowen, former president of Princeton, and Derek Bok, former president of Harvard, looked at the nationwide statistics concerning admissions to selective universities. They determined that even if all selective universities implemented a race-blind admissions system, the probability of being admitted for a white student would only go from 25 percent to 26.2 percent.
I don't doubt that asians are being discriminated against. I just don't think it works exactly as you claim. Again I think all minorities are discriminated against. Check out this article.
By the way, I've never disagreed with you that all minorities are discriminated against. It just occurs in different ways. What Asian Americans are facing is a flat quota against admissions. From 1990 to 2010, the Asian American population in the US grew from 3% to 6% of the population. Meanwhile, the demographics at Ivy League schools have dropped from 20% to 15% for Asian American students. Sure, there may be more underachieving Asian students now, but why, for schools that have race blind admissions, have Asian admissions kept pace with the population growth? In the article you linked, the Asian population grew from 20% to 40% in the past twenty years at CalTech, in contrast with the drop from Ivy League schools.
The counterargument, is always of course, that admissions are "holistic". Are you telling me that Asian students just simply fall flat when it comes to evaluating the whole package? That we don't make good leaders, we aren't creative, we are inferior communicators, we aren't as athletic, we have bad interpersonal skills? It's a bunch of bullshit perpetuated by continued popular stereotypes.
The last myth is that this policy, well-intentioned and even important as it is, materially diminishes the likelihood of a white student being admitted, and is therefore unfair. This notion that enormous numbers of whites are being denied admission because of the preferential treatment of under-represented minorities is simply false. In fact, admissions policies such as Michigan's do not meaningfully affect a white student's chances of admission. The numbers of minority applicants are extremely small compared to the numbers of white students who apply to universities across the country. It is not mathematically possible that the small numbers of minority students who apply and are admitted are displacing a significant number of white students. In their book The Shape of the River, William Bowen, former president of Princeton, and Derek Bok, former president of Harvard, looked at the nationwide statistics concerning admissions to selective universities. They determined that even if all selective universities implemented a race-blind admissions system, the probability of being admitted for a white student would only go from 25 percent to 26.2 percent.
And what is the percentage when applied to Asians?
It seems to me that detractors of a socio-economic admissions based policy claim that it won't address institutional racism. But AA doesn't seem to be a perfect answer either. I'm having a hard time seeing while giving advantage to some who may need it and some who don't, while disadvantaging some who may need help or not (even if the percentage is small) is better than simply giving an advantage to people that do need it vs people that's don't.
If the school wants an equally racial diverse student body, then those numbers make sense to me. If schools blindly picked applicants without knowing their race, their school may not be as racially diverse as they want it to be.
All I'm seeing is that Asian students have to do better academically to be considered at the same rate as nonAsian students.
So sure, even if there were only 10 black students, it just means that as a black student, you don't need to do as well as an Asian student to get in. Also, there are quotas on race, apparently, if it's about "numbers."
*edit:
I'm Asian. The original article is about how ASIANS are discriminated against.
It's not about white kids that think they're the victims of affirmative action.
All I'm seeing is that Asian students have to do better academically to be considered at the same rate as nonAsian students.
So sure, even if there were only 10 black students, it just means that as a black student, you don't need to do as well as an Asian student to get in. Also, there are quotas on race, apparently, if it's about "numbers."
Okay, here's an example of why numbers matter. Let's say of 60 blacks+hispanics, and other groups, 50 slots are taken up and there are 50 slots left.
Of the 400 Asians, 300 are clearly qualified. Of the 300 whites, 200 are equally as qualified. Even if they decided to just take an even number of both, 25 and 25, because there were more Asians that applied, their acceptance rate will be lower. Even if they try and make it proportional and take a 3:2 ratio of asians to whites, their acceptance rates will still be lower.
Does that sort of make sense why the absolute numbers are crucial in seeing the real picture?
As for what can be done about it? I'm not sure. If there is a surplus of qualified Asians despite the higher standards you face now, the number will surely grow in the future, and the problems will only be further exacerbated
I hate to quote Fox News, but: "The lawsuit cites a 2009 study by Princeton sociologists that concluded that while the average Asian American applicant needed a much higher 1460 SAT score to be admitted, a white student with similar GPA and other qualifications only needed a score of 1320, while blacks needed 1010 and Hispanics 1190."
That is, unfortunately, the reality of it. Now, I wouldn't mind if Asian Americans had the same admission standard as white students, even though we face racism and hurdles that the average white student will never face. But the fact is, we have to work HARDER than white students for the same spot, due to affirmative action enabled quota policies.
I definitely agree that Black and Hispanic students deserve affirmative action based on existing and historical socioecononic oppression they faced. But whites shouldn't have it easier than Asians.
Lol, even though you quoted Fox News, I agree with your points in this thread. It sounds like your problem is more with the quota. Do make sure that your cause isn't hijacked by people that wan't to abolish AA completely rather than try to fix it. Hijacking a cause sounds crazy but that is the type of thing Fox News and others try to do way too often.
The last myth is that this policy, well-intentioned and even important as it is, materially diminishes the likelihood of a white student being admitted, and is therefore unfair. This notion that enormous numbers of whites are being denied admission because of the preferential treatment of under-represented minorities is simply false. In fact, admissions policies such as Michigan's do not meaningfully affect a white student's chances of admission. The numbers of minority applicants are extremely small compared to the numbers of white students who apply to universities across the country. It is not mathematically possible that the small numbers of minority students who apply and are admitted are displacing a significant number of white students. In their book The Shape of the River, William Bowen, former president of Princeton, and Derek Bok, former president of Harvard, looked at the nationwide statistics concerning admissions to selective universities. They determined that even if all selective universities implemented a race-blind admissions system, the probability of being admitted for a white student would only go from 25 percent to 26.2 percent.
Whites aren't being discriminated by affirmative action. Whites benefit from affirmative action. It limits the number of students from an upwardly mobile (and therefore threatening) group via quotas and marginally increases the amount of minorities from other demographics. Ivy League schools fear what will happen to their demographics if policies became race-blind. They fear that their campuses will look like the Cal campuses, where Asian American enrollment is 40% or more.
That's my problem with affirmative action. It doesn't do what it's supposedly espoused to do. Someone stated earlier that studies have shown that white females benefit the most from affirmative action. Is that really the demographic affirmative action was created to benefit?
The last myth is that this policy, well-intentioned and even important as it is, materially diminishes the likelihood of a white student being admitted, and is therefore unfair. This notion that enormous numbers of whites are being denied admission because of the preferential treatment of under-represented minorities is simply false. In fact, admissions policies such as Michigan's do not meaningfully affect a white student's chances of admission. The numbers of minority applicants are extremely small compared to the numbers of white students who apply to universities across the country. It is not mathematically possible that the small numbers of minority students who apply and are admitted are displacing a significant number of white students. In their book The Shape of the River, William Bowen, former president of Princeton, and Derek Bok, former president of Harvard, looked at the nationwide statistics concerning admissions to selective universities. They determined that even if all selective universities implemented a race-blind admissions system, the probability of being admitted for a white student would only go from 25 percent to 26.2 percent.
By the way, I've never disagreed with you that all minorities are discriminated against. It just occurs in different ways. What Asian Americans are facing is a flat quota against admissions. From 1990 to 2010, the Asian American population in the US grew from 3% to 6% of the population. Meanwhile, the demographics at Ivy League schools have dropped from 20% to 15% for Asian American students. Sure, there may be more underachieving Asian students now, but why, for schools that have race blind admissions, have Asian admissions kept pace with the population growth? In the article you linked, the Asian population grew from 20% to 40% in the past twenty years at CalTech, in contrast with the drop from Ivy League schools.
The counterargument, is always of course, that admissions are "holistic". Are you telling me that Asian students just simply fall flat when it comes to evaluating the whole package? That we don't make good leaders, we aren't creative, we are inferior communicators, we aren't as athletic, we have bad interpersonal skills? It's a bunch of bullshit perpetuated by continued popular stereotypes.
Ok I don't know why you're being disingenuous and attributing things to me that I never even implied. All I said was that I don't think affirmative action works as that guy assumed and honestly admissions (for all schools) shouldn't be based purely on SAT scores.
Okay, here's an example of why numbers matter. Let's say of 60 blacks+hispanics, and other groups, 50 slots are taken up and there are 50 slots left.
Of the 400 Asians, 300 are clearly qualified. Of the 300 whites, 200 are equally as qualified. Even if they decided to just take an even number of both, 25 and 25, because there were more Asians that applied, their acceptance rate will be lower. Even if they try and make it proportional and take a 3:2 ratio of asians to whites, their acceptance rates will still be lower.
Does that sort of make sense why the absolute numbers are crucial in seeing the real picture?
As for what can be done about it? I'm not sure. If there is a surplus of qualified Asians despite the higher standards you face now, the number will surely grow in the future, and the problems will only be further exacerbated
No, that's not how the math works out. If you have 100000 equally qualified applicants, and 90000 are of one race, 10000 of another, and you randomly chose 1000 to admit, you would choose an equal percentage of each race. Their acceptance rates will be the same
Yeah I know. My point about the numbers still stands. See my explanation above. Although it's possibly, my underlying assumption, that more asians apply to Ivy's than white students, is wrong
What I posted was to show that African Americans apply to universities at a much lower rate than other races which is probably why the acceptance number is higher. Because Med Schools want a well rounded student body.
That image would be awesome if we were shown the actual percentages of doctors in America that are of a specific race.
Ok I don't know why you're being disingenuous and attributing things to me that I never even implied. All I said was that I don't think affirmative action works as that guy assumed and honestly admissions (for all schools) shouldn't be based purely on SAT scores.
Race is applied functionally as a modifier to SAT scores / GPA when being used for admissions determination. That's all I said. That's what the Fox News <jumps into shower, gets out> cited report says. That's what the MCAT graphic up there says. Holistic admissions takes other things into account, as stated (and nowhere disputed by anyone), but, in terms of test scores, race is a modifying factor to test scores & GPA; and has a very high place as a tiebreaker.
Alumni actually generally doesn't matter too much for most schools; usually what happens is that if someone is the kid of an alumni, in most cases, they basically end up living to their parents expectations, which are usually similar to the ones they had themselves, so they end up getting similar grades / test scores. (The really elite schools might have something different, I can only speak to public universities)
Im not saying you didn't face racism. I said you have no idea what you're talking about because you said he was accepted to check off a box. Which is silly. That's not what happens.
I'll concede that my statement was a bit crudely generalizing. But my friend definitely benefited from his minority status. He even submitted his application late, which is usually a death knell for med schools which have rolling admissions. At a recent interview I had, the black/Hispanic minority students got a separate meeting with the admissions dean in addition to the regular faculty interview. No one else did.
Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. African American and Hispanic American communities absolutely face socioeconomic oppression and circumstances that other groups do not. That's a separate situation from what Asian American groups have to deal with. Asian Americans, however, are NOT more privileged than WHITE students, but we have to face steeper admissions standards than WHITE students. That's the bone I have to pick.
What I posted was to show that African Americans apply to universities at a much lower rate than other races which is probably why the acceptance number is higher. Because Med Schools want a well rounded student body.
That image would be awesome if we were shown the actual percentages of doctors in America that are of a specific race.
The well-rounded part kind of irks me, because it assumes that Asians are a monolithic race. We are not at all. Heck, even among Chinese there's a huge gap (culturally, socio-economically, historically) between Taiwanese, Hong Knog-ers (?), mainland, to say nothing of the various sub-ethnicities.
What I posted was to show that African Americans apply to universities at a much lower rate than other races which is probably why the acceptance number is higher. Because Med Schools want a well rounded student body.
That image would be awesome if we were shown the actual percentages of doctors in America that are of a specific race.
No, that's not how the math works out. If you have 100000 equally qualified applicants, and 90000 are of one race, 10000 of another, and you randomly chose 1000 to admit, you would choose an equal percentage of each race. Their acceptance rates will be the same
Only partially true. You'd have an equal percentage of qualified acceptances. If the proportion of qualified acceptances for the races are different, then each races' total acceptance rate will be different.
And I'm assuming the more people of a group you have apply in total, the smaller the percentage are actually "qualified" (by whatever metric the school uses), in the same way the more students you have apply to a school, the smaller the proportion of "qualified" students you end up having. Add to the fact that the proportion of whites in the US greatly outnumbers that of Asians and this might have an even stronger affect
I hate to break it to you, but when you have to go through an entire application, including essay, in 1-2 minutes (the best in our group could consistently do it in sub one minute), "holistically", how complex do you think this decision process is going to be? You have tens or hundreds of thousands of applicants in a compressed period of months with a handful of staff.
The reality of the situation is that we apply modifiers. It's the only consistent methodology usable within the constraints of the application process.
The study Fox News <jumps into shower, cleans self off> cites is from 2009. :/
No? I don't know why you're assuming I think the worst of asian american students. I don't think I've ever given that impression. Frankly I find it surprising and it seems like you're taking your frustration out on me.
The well-rounded part kind of irks me, because it assumes that Asians are a monolithic race. We are not at all. Heck, even among Chinese there's a huge gap (culturally, socio-economically, historically) between Taiwanese, Hong Knog-ers (?), mainland, to say nothing of the various sub-ethnicities.
I said well rounded student body because a good number of black students to white to asian to whatever is good. It has nothing to do with the individuals.
dlb edit:
Having a racially diverse class enables a law school to do a better job of preparing students to be effective lawyers; and the same rationale applies, to medical schools and doctors. Students are exposed to classmates who have had different life experiences, and their prior assumptions are challenged. When an applicant's file reveals that he or she might add to the diversity of perspectives that are voiced in class, that helps the applicant's chances of admission.
Only partially true. You'd have an equal percentage of qualified acceptances. If the proportion of qualified acceptances for the races are different, then each races total acceptance rate will be different.
And I'm assuming the more people of a group you have apply in total, the smaller the percentage are actually "qualified" (by whatever metric the school uses), in the same way the more students you have apply to a school, the smaller the proportion of "qualified" students you end up having.
If you have more of one race applying, on what basis do you think that those with the same GPA/MCAT scores as another race are somehow less qualified on average?
Heaven forbid the schools actually hire enough people to give themselves some legitimate time to look through applications.
I know the sister school at the university (which got far fewer applicants) would take about 15 minutes or so per application.
Part of the problem is, OK, so admissions offices get to try to deal with all the systemic and economic issues related to race and determine who should be given an opportunity to move forward taking all these issues into account...based on test scores, a fluffed up application (dear lord everyone does it), and maybe a essay? Hell, some of the schools (Purdue for instance) don't even have essays.
You can't drop all of that untangling on the heads of a tiny group of people and be like "OK SWEET RACISM IS DONE YO YOU GOT THIS COVERED RIGHT". Kind of dumb.
There is this belief that college admissions is this intricate process with tons of thought and nuance plotted out into every step of looking through someone's application and understanding each part of it and that factors have been laid out and codified to make it as fair and thorough as possible.
That is a giant lie. Especially something primarily done by either student workers or recent grads. The person who introduced me to all of this is going to get her Ph.D in Public Policy / Education because she was appalled at the entire process and how thoroughly ridiculous and unfair it was.
