I recently discussed (here) a new study that lamented the increasing number of students (mostly white, it claimed) who refused to identify their race on application forms.
Now Chetly Zarko has some very good things to say about an article (itself very good) analyzing this report in the Harvard Crimson. Apparently whites refused to identify themselves at the same rate (not higher, as the report claimed) as other groups.
Read both.
John,
I have since had the opportunity to read the original Irvine report (I missed your original post, just as you missed the original news — too many things on my plate).
The only key assumption of my mathematical deconstruction of the report relates to what percentage of whites were in the mix of “Campus A” in the second measurement after enrollment. The Irvine report argues that the number of whites went up from 42% in the pre-enrollment data to “at least 57%” and perhaps “as much as 70%”. I prove mathematically that if the 57% number is true, then whites are not reporting at exactly the same rate as other groups. The Irvine report suggests that the number of whites could be as high as 70% based on this wierd twist of logic — the after-enfollment sample of 203 individuals (even though its 93% of the freshman student body at “Campus A” – a small magnitude sample subject to significant margin of error) contained 229 different racial categories. They properly conclude that up this represents up to 26 (13%) students (could be less since they could have checked more than two races) could be bi-racial racial (hence the 57-70% range) — here’s the strange logic though, they say that “if all of those students” that had self-reported multi-racial WERE IN FACT “REALLY” “PARTIALLY” WHITE, then the number would be 70%. This is true – but I thinks its a strange strange assumption to suggest that 1) a half-white, half minority person doesn’t or shouldn’t receive preferences, or shouldn’t be counted as some form of minority (if you accept the self-proclaimed logic of diversophiles) 2) that even more than one or two of multi-racial individuals are not telling the truth (in the second post-enrollment cut, since they are already admitted, they have no incentive to not tell the truth, according to the study’s own claims at another point).
Ergo, I’m almost sure the number is much closer to the 57% that I proved was an identical non-reporting rate than it is the 70%, and certainly within the margin of error thereto even if there are one or two more-than-two-race or inaccurate individuals reporting.
This study shows how numbers can be abused to reach a conclusion.
I found this interesting, from the Crimson:
— Quote
“Vivek A. Rudrapatna ’06 said that the belief that race is used as an admissions factor influenced his decision not to provide ethnic information on the medical school applications that he has been submitting this year.
“I’m of Indian ethnicity and we’re over-represented in the medical profession,” he said. “I wanted them to judge me on meritocratic grounds alone.”
— End Quote
His race is “over-represented” …
Dom