Peter Schmidt has a post on the Chronicle of Higher Education news blog yesterday discussing a new report from the Goldwater Institute that details a number of programs in Arizona that would be affected by the passage of the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative.
After reading the post, be sure to take a look at the comments as well. Here’s a good one, responding to someone who defended the “looks like” standard for health professionals:
My mixed-race children ‘look like’ one parent more than the other. So, are they eligible for AA or not? Perhaps we should have a chart of ‘characteristic’ racial features so students can be properly classiifed – 30% white, 27.5% asian,… that’s the logical conclusion to this AA farce.
Ward Connerly’s comment also asks his typically astute questions:
1) Why does any institution have to be “representative?” 2) If “race” or ethnic group is the yardstick for determining
“representation,” what about those who don’t fit neatly into any of the “race” boxes? 3) How do you square our nation’s professed dedication to equal rights for all individuals, as enunciated in the 14th Amendment and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, with the prevailing practice of treating individuals differently on the basis of their “race,” gender, ethnicity, national origin?
“John” attempts, unsuccessfully, to answer Connerly’s questions. I’ll mention only two:
1. Because if it is not representative, it is probably working in ways that effectively favor one group over another…. 3. In the states that have passed your initiatives, Blacks and Hispanics are given a reduced chance of getting a college education – statistically much below that of whites.
The fallacy in No. 1 is quite common, but still quite fallacious. It is the assumption that “underrepresentation” or “disparities” or “underutilization” etc. are always and only the result of discrimination. It asumes that all groups are equally interested in, qualified for, and available for … everything.
And No. 3 is simply wrong as a matter of fact. There is no evidence (because the evidence doesn’t exist) that ending racial and ethnic preferences reduces the chances of blacks or Hispanics to get a college education. It may reduce disproportionately (compared to other groups) their chances of admission to the most selective institutions, but clearly not to all institutions. Just as it’s not true that the only options are “Yale or jail,” it is equally true that one can get a fine education in California and Michigan without attending Berkeley, UCLA, or the University of Michigan.
Here’s food for thought, from Mr. Arthur Hu.
http://www.arthurhu.com/index/afact.htm
Hu’s Laws of Affirmative Action
(1) No two groups are equal unless they are stastically identical
(2) The level of inequality goes up with the level of selectivity
(3) The only way to impose equality is to use different selection levels, and amount of difference goes up with the level of selection
These laws are upheld for almost every observable case of affirmative action.
The Politically Correct Laws of Affirmative Action
1) All groups are naturally equal in the absence of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.
2) Any differences are due to racism by the White Race (TM) and only the White Race (TM), in particular, religious, rich, conservative straight white males, can cause these differences. For differences between classes, see Karl Marx.
3) Affirmative Action does not require any preferences for any group at any level for any group.
These laws are consistent with any orthodox piece ever written about or defending affirmative action.
Top 10 most stupid defenses of affirmative action
1 – Affirmative Action is not racial preference. But they won’t
tolerate a ban on preferences. And if it’s unfair to not attack
veterans and alumni preferences, then doesn’t that prove that it is
also preferential?
2 – Affirmative Action is not quotas. But the only acceptable
evidence of discrimination is numerical quotas – “minorities are
under-represented”. No other criterion – test scores, grades,
experience are acceptable if they don’t result in diversity.
3 – Affirmative Action does not lower standards of excellence. But
the only standard of excellence that has any value is skin color and
ethnicity. The same people who say that there are no differences in
standards often refer to MINIMAL, not average standards.
4 – Affirmative Action does not admit unqualified people. But it is
admitting lesser qualified people. This is a circular defintion if
you define minimally qualified by the worst person hired. Minimally
is not equally or best qualified.
5 – Affirmative Action is not reverse discrimination. Some cite that
only whites can be racist since only they have power. They say
that it is impossible to discriminate against whites, even if a
program completely excludes whites, or causes whites to be
under-represented. Many admit that affirmative action is preference
for some races, which is by the dictionary defintion, discrimination.
6 – Discrimination still exists. It will always exist. But
discrimination against innocent parties does nothing to eliminate
discrimination against minorities, it only creates more
discrimination, and affirmative action is discrimination sanctioned
by law.
7 – Selection without regard to race amounts to unfair discrimination.
This is the most outrageously and blatant twisting of the word
discrimination, which used to mean selection with race AS a factor.
The definition of discrimination is now unequal outcomes, as opposed
to unequal treatment.
8 – No white man has ever been discriminated against. There are books
and newspapers full of the stuff, but it is rarely reported, and when
it is challenged, they often lose because the courts often rule
discrimination against Whites to be legal.
John writes:
>>>”Just as it’s not true that the only options are “Yale or jail,” it is equally true that one can get a fine education in California and Michigan without attending Berkeley, UCLA, or the University of Michigan.”
Then what was Jennifer Gratz’ crying about?
E,
How many times do you intend to cut and paste the SAME rebuked points from this Dr. Hu character? It’s almost comical at this point.
–Cobra
The essence of diversity programs is that people of different groupings (well, select different groupings) have different attitudes and approaches to various activities and areas of endeavor.
Multiculturalism is not compatible, therefore, with th idea that unless there is an across the board statistical match there is evidence of racism. And someone who claims to be a multiculturalist but who also insists on percentage quotas is not thinking seriously.
Cobra,
You are the joke! Hu’s points haven’t been rebuked, certainly not by you! His points are GOOD STUFF.
Hey Cobra,
Have you forgotten about this Arthur Hu article or are you unable to read and comprehend it?????
http://www.nationalreview.com/15sept97/hu091597.html
AMERICA’S SCHOOLS
EDUCATION AND RACE
The performance of minority students in affluent areas refutes the prevailing educational shibboleths.
ARTHUR HU Mr. Hu is a writer living in Kirkland, Washington..
DESEGREGATION is at a crossroads. As many analysts are declaring the integration experiment a failure, Harvard’s desegregation guru, Gary Orfield, keeps telling us that minority education could be fixed if only we desegregated more. Educators and the media routinely slam city schools for poor minority performance while holding up affluent suburban districts as models because of their better test scores. Yet, if Orfield is right that segregated districts don’t produce equal outcomes, no one has answered the more important question, which is whether “integrated” districts produce equal outcomes.
Oddly, while the courts have used inequality as the justification for busing, Orfield himself notes in his 1991 book The Closing Door that there isn’t much direct evidence that busing creates more equality. Almost as a footnote, he concedes that you would have to examine data broken down by race within mixed districts to prove that busing actually resulted in better performance for minorities.
After some cursory research — a few phone calls to local school districts, a ride on the Internet — I tracked down reports that do chart test scores and grades against race, not only in the worst but also in the best districts. The reason that people like Gary Orfield don’t have the numbers is that it’s safer to uphold the myth that minorities will perform as well as their white peers in good suburban schools than to expose the reality that the racial gap exists even in the best suburbs.
Test scores and grades for blacks in integrated urban neighborhoods aren’t any better than those in predominantly minority ghetto areas. Some affluent suburbs did no better than nearby urban areas, and even at the best suburban schools blacks on average lagged behind their white classmates. But a bigger secret is that even the poorest Asians tended to get better grades — if not test scores — than more affluent whites. Asians from poorer suburbs consistently outscored Euro-Americans in nearby more affluent suburbs. For all the talk about the superiority of schools in Japan or Korea, Asian-Americans are also nearly two years ahead in math, just as far ahead of their classmates as students in their ancestral lands are, even when they go to the same schools that fail other American minorities.
In short, predominantly minority schools have low test scores because minorities have lower test scores regardless of the segregation factor, not the other way around. And American schools would match Asian schools if they were dominated by Asian students. Perhaps that chilling reality is the reason that every newspaper I have contacted has chosen to ignore these data.
California’s 1994 CLAS (California Learning Assessment System) test introduced massive multiculturalism and had several questions for which more than one answer was counted as correct. Yet nobody noticed that elementary-school blacks and Hispanics did just as poorly in predominantly minority areas of Oakland, East Palo Alto, and Alum Rock as in legally integrated San Francisco. At Grade 10, only 10 to 15 per cent of black students got 3 or better in math whether they went to integrated San Francisco, the segregated communities of Contra Costa County, Oakland, or Silicon Valley’s Santa Clara County. Asians continue to stampede into Cupertino, home of the founders of Apple Computers, because of its excellent schools. But US News (April 21, 1997) highlighted the poor performance of blacks there, and they lagged the state average on the CLAS.
Meanwhile, the Asians of the Chinatown ghettos in San Francisco scored as well as children of affluent engineers in Santa Clara County. Asians in Santa Clara County scored as well as whites in posh San Ramon Valley or Cupertino. Asians in Cupertino scored as well as whites in Palo Alto, the best district in the Bay Area. Blacks in San Ramon Valley scored no better than state average for all races, while Asians there outscored every other race and community.
The Seattle Times annually slams Seattle’s math scores (just the 50th-percentile for Washington as a whole) compared to suburban Bellevue’s 67th-percentile performance, and highlights the race gap as an urban problem. But broken down by race, whites score at about 67 in either city, but blacks score worse in Bellevue, at 34 compared to 40 for Seattle. Seattle has an “African-American Academy,” but its test scores are virtually indistinguishable from the city average. Suburban inequality is much the same at nearby Issaquah (41) and Redmond (35), even though there are no minority ghettos in the suburbs, and there has never been any news coverage of racial differences in performance there.
Seattle is one of the few cities where Asians are so poor and white parents so highly educated that white students score better even in math. But Asians still have the highest grade-point average in the city. In the suburbs, Asian 8th-graders score 74 in 59th-percentile blue-collar Renton, hopping rungs over whites in 67th-percentile Bellevue. Asians in Bellevue score 82, equal to top-ranked Mercer Island’s 83. Asians in Mercer Island score an astounding 90, not far below the average at the best Lakeside private school.
Meanwhile, nobody ever asks in print why fourth-graders in nearly all-white (but poor) Edmonds or Mukilteo scored only 34 to 44, as badly as Seattle’s blacks. Nobody ever demanded that they be bused into richer school districts to remedy this inequity.
The Boston Globe also offered no explanation why black students who entered the Metco voluntary busing program from Boston with 50th-percentile scores didn’t score as well as their new suburban classmates in 88th-percentile Newton. Yet the whites from working-class Revere or Brockton have an SAT average of 411 — near the national black average. No Italian-American Revere youth dripping with gold chains and roaring upon his ’82 firebird could expect that sending him to Newton for four years would turn him into Ivy League material. Yet the Harvard gurus remain mystified.
Fairfax County near Washington, D.C., has a 569 (1996) SAT math average, good enough for the University of California at Riverside. But Fairfax’s black average of 465 isn’t any better than “Can’t we just get along” Los Angeles. The black suburb of Prince George’s County is among the top 30 per cent of U.S. counties in average household income. The school district proudly claims that its black students perform as well as their “counterparts” throughout the state — but that’s only their black counterparts. Measured by Maryland’s MSPAP (Maryland School Performance Assessment Program) test, it ranks as 22 of 24 districts in the state.
It is widely accepted that test scores increase with family income. However, SAT breakdowns for 1995 show that even the most affluent blacks, from families with incomes over $70,000, have average scores of 426, lagging behind whites or Asians from families with incomes under $10,000. But Asians from families with incomes under $10,000 have average scores of 482, ranking them with whites from families making $40,000. And it is not just test scores. Oakland’s poor school system highlighted its low 1.8 black GPA to justify Ebonics. But GPAs aren’t any better in integrated Seattle or San Francisco.
Data books and health surveys all show that even in cities like Seattle, Boston, and San Francisco where the per-capita incomes of Asians are no higher than that of blacks, it is Asians, not whites, who have the best outcomes. The omission of Asians from the local news stories is probably deliberate because their statistics don’t support the thesis that racism and poverty are the reasons for poor outcomes. As much as the activists continue to deplore the model-minority “myth,” except in the most distressed Asian refugee communities, Asians generally have the best grades and test scores; the lowest rates of special and remedial education, dropouts, and expulsion; the highest rates of attendance; and the lowest rates of arrest, teen pregnancy, AIDS, and substance abuse.
If civil rights can be measured by affirmative action, multiculturalism, and desegregation, then they have massively succeeded in almost every urban school district in the country. Compared with Asians, blacks in California are at or near parity among teacher hires, college faculty, staff, and principals, and they are twice as well represented among superintendents. American history books now look like African-American history books, even casting revolutionary sailors as blacks, while Asians are all but completely absent from indexes. Yet these nifty educational strategies have utterly failed to raise black grades and test scores.
Last year, with little fanfare, Lawrence Steinberg, B. Bradford Brown, and Sanford Dornbusch released a new book, Beyond the Classroom that offered a very different explanation from the standard “racism and poverty” for why different groups perform differently in school. “Of all the demographic factors we studied in relation to school performance, ethnicity is the most important . . . In terms of school achievement, it is more advantageous to be Asian than to be wealthy, to have non-divorced parents, or to have a mother who is able to stay at home full time.” They found that no matter which school they looked at, Asians got the best grades and test scores, and blacks and Hispanics the worst. The problem was not the schools, but the attitudes and habits of the students themselves. The underachievers didn’t fear failure, didn’t study as hard, skipped class more often, and blamed their failures on racism. The overachievers didn’t tolerate failure, hung out with overachievers, spent the most time studying, and attributed their success to individual effort.
IRONICALLY, it is an even darker secret that blacks and Hispanics can succeed solely on the basis of merit. Brian D. Ray, President of the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI) did a study that shows that minority home-schoolers are in the 80th- to 85th-percentile of home-schooling students.
There are formal schools where blacks and Hispanics do well, too. The December 2, 1995, Economist highlights the Barclay Elementary School in Baltimore. It adopted a severe prep-school curriculum and zero-tolerance approach toward spelling mistakes to get suburban-level 60th-percentile scores in a city where failure is the norm. Seattle’s Zion private school boasts test scores above average with a largely black student body. The story of how Jaime Escalante fashioned a class of Advanced Placement calculus whiz kids out of a barrio school was made into a movie.
Whitney Young Magnet High in Chicago rivals many suburban schools. With a student body that is mostly black or Hispanic, it ranks above the 99th percentile among state high schools in 8th- and 10th-grade math and writing, and has ACT (American College Testing) averages that make it the equal of Asian-dominated Lowell in San Francisco. The best SAT scores in Georgia aren’t in a rich white suburb, but at Davidson Fine Arts Magnet in Richmond with a 42 per cent black student body, near an Army Signal Corps base.
At the college level, Martin Vaern Bosangue of Mt. San Antonio Community College near Los Angeles found that black and Hispanic students who took a calculus workshop and studied more hours than whites and Asians who started with higher SAT math scores wound up getting better grades than even the Asians.
Economic and race-based interventions have never been shown to achieve the equality that was set as their justification in the first place. After all, the numbers that matter are not the percentage of blacks on the staff or in the classroom, but grade point average, reading and math test scores, and hours spent on homework and attendance. As Thomas Sowell and Lawrence Steinberg observe, if students of all races worked equally hard, their disparate rates of success and failure would plausibly lead to explanations based on, on the one hand, racism and poverty, or, on the other hand, innate superiority or inferiority. When they differ on every measure of effort, what else would you expect?
How many times do you intend to cut and paste the SAME rebuked points…?
Aaah, irony. I have a theory that racists exhibit self-delusion disproportionately and often to psychpathic levels. Much evidence here.
mj said, “Aaah, irony. I have a theory that racists exhibit self-delusion disproportionately and often to psychpathic levels. Much evidence here.”
Hey mj, THERE ARE TOO MANY ASIANS!
Please read:
http://www.discriminations.us/2007/11/a_new_yellow_peril.html
A New “Yellow Peril”
NOTE: This post has been updated with two ADDENDA, one internal and one at the end.
For those of you who’ve never encountered the term, “yellow peril” is a racial epithet applied to Asian immigrants. Wikipedia defines it pretty well:
Yellow Peril (sometimes Yellow Terror) was a color metaphor for race that originated in the late nineteenth century with immigration of Chinese laborers to various Western countries, notably the United States, and later to the Japanese during the mid 20th century due to Japanese military expansion. The term refers to the skin color of East Asians, and the belief that the mass immigration of Asians threatened white wages and standards of living.
Today the insulting term has virtually disappeared from political discourse, but an ironic argument can be made — indeed, as you might have guessed, I’m about to make it — that it should be revived, albeit with considerably different and more positive connotations. If the entire edifice of racial preference is demolished, that demolition will in all likelihood owe as much to this new “yellow peril,” the increasing criticisms of race and ethnic preferences by Asian-Americans, as to the legal arguments of groups like the Center for Individual Rights, the policy arguments of groups like the Center for Equal Opportunity, and the sheer drive and organizing skill of Ward Connerly and his small staff.
I have referred to Asian-American resistance to racial preferences many times before. My very last post, in fact, mentions criticism of similar Canadian programs by the Asian Pacific Post. I discussed some of these old and ongoing complaints here, and have pointed out a number of times that when racial preferences in admissions are eliminated the proportion of admitted whites stays the same or actually declines while the proportion of Asians increases dramatically, as I noted here:
… the racial group most affected by the ending of race preferences in California is whites: their proportion of entering freshmen [in the University of California] fell from 40% in 1997 to 34% in 2005. Two minority groups saw their proportion of entering freshmen increase: Asians, whose proportion rose from 37% in 1997 to 41% in 2005; and Latinos, who rose from 13% to 16%. The proportion of blacks fell from 4% in 1997 to 3% in 2005.
[ADDENDUM: As I discussed here, a recent study published in the Social Science Quarterly found that “if preferences based on race, legacy status, and athletic talent were all done away with, Asian-American enrollment would jump 40 percent (while white enrollment would drop by 1 percent).”]
I have the impression — so far it is no more than that the pace and volume of Asian-American opposition to racial preference policies may be increasing. If so, an article reported earlier this week in the New York Post, “In ‘Wrong’ Minority,” may be a harbinger of things to come.
November 19, 2007 — Three Chinese parents in Brooklyn are expected to file a federal lawsuit today challenging a popular city-run tutoring program on the grounds it discriminates against Asians, The Post has learned.
The Specialized High School Institute preps gifted but “underrepresented” minorities to ace the competitive exam to get into top city high schools like Stuyvesant or Brooklyn Tech.
But the parents say it is unfair — and illegal — for the Department of Education to limit eligibility to blacks and Latinos.
“The program only selects certain kinds of minorities and unfortunately my daughter didn’t fall into that category,” said Peggy Foo-Ching, 47, a mom from Bensonhurst who said her 12-year-old daughter’s application last year was ignored.
….
A Department of Education internal memo obtained by lawyers trying the case indicated that eligibility criteria excludes whites and Asians.
“What this memo reveals is blatant and categorical discrimination by race. If you are white or Asian, you’re not supposed to get an application,” said Christopher Hajec, an attorney with the Center for Individual Rights, a conservative advocacy group.
“It’s not the business of the government of New York City to be counting up the Asians or whites in, say, Stuyvesant High School and concluding there are too many of them.”
Also, please read,
http://leverett.harvard.edu/showcase/jenny-tsai.pdf
“Too Many Asians at this School”:
Racialized Perceptions and Identity Formation
An Essay Presented
by
Jenny Tsai
to
The Committee on Degrees in Social Studies
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for a degree with honors
of Bachelor of Arts
Harvard College
From Ms. Tsai’s Introduction:
My thesis investigates the origins of the perception that there are “too many Asians” in magnet public high schools….
This question grew out of my own personal experience. I attended Hunter College High School (HCHS), a magnet high school in New York City. My entering class in 1997 was 30 percent Asian, but the incoming class when I was a senior in 2003 was over 50 percent Asian. During my senior year, the view emerged among both the students and the principal was that there were too many Asian students, to the detriment of the school.1 The school’s 2003 curricular review had a sub-committee devoted to HCHS’s admissions process. The main concern of the admissions sub-committee was to determine the school’s success in educating the brightest young talent in New York City. After comparing the demographic of the primarily white and Asian student body with that of New York City as a whole, the sub-committee deemed that the current admissions process unsatisfactory. Suggestions for improvement focused on ways to increase diversity at HCHS. Proposals included eliminating automatic admissions from Hunter College Elementary School, capping high school admissions per district in New York City, increasing the percentage of low-income students, which was hen at 10 percent, and increasing outreach to underrepresented neighborhoods.
The Chinese Parent Teacher Association reacted negatively to the proposal of capping the number of students by district, as many of the Asian students were from three or four neighborhoods in Queens—Flushing, Forest Hills, Bayside, and Fresh Meadows. They argued that the proposals would directly target the number of Asian students…. Discussions revealed that students from a variety of racial backgrounds felt that the increasing percentage of Asian students at the school threatened the culture of the school. HCHS prided itself on being a school that fostered student leadership through a plethora of student clubs, sports teams, and artistic groups. Students attested that the growing Asian student population had detracted from the creativity and independence that had defined HCHS’s activity scene as the Asian students focused primarily on their academic studies. Those Asian students who were active in extracurricular activities were perceived to be disingenuous. Students felt that Asian students knew how to manipulate the college admissions committees, but lacked passion for the activities they participated in.
Sounds like déjà vu (or déjà Jew) all over again.
READ MORE BY CLICKING ON THE LINKS PRESENTED ON THE THREAD!
mj writes:
>>>”Aaah, irony. I have a theory that racists exhibit self-delusion disproportionately and often to psychpathic levels. Much evidence here.”
I think you’re onto something here.
–Cobra
Cobra asid,
“I think you’re onto something here.”
Cobra, I think you are hallucinating again.
BTW, LET’S GO NY GIANTS!
E writes:
>>>”Cobra, I think you are hallucinating again.
BTW, LET’S GO NY GIANTS!”
I MUST be hallucinating, indeed. The NY Giants have AFRICAN-AMERICAN players on their roster, most of whom were accepted to college. According to “E-theory”, those players “certainly” didn’t DESERVE to go to college, and “certainly” kept a more deserving Asian student from attending that school.
How can you sit there and CHEER for the same African-Americans, who in all likelihood, you were against just a few short years ago?
–Cobra
Cobra,
“How can you sit there and CHEER for the same African-Americans, who in all likelihood, you were against just a few short years ago?”
Cobra, you are simply a racist through and through as exemplified by your racist statements. Plain and simple. You just happen to be African American.
People of your ilk come in all colors and skin hues, including white, yellow, different shades of brown and EVEN PURPLE!
E,
Didn’t YOU write this…
>>>”ADDENDUM: As I discussed here, a recent study published in the Social Science Quarterly found that “if preferences based on race, legacy status, and athletic talent were all done away with, Asian-American enrollment would jump 40 percent (while white enrollment would drop by 1 percent).”]”
…and didn’t most of the Division I football players who now play for the New York Giants enjoy the same admission “preferences” for athletics in college that you decry?
You see, you’re not the first person to post a WHOLE LOT of material on Discriminations. And you’re CERTAINLY not the first person whose arguments I’ve picked apart with their own words.
–Cobra
Cobra said,
E,
Didn’t YOU write this…
“ADDENDUM: As I discussed here, a recent study published in the Social Science Quarterly found that “if preferences based on race, legacy status, and athletic talent were all done away with, Asian-American enrollment would jump 40 percent (while white enrollment would drop by 1 percent).”]”
…and didn’t most of the Division I football players who now play for the New York Giants enjoy the same admission “preferences” for athletics in college that you decry?
You see, you’re not the first person to post a WHOLE LOT of material on Discriminations. And you’re CERTAINLY not the first person whose arguments I’ve picked apart with their own words
============================
Cobra,
You are hallucinating again. You are confused. You have not pick apart any of my arguments. You do not have the capacity to understand the points of argument that I had made.
You are flinging horse manure again. You don’t know how to read and YOU SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
Cobra, you have absolutely NO CREDIBILITY AT ALL. I agree with the other poster, when he said that you are OBTUSE.
YOU ARE CONSTANTLY FLINGING HORSE MANURE.
Are you SERIOUS?? Are you for real??
Please click on the commentary on the study by Espenshade at Princeton.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S11/80/77I23/index.xml?section=topstories
Removing consideration of race would have little effect on white students, the report concludes, as their acceptance rate would rise by merely 0.5 percentage points. Espenshade noted that when one group loses ground, another has to gain — in this case it would be Asian applicants. Asian students would fill nearly four out of every five places in the admitted class not taken by African-American and Hispanic students, with an acceptance rate rising from nearly 18 percent to more than 23 percent. Typically, many more Asian students apply to elite schools than other underrepresented minorities. The study also found that although athletes and legacy applicants are predominantly white, their numbers are so small that their admissions do little to displace minority applicants. The authors based their work on models previously developed in a 2004 study where they looked at more than 124,000 elite university applicants’ SAT scores, race, sex, citizenship, athletic ability and legacy in combination with their admission decision. This more recent study honed in on more than 45,000 applicants. Both studies are part of the multidimensional National Study of College Experience, which is funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.
Here is the link to the Princeton study. This is the complete paper from Princeton U., “The Opportunities Cost of Admission Preferences at Elite Universities”, by Espenshade (Chair of Sociology at Princeton) and Chung,
http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/tje/espenshadessqptii.pdf
Asian American applicants are the ones who lose with the use of race preferences in admissions. Whites don’t forfeit spaces for race based AA favoring blacks and Latinos. Asian Americans are being punished and discriminated against in this process. This is independent of the use of the legacy and athletic preference for whites because this study corrected for this. Asian Americans have much lower admit rates based on their race because they are the only non-preferred group in admissions and are discriminated against based on their race alone.
“You see, you’re not the first person to post a WHOLE LOT of material on Discriminations. And you’re CERTAINLY not the first person whose arguments I’ve picked apart with their own words.”
I love these declarations of victory that you post, Cobra. This is one of your funniest, and silliest, tactics.
I have to admit that E, whatever else he does, rivals you for sheer tonnage of text. Perhaps we should just count words and declare a winner.
Cobra said,
E,
Didn’t YOU write this…
“ADDENDUM: As I discussed here, a recent study published in the Social Science Quarterly found that “if preferences based on race, legacy status, and athletic talent were all done away with, Asian-American enrollment would jump 40 percent (while white enrollment would drop by 1 percent).”]”
…and didn’t most of the Division I football players who now play for the New York Giants enjoy the same admission “preferences” for athletics in college that you decry?
You see, you’re not the first person to post a WHOLE LOT of material on Discriminations. And you’re CERTAINLY not the first person whose arguments I’ve picked apart with their own words
============================
Cobra,
You are hallucinating again. You are confused. You have not pick apart any of my arguments. You do not have the capacity to understand the points of argument that I had made.
You are flinging horse manure again. You don’t know how to read and YOU SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
Cobra, you have absolutely NO CREDIBILITY AT ALL. I agree with the other poster, when he said that you are OBTUSE.
YOU ARE CONSTANTLY FLINGING HORSE MANURE.
Are you SERIOUS?? Are you for real??
Please click on the commentary on the study by Espenshade at Princeton.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S11/80/77I23/index.xml?section=topstories
Removing consideration of race would have little effect on white students, the report concludes, as their acceptance rate would rise by merely 0.5 percentage points. Espenshade noted that when one group loses ground, another has to gain — in this case it would be Asian applicants. Asian students would fill nearly four out of every five places in the admitted class not taken by African-American and Hispanic students, with an acceptance rate rising from nearly 18 percent to more than 23 percent. Typically, many more Asian students apply to elite schools than other underrepresented minorities. The study also found that although athletes and legacy applicants are predominantly white, their numbers are so small that their admissions do little to displace minority applicants. The authors based their work on models previously developed in a 2004 study where they looked at more than 124,000 elite university applicants’ SAT scores, race, sex, citizenship, athletic ability and legacy in combination with their admission decision. This more recent study honed in on more than 45,000 applicants. Both studies are part of the multidimensional National Study of College Experience, which is funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.
Here is the link to the Princeton study. This is the complete paper from Princeton U., “The Opportunities Cost of Admission Preferences at Elite Universities”, by Espenshade (Chair of Sociology at Princeton) and Chung,
http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/tje/espenshadessqptii.pdf
Asian American applicants are the ones who lose with the use of race preferences in admissions. Whites don’t forfeit spaces for race based AA favoring blacks and Latinos. Asian Americans are being punished and discriminated against in this process. This is independent of the use of the legacy and athletic preference for whites because this study corrected for this. Asian Americans have much lower admit rates based on their race because they are the only non-preferred group in admissions and are discriminated against based on their race alone.
E writes:
>>>”Asian Americans are being punished and discriminated against in this process. This is independent of the use of the legacy and athletic preference for whites because this study corrected for this. Asian Americans have much lower admit rates based on their race because they are the only non-preferred group in admissions and are discriminated against based on their race alone.”
But BEFORE E writes:
>>>”[ADDENDUM: As I discussed here, a recent study published in the Social Science Quarterly found that “if preferences based on race, legacy status, and athletic talent were all done away with, Asian-American enrollment would jump 40 percent (while white enrollment would drop by 1 percent).”]
You’re posting CONTRADICTORY statements, now E.
You were AGAINST Athletic Preferences before you were FOR them.
Or are you only SELECTIVELY for Athletic Preferences in college when they wind up being draft picks for the New York Giants?
Given the paucity of Asian-Americans on the current New York Giants roster (and NO, Tiki Barber’s retired, so his Asian-American wife doesn’t count), I would still like to know how you could cheer for the New York Giants…a team full of “COLLEGE ATHLETIC PREFERENCE babies!”
–Cobra
PS- Well, I guess we’ll all soon find out what team Dr. Hu roots for, right?
Cobra you are so full of horse manure, that your comments don’t deserve reply.
You do not have the capacity to understand points.
Again, you have no credibility by misquoting my posts.
You can say and do as you wish, but your posts prove that you are “OBTUSE”.
Cobra sai,
>>>”[ADDENDUM: As I discussed here, a recent study published in the Social Science Quarterly found that “if preferences based on race, legacy status, and athletic talent were all done away with, Asian-American enrollment would jump 40 percent (while white enrollment would drop by 1 percent).”]
==============================
You are full of horse manure. “E” did not write this. Here you are twisting and turning, and SPINNING!
You are simply full of HORSE MANURE.
Hey Cobra,
READ THIS CAREFULLY, IF YOU ARE ABLE TO READ.
Quote from:
http://www.nationalreview.com/15sept97/hu091597.html
AMERICA’S SCHOOLS
EDUCATION AND RACE
The performance of minority students in affluent areas refutes the prevailing educational shibboleths.
[Economic and race-based interventions have never been shown to achieve the equality that was set as their justification in the first place. After all, the numbers that matter are not the percentage of blacks on the staff or in the classroom, but grade point average, reading and math test scores, and hours spent on homework and attendance. As Thomas Sowell and Lawrence Steinberg observe, if students of all races worked equally hard, their disparate rates of success and failure would plausibly lead to explanations based on, on the one hand, racism and poverty, or, on the other hand, innate superiority or inferiority. When they differ on every measure of effort, what else would you expect?}
Hey, Cobra, “WHAT ELSE DO YOU EXPECT?”
There should be no great mystery about Asian achievement. It has to do with hard work and dedication to higher education, and belonging to a culture that stresses professional success.