Anti-Asian Bias in College Admissions?: Part 1 – An improper comparison
by Guest Contributor Jenn, originally published at Reappropriate
This post is broken into two parts for the sake of length:
- Anti-Asian Bias in College Admissions?: Part 1 – An improper comparison
- Anti-Asian Bias in College Admissions?: Part 2 – In support of affirmative action
Since the implementation of affirmative action in the college admissions process, opponents of the policy have alleged anti-White and anti-Asian bias that reduces the chances of White and Asian high school students applying to elite colleges. Recently, a study conducted by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade (published in the book No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life) presented data that appear to support this notion.
First of all, I should point out that the primary data Espenshade analyzed were collected in 1997. But, it’s likely that the trends that Espenshade report remain in effect, since there have been no major changes to the college admissions process nationwide since then, nor have we seen significant changes in student demographics.
The “Scary Graph”: what does it mean?
Espenshade shows that middle class Asian students have a reduced probability of being accepted into private universities compared to students of other races (I re-created the graph below from page 7 of this presentation of Espenshade’s data, eliminating upper- and lower- class students, but the trends are roughly the same).
This graph looks pretty alarming until you consider the following applicant demographics, compared to national demographic information:
What this graph is showing you is that while Asian Americans are roughly 4% of the U.S. population, we represent nearly a quarter of all applicants to the institutions studied by Espenshade. For some universities, this can reach as high as 1/3 — and many of these applicants boast high SAT scores and high school GPAs. Many of these students also come from higher-income families compared to Black and Latino applicants, and therefore have access to better educational opportunities to help improve their scores. In addition, Espenshade’s data show that, compared to other races, Asian American applicants appear to preferentially apply to private institutions, which causes an even more dramatic increase in our applicant number.
Basically, the admissions percentage is low for Asians is at least in part because so many college applicants are Asian/Asian American. You can think of it this way: if 50 White students, 25 Asian students and 5 Black students are accepted to a college, but there are 100 White applicants, 75 Asian applicants and 10 Black applicants, your probability of being accepted based on race is as follows: 50% for Whites and Blacks, and only 33% for Asians — even if the absolute number of acceptances are still higher.
And certainly, we must remember that Espenshade’s study does not consider non-numerical aspects of applicant portfolios; admissions boards often favour applicants who have acceptable scores but who have also demonstrated a diversity of talents or interests, including music, athleticism, or art.
But what can’t be denied from Espenshade’s data is this: if you’re an Asian American high school student, you are competing against a lot of other, highly-talented White, Black and Asian American applicants and you have a lower probability of being accepted based on race compared to applicants of other races.
But does this mean there’s “anti-Asian bias”?
Searching for “anti-Asian bias”: an improper comparison
I caution against coming to the conclusion that Asian Americans are patently discriminated against in the college admissions process. Instead, I think what we’re seeing is the flip side of affirmative action: affirmative action argues that, all other factors being equal, an applicant who is a member of an underrepresented minority (whether race-based or class-based) will be preferred over a similar candidate who is not of an underrepresented minority.
And Asian Americans are anything but underrepresented in higher education. This columnist pulled racial demographics at Ivy League institutions from CollegeBoard.com and found that at all of these colleges, which practice affirmative action in their admissions processes, Asian/Asian Americans are over-represented compared to our national demographics:
Clearly, college admissions board aren’t outright refusing Asian American applicants based solely on race. In fact, even with affirmative action in place, Asian Americans are four times better represented at elite universities compared to our national population.
What this also means, however, is that because Asian Americans are so well represented in higher education, there is no racial “preference” for Asian/Asian American applicants based solely on race (Espenshade’s data shows high probability of acceptance for lower-class Asian Americans, which hints that less well-represented Asian ethnicities who also tend to come from lower-income families are still beneficiaries of affirmative action). Thus, we cannot compare the probability of acceptance rates for Asian Americans against those of underrepresented minorities; with affirmative action in place, those probabilities will — by definition –be higher for Black, Latino and Native American applicants. It’s not that we’re being biased against in affirmative action practices, it’s simply that we’re not benefiting from affirmative action — nor should well-represented Asian ethnicities be beneficiaries of affirmative action.
Nonetheless, this kind of comparison is tempting, because it is fueled by the entitlement complex that those who are not underrepresented minorities tend to feel. An Asian American applicant, who scores highly on his or her SAT test expects to be accepted, but, when they do not get in compared to a Black or Hispanic Non-White applicant who does, they feel as if life’s unfair. How often have applicants to college (or law school, or medical school) complained that “less qualified” minorities are skating through the admissions process on the back of affirmative action policies?
The bottom line is that underrepresented minorities are not skating through the admissions process. Universities will only accept applicants that meet a certain minimum standard for GPA and SAT — so no student, be they Black, White or Asian, accepted into college is actually unqualified. Moreover, the characterization of lower-scoring applicants who are accepted into college based, in part, on affirmative action relies on the assumption that SAT scores directly correlate with success in college life: yet, studies on the effectiveness by which SAT scores predict college success remain conflicted on whether the SATs are truly a good indicator that an applicant is “qualified” for college life. In addition, critics of the standardized tests argue that the SAT and other tests are culturally biased, and that higher-class applicants fare better in part because they can pay for test-taking prep classes that help them achieve a higher score. In other words, someone who scores a perfect score on the SATs may not actually be “better qualified” than another applicant who scores lower. Moreover, scoring highly on the SATs does not guarantee acceptance into top schools; schools nowadays emphasize breadth as well as depth, and seek out applicants who do well academically while pursuing diverse, non-academic interests.
Because of unequal opportunities that unfairly disadvantage Black and Non-White Hispanic students in college admissions, affirmative action seeks to improve representation of these minorities in each incoming student body, by preferentially choosing the underrepresented minority student when compared to a student of similar standing who is not underrepresented. As far as I can tell, this is one of the few ways affirmative action is put into practice, based on the ruling by the Supreme Court that found explicit racial quotas unconstitutional.
Thus, because neither Whites nor Asians are underrepresented on the campuses of elite universities (and thus don’t benefit from affirmative action), comparing acceptance rates for Asians against beneficiaries of affirmative action is an erroneous comparison specifically designed to whip up anti-affirmative action sentiment. It ignores the fact that Asian Americans remain, even with affirmative action, well-represented on college campuses. It uses “Scary Graphs” (like the first one in this post) to raise hysteria and resentment between Asian/Asian Americans and other racial minorities, ignoring the fact that with affirmative action in place, we know those acceptance rates will not be the same.
Instead, to determine if there is any “anti-Asian bias” in the admissions process, we should really be comparing the acceptance rates of Asian/Asian Americans against the other “non-beneficiary” group: Whites.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Kaviani wrote:
“First of all, I should point out that the primary data Espenshade analyzed were collected in 1997. But, it’s likely that the trends that Espenshade report remain in effect, since there have been no major changes to the college admissions process nationwide since then, nor have we seen significant changes in student demographics.”
Statistical data over 20 years old is useless in demonstrating anything contemporary. You should know that.
Mod Note – It’s 2009, not 2017, so that data’s a long way from being 20 years old. In addition, if you look at the relative infrequency that studies on POC issues are produced and published – particularly concerning smaller groups -you would understand why Jenn is still using this data. In one of her conclusions, she notes that better data is needed. – LDP
Posted 27 Oct 2009 at 12:02 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
Ha… that stock photo of the irritated Asian girl? That’s me when I was younger, looking through a book of college scholarships, and finding out that all the ones in the “minority” section have an asterisk attached, with the words “except for Asians”.
I ended up in a field in the humanities, where both my race and ethnicity are actually underrepresented. I do ultimately agree with Jen that while the situation is frustrating, it’s also very complicated, and affirmative action did not really work against me.
I do think affirmative action based solely on race is not just or effective. It needs to be tweaked so that it also incorporates a) ethnicity and b) class. That’s really important. Otherwise, it’s going to primarily benefit the more privileged subgroups of the race in question, and the less privileged subgroups, the ones that need the most help, are still comparatively disadvantaged. Some of this tweaking is already built into the system, but I think there are still gaps remaining.
Back when I was looking for scholarships, there wasn’t any breakdown at all of “Asians”. Someone from a basically middle-class family like mine would be on the same footing as a Southeast Asian from an impoverished refugee family.
Posted 27 Oct 2009 at 12:04 pm ¶
Lola wrote:
the U of California system is considering dropping requirements for subject SATs
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/05/local/me-uc5
it is said that this change will increase the number of white students accepted and decrease the number of Asians
Posted 27 Oct 2009 at 12:15 pm ¶
Lola wrote:
@ atlasien
I was the recipient of a class/academic scholarship from Ohio State. They recruited middle schoolers from 7 Ohio Urban public school systems. We were nominated by teachers based on GPA and had to provide income information from our parents. We were given college prep/test prep classes and if we graduated with a B average we got full tuition scholarships to OSU. White, Black, Asian, and Latino students received these scholarships (there are not a lot of Natives in Ohio). The Asians and Latinos tended to be from ethnic groups that were poorer such as Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Puerto Rican. Also at Ohio State Appalachians are covered under the Office of Minority Affairs.
Posted 27 Oct 2009 at 12:36 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
To add one note, while I agree that standardized test scores aren’t necessarily the strongest proof of college readiness, and I also agree they reflect class inequality and injustice, I don’t think they should be thrown out entirely. Just balanced.
I got into college programs largely because I tested very well. When I was a teenager, the thought of things like “community involvement” or “showing leadership in group activities” was simply… unthinkable. Not because I didn’t want to be involved, but because I was dealing with so much racist abuse. I did everything I could to organize my life so that I wouldn’t be around anyone my own age who would be hostile towards me. I volunteered as a teacher’s assistant with mentally handicapped children one year (my reason was selfish: I was sure they were the only peer group who wouldn’t insult me, and they didn’t) but other than that, no athletics, no clubs, nothing.
The extracurricular section of my college applications would have been a lot different if I had lived in a different community. Just because someone has a strong test score but zero extracurriculars doesn’t mean that they’re a freakish outlier. It could have a lot to do with environment as well.
Posted 27 Oct 2009 at 1:25 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
Is there any data out there that breaks Asians down by country of origin?
Some of that is starting to happen for Latino students, at least in New York (in the sense that people here understand the difference between the Dominicans and Puerto Ricans) but as far as I know neither Latinos nor Asians have the kind of country-by-country breakdown that would help tease out other factors that go into admissions.
For instance, I would bet that if you break down college apps by field (nursing/engineering schools for instance), you will find a bit of ethnic bias there, and that data could be used to help figure out how to balance out the fields people go into as well as whether they get into school at all. Something tells me that a big chunk of the kids that do well are (maybe) from middle-class Japanese and Chinese-American families, and probably fewer from say, working class Laotians and Hmong.
There was an NSF study a while back — can’t find the link — that would be interesting here as well, they broke down by race the fields people are in and how many go on to advanced degrees. It was pretty comprehensive, too. I bet if you linked these two studies you would get interesting results.
Posted 27 Oct 2009 at 1:29 pm ¶
Gilbert wrote:
The practice of generating data sets on Asian Americans allows us to arrive at incomplete (dare I say, erroneous) conclusions about how this supposedly homogeneous group compares with others in terms of education, health, economics, etc.
Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (the study is unclear about whether the two groups were combined, but since this is common practice, I will include it here, too) are a truly diverse group, encompassing people of different languages, religions, histories, issues (and needs), and social economic statuses. When data actually reflect this diversity–that is, when they are disaggregated by ethnicity–we begin to a see different picture than the one conveyed by the model minority myth. We begin to see that some groups with the Asian Pacific Islander diaspora are not as healthy, are not as resourced, or are not as educated as others.
Mainstream society seems bent on maintaining this narrative, perhaps as a way of adding credence to the assertion that social policies that consider race, social class, or other variables, unfairly disadvantages the white majority (and Asian Americans). In short, they want a more people to buy into this argument, including those of Asian and Pacific Islander descent, many of whom should actually benefit from such policies.
But pitting Asians and Pacific Islanders against other maligned groups may be another goal of this and other studies that continue to transmit the model minority myth. This is not new. Businesses and corporations have a history of squelching multicultural union organizing, and political parties have committed the same insidious crimes. Likewise, research studies–whether based on the same divisive intentions or not–have the effect of creating conflict between oppressed groups, given poorly developed methodology.
Such is the case with this study.
Posted 27 Oct 2009 at 1:44 pm ¶
Thrasher wrote:
I reject and refuse to give any validity to test outcomes..I am sadden that such formats are used for admissions into anything…
I am also troubled by those who seek to create a wedge between POC..Clearly our nation has a twisted legacy of racism created not by POC…
Posted 27 Oct 2009 at 3:19 pm ¶
m_c wrote:
i wouldn’t say that all Asian Americans don’t benefit from affirmative action. as someone mentioned above, the group Asian Americans (or Asian/Pacific Islander Americans) encompasses such a huge, diverse group of people. i have worked as an admissions reader for the most competitive public university in CA for four years. affirmative action has been banned and we take into consideration so many factors other than test scores. you look at the students’ background very carefully; for example, if the student is a refugee and first in their family to go to college, you weigh their accomplishments differently than, say, a middle class Asian American student who has decent test scores, but not much else. those are just some of the factors.
i wonder if part of it is — and i found this to be true of myself and some friends when i was applying to college — if middle class Asian Americans tend to apply to more schools in general, in comparison to other racial groups. i ask this because i remember i applied to some private schools that were a very long shot, in part because of my parents’ wishes for me to go to haaaavard and the like. you know? that would really skew the stats. not so much that there’s an anti-Asian bias, it’s just that we’re applying to a lot more schools and some of them are just out of our (individual) reach.
Posted 27 Oct 2009 at 7:27 pm ¶
Jason wrote:
I think the data verifies the need for Affirmative Action to discount race in favor of CLASS. I went to two separate high schools in Jersey and I can tell you that there was a marked difference. The first, called Winslow, was half-white, half-black, with only a tiny smattering of Asians and almost no Latinos. The district lines were redrawn, and I was then sent to finish Junior and Senior years at Hammonton high school. Hammonton is known for being the highest densely populated town in American for Sicialian-Americans. There were no black kids at Hammonton. None. 90% Italian and 10% Latino. And Hammonton had a superfluous amount of money. They built us a new school. Clean. Security. Big halls where you weren’t brushing up against people. No fist fights. It was like stepping from some cliche urban, poor, dangerous landscape into Leave it to Beaver suburbia.
I got a better quality education at Hammonton then at Winslow. Better than the black kids did. But better than the POOR white kids did, too.
I think class should be what counts when it comes to affirmative action. Rich Latino or black kids don’t need affirmative action. It should take into account what high school districts kids come from, and the materials they have at their disposal.
That’s a better marker.
Posted 27 Oct 2009 at 8:12 pm ¶
Minotaar wrote:
I think that the issues with Asian Americans in higher education would get better press if there was a clear and specific problem that we could point to and say “thats racist.” I agree that there feels like some sort of bizarre disparity there that, as Jenn pointed out, might be discovered by comparing statistics about Asians to statistics about whites, but if it was a glaring disparity in some statistic, what is it? I suppose I’ll have to wait for part 2.
m_c brings up a critical point that I think needs to be seriously considered at least with regard to the data that has been presented so far. It is entirely conceivable that Asian Americans apply to more schools (or that their application tendencies are more “aspirational”) for a number of strong cultural reasons that m_c states clearly. If only the data in part 1 is used for analysis, then this would be an important trend in the data that would have to be controlled for before trying to point at a racist tendency.
Forgive my critical perspective. I’m strongly in favor of trying to improve the racial aspects of higher education admissions, but I think that the way to do that is by looking at all the statistics with in a very critical light to find the starkest and most measurable evidence of bias, and I wish we had found better by now.
Posted 27 Oct 2009 at 8:53 pm ¶
Phil Deeze wrote:
Guys,
One angle on the affirmative action/reverse racism argument: doesn’t the United States’ educational system on the tertiary level abound with a VARIETY of different ways for a group of students to hedge bets, so to speak, on a college choice?
I’d like to see these numbers run on Asian applicants ACROSS their college choices that they applied for admission to. In other words, America’s not a one-size-fits-all deal. There were 40 people at my HS that applied to one Top 25 school. It was a popular place. We all didn’t get in. Six did. I can guarantee you that the other 36 kids did not starve. Sure, they were pissed off, but nobody sued. They went to their second-choice school, which if you do the college choice thing right, it can be just as good as the “first-choice.”
The way I looked at it, as a minority student applying to college, is that with my SATs, grades and essay, if I applied to five colleges and got into none of them, I’d need to re-evaluate if I was college material. Or go to junior college first. My father suggested that we pick 20 schools and apply to 10 of them to further hedge. It worked. I recommend all minorities do the same if it all possible.
Posted 27 Oct 2009 at 9:41 pm ¶
anonymous wrote:
I worked in admissions for two years at a lower Ivy. I will attest point blank: there’s a preference disfavoring Asians. It’s acknowledged and nervously joked about, and it honestly disgusted me. While I wouldn’t speak these words in polite society (my credentials as a progressive and therefore as a mainstream academic would be imperiled if I said anything insinuating a lack of total devotion to affirmative action), you are looking at the hideous and inevitable downside of calibrating your admissions based not on objective merit — yes, I know that term is problematic — but rather the idea that racial, ethnic and other groups must be represented in cosmetically pleasing proportion to one another. BTW, another constituency deemed “overrepresented” is Jews.
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 2:01 am ¶
ashlynn wrote:
I applied to about 10 schools in totally, possibly a few more- one Ivy, three very prestigious universities, a smaller school but of equal quality, and my CUNY’s. I didn’t get into any of my choices. I was admitted into the CUNY system, but was not offered financial aid because I was considered to be making too much money(yeah, 60 spread out amongst 5 kids, a home and bills all on a single mom, with a kid already in school? NOT EVEN CLOSE). My top choice actually threw out my application because I had to fill out an extra fin-aid form which my father was unable to because he was virtually unemployed(why, U of C, why :’( ). So I didn’t go to school.
That was about a year ago. I worked my ass off in school, though I wasn’t the best student. I was pretty much buried in extracurriculars, and had one of the top scores in my school. But none of this worked in my favor- I felt like the schools already had their diversity quota, and so I wasn’t really considered. Ironically, a recruited from one of my schools approached a friend of mine and myself on the train, overhearing our conversation about college, and suggested we apply there because they were looking for PoC’s in the city. I had to laugh in her face…it was like, “Reeeally? So what’s up with that rejection letter?”
Honestly I find it all funny because everyone I talked to swore that my profile plus my race made me a shoo-in, but not even in the slightest. I’m pretty disillusioned with higher education, at least in the traditional sense, at this point; I’ve considered reapplying but honestly the sheer fear and reluctance of feeling that my race is seeping through every pore during interviews and I must somehow master not making it about my race but still acknowledging it is pretty unbearable.
So all in all, seeing this “Scary Chart” kinda pisses me off. You honestly could not tell me there is a racial bias against Whites and Asians; in my experience, they are the majority of students who apply and the majority of who are accepted. However, I will say that also in my experience, when people think “Asian”, they think Chinese, Japanese, Korean…and if they think long/hard enough, they remember that Indians are smart too. So many Asians get left behind as well.
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 2:21 am ¶
PatrickInBeijing wrote:
Great article Jenn!!! Many thanks!!
We should be careful when we talk about Affirmative Action as applying only to race. This is one of the “big” lies we are sold. Children of alumni get preference at most private schools that I know of, and guess who most of them are?? This kind of preference is about making sure those already in power remain in power. (White folks, in case you guessed wrong (like not!))
In addition many schools have written into their contracts that children of faculty get in automatically (or have reciprocal agreements with other schools). Most faculty still are……. TADA!!! white.
There are other kinds of AA. As a southern white boy, i got preference in being admitted to a New England college that wanted students from outside New England. No idea who i bumped.
I certainly want to agree that class needs to be considered in admissions.
But remember that truly rich folks go to school wherever they want (pretty much, daddy buys a new building, kid gets in). Bush had no problems, nor did Gore for that matter (neither were great students).
Jenn makes one very important point that we need to fully consider. NO ONE who is admitted is NOT ELIGIBLE. The college admissions “game” (and it is a game) has always been about how to winnow down a large pool of ELIGIBLE candidates.
So, everyone ACCEPTED is ELIGIBLE (i know it looks like i am pounding on this, but it is a key point, perhaps the key point, and is often discounted in discussions about AA).
Schools have to try to decide what they want their student bodies to look like. Most of them want a variety of types and personalities (not all piano players, nor all astronomy buffs, nor all trekkies). Many of them feel that students should be exposed to a variety of different kinds of people from society as part of their educational process. So, they want their schools to have a variety of different kinds of people.
Affirmative Action programs based on race were added to those based on things like region of country (which favored me), religion, alumni status and special talents. They were added because of the well founded belief that racial bias was excluding students who were ELIGIBLE.
The goal is to have a more diverse student body, which folks believe benefits everyone. And to try to balance the various biases that exist in society, and in schools.
Test scores are just test scores. (I score high, but think they are a bunch of bunk.) People who test well tend to love them (DUHHHHH!!), people who test poorly tend to discount them (DUHHHHHH!). There is very little in them to prove anything except how well you take tests.
(There are very few jobs for test takers in society.)
I could blather on forever, but beg your indulgence to tell one short tale. There was a stupid man who wanted to be a teacher. He had to pass a test to get the job. How hard was it? I don’t know, except that there were many teachers, so many people passed it. He flunked it six times before giving up. SIX times. Probably would have done poorly on IQ tests if they had been around. I suspect, he thought slowly.
He went back to his monastery where they put him in charge of growing peas (how hard could that have been??). He kept careful meticulous records, and over many years (slow thought) noticed some funny things about how the plants mixed with each other. There is more to the story, but his name was Gregor Mendel. Google him, he is considered a genius.
Flunked the test SIX times. What an idiot!
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 6:04 am ¶
dersk wrote:
@anonymous – One thing that jumped out of the data at me is how overrepresented Asian Americans were in applications. Could it be that the bias is from a desire (maybe unconscious) to have the student body reflect the population at large?
I really agree that more emphasis should be placed on class – at Cornell, it sure seemed to me that the richer New York City kids all had a lot more common with each other than me (public school, from the south).
And in fairness, I was the only goy in my house for two years, but on the other hand my roommates would usually call Dominoes by the third day of Passover.
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 11:07 am ¶
octogalore wrote:
I’d be in favor of getting rid of all legacy- and bribe-based affirmative action. I agree with Obama: affirmative action should prioritize class, including questions re whether an applicant who is middle-class is a first-generation college attendee. If race were a “all other things being equal, then go for diversity” characteristic, then one could both aid the disadvantaged and also reduce any assumptions that burden successful minority graduates.
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 12:00 pm ¶
little mixed girl wrote:
I think that this was a good article, but one thing that frustrates me when people write/talk about affirmative action is that they only apply it to race.
Affirmative action covers gender, socioeconomic class and a whole bunch of other things.
I’m pretty sure that when affirmative action at the university level was rolled out that it included Asians, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Asians are still included…either in public or private universities.
I know that Michigan’s point system was struck down, but, honestly, it seemed quite fair to me.
Take a look:
http://www.umich.edu/~mrev/archives/1999/summer/chart.htm
I think that the problem lies with people assuming that if they do X they are entitled to Y, and if they don’t get Y then someone stole it from them.
Anyways, I find all of the affirmative action debates (especially at the university level) to be frustrating.
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 12:53 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
Patrick~thank you for bringing up region and basic eligibility.
What happens is that those who are underrepresented are obviously going to be those that the schools fight over.
As a Southern Black girl from a [pretty good] public school with great “objective” metrics and diverse extracurriculars, you’d better believe that the New England schools, Upper Midwest and tech schools were interested in me. I laughed when my GRE scores got me interest from certain engineering schools (hated Calc).
That’s what always frustrated me about the UM plaintiff…good grades, cheerleader, typical extracurriculars…dime a dozen. She couldn’t see that.
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 4:01 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
I’d also like to make the point that legacy makes sense. People are more tied to the school if they have a vested interest (seeing the kids ensconced) in supporting it.
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 4:03 pm ¶
GENQ10 wrote:
@ octagalore: “I’d be in favor of getting rid of all legacy- and bribe-based affirmative action. I agree with Obama: affirmative action should prioritize class, including questions re whether an applicant who is middle-class is a first-generation college attendee. If race were a “all other things being equal, then go for diversity” characteristic, then one could both aid the disadvantaged and also reduce any assumptions that burden successful minority graduates.”
“Bribe-based”? What are you referring to? Couple things:
1. Many schools (especially highly-selective schools) DO take into account if a student is a first-generation college student or not. They just don’t call it “affirmative-action” but it exists.
2. Class should NOT be prioritized. Racial disparities still occur. Just because some comes from a black middle class family with college-educated parents doesn’t mean that that person has not had to deal with disadvantage in his/her life related to race, disadvantage that may have impeded their opportunities.
3. Studies show that having college educated parents matters more than socioeconomic class in respect to how well a child does in school. Socioeconomic class should definitely be taken into account but to say that one should be prioritized over the other is disingenuous.
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 4:21 pm ¶
GENQ10 wrote:
Also: I know it’s been said, but the largest beneficiary of Affirmative Action is WHITE WOMEN (and it one of the reason that women are so successful academically and professionally today). I’m tired of people acting like black/latino/native american students in higher ed are undeserving of their place to be there. Affirmative Action policies have been rolled back SO much in the past 20-30 years that its practically meaningless. Athletes get privileged, out of state students frequently get privileged, sometimes even a student who is a debater or plays the cello depending on the type of incoming class a school wants. “I didn’t get into Brown. It’s not that Legacy-admitted student that got me in, or that champion skiier, no it’s THAT BLACK KID.”
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 4:26 pm ¶
GENQ10 wrote:
*sorry, “that prevented me from getting in”
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 4:26 pm ¶
Jenn wrote:
Hey guys, thanks for the great comments. I will try to address some of the issues that were raised here.
@Kaviani
I agree — the older data is, the less it can tell us about contemporary trends and patterns. However, I would be wary just TOSSING data because it has “gone stale”, so to speak. 20 years, for example, is an arbitrary number — is data immediately bad when it is 20 years and a day old, but still good at 19 years and 364 days? Of course not — basically, the older data is, the more we have to consider whether it is still applicable.
The data used in this study are about 12 years old. Ideally, we would have data from the last few years, but sadly, there has been a persistent resistance in academia to conduct large-scale studies of APIAs in academia — even the quality of data currently collected rarely distinguishes WITHIN the APIA community.
This lack of attention extends not only to demographics in academia, but also to healthcare disparities, economic disparities and immigration trends. Usually, APIAs are so infrequently sampled that datasets contain too small sample sizes of our community to make any analysis of trends.
To collect a lot of data, comb through it for quality, and to analyse it for trends takes time. And with so few academics spending time on these issues, you end up with studies that take years to work on a single dataset; by the time it comes out, it looks old.
In addition, THESE particular kinds of admissions data are limited by the fact that the investigators must rely on the colleges and universities to do the primary data collection — the investigators dont’ have the resources to conduct their own censuses of the incoming student population, and certainly aren’t privvy to applicant numbers. So not only do you have to wait on the investigator to comb through the data, you have to wait for the university to compile and release the data in the first place.
Thus, while I agree with you that 12-year old data is not ideal, I think it still gives us a sense of contemporary admissions trends. While there have been a few landmark legal cases on HOW affirmative action is implemented nationwide, affirmative action remains in practice to this day. Espenshade samples from schools that have seen little change in their aff. action policies, as well as little change in their incoming class racial demographics over those 12 years.
So there’s nothing specifically we can point to that has occurred in the last 12 years that would INVALIDATE the data. The absolute numbers in this study aren’t going to be translateable to today, but the trends are probably still relevant today.
And, as Latoya points out, in Part 2, I call for better studies.
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 4:28 pm ¶
Jenn wrote:
@atlasien
“That’s me when I was younger, looking through a book of college scholarships, and finding out that all the ones in the “minority” section have an asterisk attached, with the words “except for Asians”.”
Ha — same here, for me when looking at scholarships, fellowships and grants for underrepresented minorities in the sciences!
@Lola
Yes, we should be seeing a big (and growing) fight over race and college admissions in California over the coming months.
@Gilbert
I agree that many studies homogenize the APIA pan-ethnic community, and that there are MANY ethnicities that fit within this umbrella term that are nonetheless underrepresented in academia. Thus, more and better studies MUST be done.
However, I would caution you on arriving prematurely at a sort of “conspiracy theory” — the homogenizing of APIAs is deleterious to our community, but it’s not always done intentionally. As I mentioned above, Espenshade depends on primary data compiled by multiple colleges and universities in order to begin his analysis; and the methodology whereby these colleges and universities generate these data differ. Some, like the UC system, do a great job of breaking down APIAs into ethnicities (and providing that information publicly), but don’t break down Blacks or Latinos. Others only have the “big checkboxes” available to student for supplying racial information, and thus don’t collect ethnic data at all. In this study, I believe Espenshade collapsed his data into pan-ethnic racial categories because most institutions don’t collect ethnic data, and he needed to be able to analyse trends nationwide, and not just at the few schools that bother to be specific about each student’s racial/ethnic identity.
Which is my roundabout way of saying that the APIA community NEEDS to commission studies of our own to address the issue you raised. Because there are indeed APIA ethnicities that can and should benefit from aff. action.
@Jason
The problem with eliminating racial considerations from aff. action is that there is a strong likelihood that poor Whites will benefit OVER poor POCs in admissions if it becomes colour-blind. Eliminating race from consideration suggests that applicants of the same class background do not face disadvantages due to their race; since race and class remain inextricably linked in our society, it stands to reason that poor Whites will still get a leg-up over poor Blacks.
Also, affirmative action isn’t just a “hand-out”. It’s a way to take into account the student life of your incoming class, and ensure that there’s racial and cultural diversity. It is a fallacy to think that affirmative action only applies to race — legacy, athletics, and musical talent are all a part of affirmative action.
@Minotaar
I would be interested to read your comments on part 2.
@anonymous
The admissions process is so veiled that it is interesting to read a comment from someone who worked in admissions. Would you elaborate on how this “disfavouring preference” was manifest?
Also, I would be interested in your comments on Part 2 as well.
@PatrickinBeijing
Thanks for your great comments! I loved the Mendel story!
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 4:47 pm ¶
Joy wrote:
@GENQ10 – thanks, co-sign!!
It’s kind of surprising that people *still* think Affirmative Action = handout to the black and Latino kids. (Or, maybe actually it’s not.)
And if you look at any application you will find ample consideration of socioeconomic factors, so no – considering race is not eviscerating the consideration of class/money (and a host of other factors).
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 7:53 pm ¶
octogalore wrote:
GENQ10: by “bribe-based,” I mean a kid whose parents bought the school a new library or something. Basically, an outlay of money or promise of future support (eg if one of the parents is a politician) should not “buy” a place at the table for the offspring. I have known kids who got a thin envelope whose parents got that turned around with one phone call, and that kind of cronyism should be rejected.
I guess we disagree about prioritizing class. Obama’s point in the article wasn’t that race shouldn’t count, but that class be predominant. “disadvantage in his/her life related to race” should be looked at as a factor in conjunction with this. Class and race intersect, as well.
I’d be interested to see your stats on white women being the major beneficiaries of AA. At least from my position as a placement professional, I see law firms being much more excited about MOC partner candidates than female partner candidates of any race. The fear is that the women will drop out or not work as hard, and there is extreme trepidation where the woman has not yet had a child and is of what people would conventionally view as “childbearing age.” I should add that Asian male candidates don’t appear to be prized to the extent other MOC are.
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 9:39 pm ¶
GENQ10 wrote:
@octogalore
White women went from being not represented in higher ed at all to being the majority in under 50 years. There are many women in law school and med schools now (50% last time i checked, but I could be wrong). Look up the exact stats yourself (we read about it in a course I took last year about race).
class is still considered, strongly considered. parents education level factors into college admission absolutely. like I said, they dont call it affirmative action. keep in mind, because of need blind admissions MANY COLLEGES CANNOT ASK HOW MUCH MONEY A STUDENT’S FAMILY MAKES. just because a student of color comes from a family who is middle class does not mean that that student can still compete with white students from the same class socioeconomic class. studies have been done that show that wealthy black boys are suspended more than poor white boys. my point is, race still matters. making it about class will not change that fact.
I think Obama was pandering to white voters. I heard what he said. All educated black people ARE NOT HIM. those educated black people’s children ARE NOT THE OBAMA GIRLS. Affirmative Actions has been rolled back SO MUCH ITS AMAZING. And yet, people still want more more more. There are SO FEW black and latino student in top colleges and universities, native americans relative to rest of the population. I know, I’m in one of those schools right now.
It sounds to me like youre saying that students of color in higher ed don’t deserve to be there as much. You may not mean to be saying that, but when I here people talk about “class-based” admission, I do think part of the assumption is that Affirmative Action isn’t working or that many black/latino/native amer. students from educated families are getting a handout.
and those “bribe based” students? there aren’t as many as there are purported to be, either. yes, there is favoritism, that’s not the biggest issue here. there are other structural inequalities, many of which have to do with life situations before college admissions. you can’t look at college admissions in a vacuum, you have to look at the larger society.
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 10:58 pm ¶
GENQ10 wrote:
also: “I’d be interested to see your stats on white women being the major beneficiaries of AA. At least from my position as a placement professional, I see law firms being much more excited about MOC partner candidates than female partner candidates of any race. The fear is that the women will drop out or not work as hard, and there is extreme trepidation where the woman has not yet had a child and is of what people would conventionally view as “childbearing age.” I should add that Asian male candidates don’t appear to be prized to the extent other MOC are.”
this has nothing to do with affirmative action. who gets promoted and who gets hired is not influenced by the number of people in colleges, law schools, or med schools. see the commentator in part 2 of this discussion who brings it up as well. every major study published has said that white women are the biggest recipients of a.a.
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 11:08 pm ¶
octogalore wrote:
GENQ10: AA can apply to education or employment, so yes, in fact, my example regarding employment is relevant: “The term affirmative action refers to policies that take race, ethnicity, or sex into consideration in an attempt to promote equal opportunity or increase ethnic or other forms of diversity. The focus of such policies ranges from employment and education to public contracting and health programs. ”
I’m familiar with the stats you’re talking about, but have not seen any articles that take into account and adjust for the larger percentages of white women in most sectors covered by affirmative action interventions in the first place. They also don’t take into account the increased employment or schooling of white women that is due to other factors, such as the increased need for two incomes.
Posted 29 Oct 2009 at 12:44 am ¶
octogalore wrote:
I should have said above that there has been an increase across the board in college and employment attainment for women of all races. College educated black women have reached earnings parity with college educated white women, although college educated black men earn 76 percent of the earnings of their white male counterparts. So while I agree that women have gained more, I’m not sure we can say that this is purely due to their having benefited from AA.
From: http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa04.html
Posted 29 Oct 2009 at 12:47 am ¶
octogalore wrote:
“It sounds to me like youre saying that students of color in higher ed don’t deserve to be there as much. You may not mean to be saying that, but when I here people talk about “class-based” admission, I do think part of the assumption is that Affirmative Action isn’t working or that many black/latino/native amer. students from educated families are getting a handout. ”
I apologize if that is what I appeared to be saying. My thinking is that prioritizing class first and then race as an “all other things equal” — while looking at parental advantages so that, in fact, most times all other things aren’t equal — would be the best way to both have students of color in higher ed and also ensure that they succeed and aren’t subject to unfair questioning. I think in many cases class does intersect with race. There is a noted wealth gap and with college admissions looking at net worth, this would better the chances of students of color.
I’m in an educational council that focuses around disadvantaged populations (which, in the neighborhood I focus in, tends to yield mostly students of color) who are candidates for my alma mater which is a well known engineering school. The council’s goal is to coach and send interview reports for students whose board scores and grades might not be at the required levels (typically we find the math scores are up there but the language ones are below average) but the students have incredibly high potential despite not having advantaged backgrounds.
The students who have gotten in through this program have done incredibly well. However, the school has found that admitting students who don’t meet the technical criteria by significant margins for reasons other than class-related ones often cannot graduate. This includes athletes, legacies, as well. Many of these students would have done extremely well at a different school, graduated, and been very successful. My year, in fact, the school decided to admit more women because there were only 25% women at the school — and many weren’t there at the end of the first year. These were smart people who would have had no problem had they been matched more appropriately.
My roommate, on the other hand, was a woman who was first in her family to go to college and had lower entrance criteria but had come further and faster than most others who applied — and she wound up in the top 10% of the class. She still, unfortunately, had to deal with speculation that she was there because that was the year they decided to admit a lot of women — as I did.
So anyway — I do think that a system looking at both class and family advantage would capture the goals of admitting the students of color who aren’t, as you say, like the Obama girls.
Posted 29 Oct 2009 at 10:38 am ¶
GENQ10 wrote:
“However, the school has found that admitting students who don’t meet the technical criteria by significant margins for reasons other than class-related ones often cannot graduate.”
Maybe at YOUR institution. Under A.A. at most highly selective schools, students of color and athletes DO JUST AS WELL AS THE REST OF THE POPULATION because they DO NOT ACCEPT STUDENTS WHO ARE NOT QUALIFIED.
And as I have said because of need-blind admission, schools like those in the ivy league cannot LEGALLY ASK ABOUT FINANCIAL BACKGROUND. They use other indicators like where you live, your school, parental level of education, and parental employment to gage that. They just dont call it affirmative action.
“My thinking is that prioritizing class first and then race as an “all other things equal” — while looking at parental advantages so that, in fact, most times all other things aren’t equal — would be the best way to both have students of color in higher ed and also ensure that they succeed and aren’t subject to unfair questioning.”
First of all you cannot “keep all other things equal”. Class and race intersect in a myriad of ways that cannot be untangled. If you want to push your school to start favoring people based upon class, fine, but don’t conflate it with affirmative action. A.A. was meant to remedy the lack of HISTORICALLY OPPRESSED GROUPS in higher education. NOT class-based injustice. That’s ANOTHER issue. You’ve already said that your school admitted people who werent technically qualified. according to A.A. laws, colleges and universities CANNOT legally do that. schools like harvard do NOT admit unqualified candidates. Affirmative action is not supposed to admit unqualified candidates.
also: there will ALWAYS be unfair questioning for PoC. the fact the questioning is unfair now has little to do with the system and everything to do with people being racist. they dont question the abilities of athletes or legacies nearly as much as they do PoC in higher ed. I have friends who went to UC schools where they ELIMINATED A.A. who still were questioned by White friends who thought they got in because of their race.
“I think in many cases class does intersect with race.”
Not to be rude, but obviously.
You’re still saying that you think people of color are unfairly in higher ed. There are many PoC in higher ed who DO succeed. And if they don’t, who knows if that’s because they’re PoC. Maybe its because they come from a poor background and didnt have the same breadth of educational preparation. maybe its because institutional racism really does affect mental health and academic performance.
Middle class black latino and native american kids do just as well as the white kids. you’re still saying that, as of now, middle class PoC are inadequately prepared for higher ed and at many of the top liberal arts colleges and universities that simply ISNT true. I cant speak for engineering schools though, but please do not generalize your experience.
Posted 29 Oct 2009 at 12:06 pm ¶
GENQ10 wrote:
One more thing:
“My roommate, on the other hand, was a woman who was first in her family to go to college and had lower entrance criteria but had come further and faster than most others who applied — and she wound up in the top 10% of the class. She still, unfortunately, had to deal with speculation that she was there because that was the year they decided to admit a lot of women — as I did.”
I’d just like to repeat what Jenn wrote:
“The problem with eliminating racial considerations from aff. action is that there is a strong likelihood that poor Whites will benefit OVER poor POCs in admissions if it becomes colour-blind. Eliminating race from consideration suggests that applicants of the same class background do not face disadvantages due to their race; since race and class remain inextricably linked in our society, it stands to reason that poor Whites will still get a leg-up over poor Blacks.”
Racism WITHIN higher institutions, like I said, affects the performance of students of color. ma
And I still think your thesis that “class-based” A.A. students would do better than the others on a large scale is probably incorrect. Just because your room mate did well does not translate into across the board statistics if applied at all schools. Although, again, this may be true at engineering schools, I have not seen this trend at liberal arts colleges and unis. that do take class into account.
Posted 29 Oct 2009 at 12:21 pm ¶
little mixed girl wrote:
@ashlynn
your experience sounds quite frustrating, but one thing i noticed with your post is that you felt entitled to whatever school it was that you applied to.
there’s no set number/test score/gpa that gets you into a university.
universities post averages, not “if you fall below this number, you have no chance of getting in”.
i also had financial aid problems because my mom was unemployed.
you really have to get on the university people and call them up and see what went wrong/what’s missing if you don’t get the answer you’re looking for.
if you’re really set on a certain uni but didn’t get in, what about transferring?
lots of universities have transfer programs set up.
don’t give up, and don’t think that someone’s out to get you.
—-
some people mentioned financial aid.
maybe things offered depend on the area and university, but when i was looking for scholarships i came across a lot that included asians. (either specific scholarships for asians only, children of immigrant type scholarships, or “diversity” scholarships)
Posted 29 Oct 2009 at 12:28 pm ¶
octogalore wrote:
GENQ10, you’re misinterpreting. I’m not suggesting “middle class PoC are inadequately prepared for higher ed and at many of the top liberal arts colleges and universities.” I’m suggesting AA should operate to bring in students whose class disadvantages place them below the target ranges of scores/grades and students of color from more advantaged backgrounds who are within these ranges should be prioritized over white students. Many middle class POC are indeed appropriately prepared and do great. Per my earlier note, women of color graduates, across the board, have average compensation equivalent to that of similarly situated white female graduates.
“You’ve already said that your school admitted people who weren’t technically qualified. according to A.A. laws, colleges and universities CANNOT legally do that. schools like harvard do NOT admit unqualified candidates.”
Schools just like Harvard do in fact admit all kinds of students with board scores well below their target ranges. Happens all the time. Brooke Shields’ board scores were well below Princeton’s typical cutoffs. She majored in French literature. This isn’t an isolate example. I do agree this may be more of an issue at an engineering school, where there are more folks who don’t graduate than at other schools. You make a good point, though, that this may be partially the fault of the school:
“And if they don’t, who knows if that’s because they’re PoC. Maybe its because they come from a poor background and didnt have the same breadth of educational preparation.”
Agree. Schools need to do a better job of educational preparation for kids whose high schools and/or parents couldn’t or didn’t arm them with these tools. Thomas Sowell, in his autobiography, talks about how he went from Cs/Ds to As at Harvard after he got some tips about studying. This was not because of Harvard lending a hand but because he was especially proactive about asking questions and also had a roommate who’d had these advantages and told him what he should do. He wound up graduating magna with a higher GPA than the roommate. But this was not thanks to Harvard. Many top schools have professors teaching hundreds of kids at a time and very little opportunity for mentoring. MIT was the same way. I think schools need to take more responsibility – not just to give high-potential kids a chance to get in, but to give them a chance to succeed once they do by equalizing the starting advantages in terms of study techniques.
Posted 29 Oct 2009 at 3:37 pm ¶
Joy wrote:
@Octogalore –
“However, the school has found that admitting students who don’t meet the technical criteria by significant margins for reasons other than class-related ones often cannot graduate.”
I don’t know what’s going on with your school, but I’m in a professional grad program at a top 20 right now and trust me no one is here who didn’t “meet the technical criteria.” Rest assured!
No matter how many times this is said people still think that Affirmative Action = letting in minorities who wouldn’t otherwise qualify *just because of their race.* I hope I’m misunderstanding you, but I get the feeling that you are equating AA with relaxing admission standards or that you’re implying “AA students” are not as qualified or prepared as their classmates.
Posted 29 Oct 2009 at 6:55 pm ¶
GENQ10 wrote:
“Schools just like Harvard do in fact admit all kinds of students with board scores well below their target ranges.”
Being qualified as more to do than target range. Any admission officer knows this. SATs are highly biased in favor of those from well-off backgrounds. SAT scores to not necessarily predict academic success. Harvard does not take any student who scored extremely low on the SAT. Maybe in the 600 range instead of the 800 range on a section or two. I have no idea where you’re getting these figures from. You’re still saying that minorities are getting handouts now, no matter how you phrase it.
And what does Brooke Shields have to do with this conversation?
Posted 29 Oct 2009 at 9:59 pm ¶
GENQ10 wrote:
On a side note: I feel like discussions about who deserves the most “preference” in A.A. quickly leads to the Oppression Olympics. “Poor white students are worse of than middle class black students and so need to be favored, etc.” Many highly schools really work hard to take the entire applicant into account. Your class, race, nationality, any other information you can provide, provide it! It helps them to get a better picture of who you are. If it weren’t for schools stepping in and saying “diversity is a priority on ALL levels” there would be very few (Even less than there are now) black, latino, native american students at a school like harvard, just looking at the percentage of students who apply. And seriously people, no one sleep walks into ANY prestigious institution, including the children of alumni (unless your father is the president of the USA or you’re a famous actor or something).
Posted 29 Oct 2009 at 10:14 pm ¶
octogalore wrote:
GENQ10, I’m not saying minorities get handouts. I’m saying that some universities (Harvard is a good example) run good AA programs that are effective and produce good graduation rates. Not all universities do that — University of Michigan, CalTech, and MIT haven’t been as successful.
Perhaps this isn’t the fault of the programs themselves but the fault of the schools — not following through on their good intentions and stopping their efforts at admission. But to make AA effective for students other than offspring of millionaires, schools need to ensure that their efforts enable those students to have a good chance to graduate and succeed.
Posted 30 Oct 2009 at 10:42 am ¶
octogalore wrote:
Actually — this McWhorter article is a good summation, I think, of how AA can be tailored to best help those it would aspire to help: http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_2_who_should_get.html
Posted 30 Oct 2009 at 12:00 pm ¶
GENQ10 wrote:
First of all, John McWhorter is a prominent black conservative whose past arguments have led me to believe that he does not have the best interests of historically oppressed groups in mind. The fact that you’re citing him as a source for your beliefs leads me to think that you don’t either.
I do not buy his argument at all. Comparing racial diversity to diversity in talents is disingenuous at best: racial discrimination is based upon power hierarchies; diversity in talent will never be a fair equivalent to racial diversity.
McWhorter says: “Since my undergraduate days, however, elite universities have come to mean something much different when they speak of “diversity”: having as many brown faces on campus as possible, regardless of standards.”
I’m tired of reiterating the fact that this simply isn’t true today.
The “diversity experiment” as he calls it, has not failed, in fact it is still successful. A.A. helped create the black middle class. A “colorblind” admission as he calls for will lead to further disadvantage for blacks and other historically oppressed groups. You are in effect saying that racism is over. A.A. works as it is. Stop saying that you’re not saying that minorities are getting handouts. that is EXACTLY what you are saying! McWhorter advocates “colorblindness”. Do you read this blog regularly, or what, CLEARY his attitudes are problematic.
Read the section in Frank Wu’s ‘Yellow’ where he talks about college admission and affirmative action and then discusses why plans like the McWhorter wants is a problem.
one more thing: AA WAS DESIGNED TO HELP HISTORICALLY REPRESSED MINORITIES. Do you understand that? It IS helping the people it aspires to help. Could it be improved? Absolutely. But taking race out of the equation is a fallacy.
Also: UMich got rid of AA. In what ways are MIT and CalTech unsuccessful? Have you worked at theses institutions? Are you looking at data? And how are you defining success? Once again, I have no idea where you are getting your facts from or what you are basing your argument on. I am a student who also works for administrators, including with the admissions dept, at a highly selective liberal arts college so I know the data for my school and the schools in our athletic conference. I deal with diversity issues in terms of recruitment and retention. First generation students (who are specially considered, as I have told you times before) do no better or worse than athletes, legacies, and underrepresented minorities.
You want to change a system that already works because it doesn’t work at the engineering you work at in such a way that it would decrease minority outreach and enrollment at many schools.
Posted 30 Oct 2009 at 2:35 pm ¶
GENQ10 wrote:
Also- please stop stereotyping legacies. Not all of them are millionaires. At my school there are legacies from modest backgrounds. I feel like you’re leaning on the whole “it’s not fair for legacies, either” to justify getting rid of AA. AA has nothing to do with legacy admission, so stop conflating them! It’s insulting to students of color, and its insulting to students who ARE legacies who DO work hard.
I am sick of the whole “class is the most important indicator of success so let’s just ignore other historical imbalances oh and, by the way, legacies are just as bad as those dumb black kids so lets just get rid of all of that.”
Clearly I’m not going to change your mind and you’re not willing to examine your own prejudicial argument. I’m all for giving a leg up to students from lower-class backgrounds (BECAUSE ITS WHAT WE DO NOW) but saying that race isnt equally important is a step in the wrong direction.
Posted 30 Oct 2009 at 2:41 pm ¶
GENQ10 wrote:
sorry, I mean *prejudiced argument. not “prejudicial” (although I think it is prejudicial to people of color)
Posted 30 Oct 2009 at 2:46 pm ¶
octogalore wrote:
GENQ10 – yes, I’m aware of who McWhorter is. I agree in part and disagree in part with his politics so I’m afraid the whole “you’re quoting this person and so therefore must march in lockstep with him/her” set of assumptions aren’t necessarily applicable here. I tend to quote particular arguments I like, and not get entangled in any necessity to therefore buy into someone’s whole lexicon.
The info I’m talking about re UMich is prior to recent developments there. And of course MIT and CalTech, one of which I consult to and one of which I attended, are successful. But their records of graduating minority students aren’t as successful as they should be, which again could be the fault of the schools’ support systems.
I would not be, contrary to your claim, an advocate for a system that would decrease minority college enrollment. I would be in favor of a system that would increase the number of minorities who graduate, and if this also increased the number enrolled, so much the better.
I don’t recall stating that legacies are all or even mostly millionaires, or that race isn’t equally important to class.
I have not disputed that racial preferences where academics are in the same ballpark are a good system. My point is that where academics aren’t in the same ballpark, but show adequate potential, class and background preferences are a good system which would encompass racial diversity as well, and racial prefences where class/background is not at play aren’t, to my mind. We seem to be at an impasse here, I’m afraid. I appreciate your taking the time you took to talk about this.
Posted 30 Oct 2009 at 9:52 pm ¶
little mixed girl wrote:
what at umich (before the judgements) was wrong?
i posted the link to the point system, and judging by the number of people who solely focus on aff.act as ONLY meaning “race based”, i can tell that no one checked the link and that people seem to be focused on university systems that may or may not exist.
the word affirmative action, if i remember correctly, was used after WW2 when referring to returning soldiers. the prez said that employers, schools and the housing section should take “affirmative action” in helping soldiers obtain housing, etc.
one thing i forgot to mention is that with every affirmative action discussion, there’s an assumption that all whites have higher scores and all minorities have lower scores.
i guess it must feel quite good to be an affirmative action hating white person who got into a university with lower scores than the minorities that you assume were “let” in.
*yawns*
Posted 31 Oct 2009 at 1:21 pm ¶
GENQ10 wrote:
@octogalore
I appreciate you taking the time out to discuss this, too. I just wanted to let you know that I didn’t assume that you’re 100% in line with McWhorter. My line of reasoning was like this: if someone were to quote Ronald Reagan or some other prominent political voice who clearly had expressed racist, sexist, etc. views in the past and support for policies that advocated these views, and then say, well I don’t agree with everything he says but I agree with some of his politics in respect to X issue dealing with racial or gender equality, etc, I would find that person’s intentions highly suspect. Sort of like judging someone’s character by the company they keep. If I misinterpreted your statements, I apologize. It’s hard to understand the position you’re advocating; it may seem clear to you, but it’s not clear to me. At any rate, social justice issues are usually fraught with tensions and its good that there are multiple views. Makes for a better discussions in the long run.
Also, you said this: “But to make AA effective for students other than offspring of millionaires…”
That’s the line I was referring to earlier (I wasn’t sure if you were talking about legacy admissions or the kids of black millionaires; you know my response to the former, and my response to the latter is that there arent that many black millionaires relative to those of other races or to the black population in general).
Again, if I misinterpreted or misrepresented, I apologize. Keep in mind, that because this is an internet discussion, I’m sure much is being lost in textual translation.
Posted 31 Oct 2009 at 11:57 pm ¶