Holy Holistic, Batman! It Works!

The new University of California admissions statistics are now out, and UCLA is pleased as punch to announce that the “holistic” system it devised to admit more blacks and Hispanics (and, correspondingly, fewer Asians and whites) actually admitted more blacks and Hispanics and fewer Asians and whites.

The University of California system as a whole released a truck load of data, including the number of admits by ethnicity. Unless I missed it, however, no data was released revealing the ratio of admits to applications by race and ethnicity. That is, from this massive data dump it is still impossible to compare (unless I missed it, in which case someone will quickly set me straight) the percentage of white or Asian applicants who were offered admission to the percentage of black or Hispanic applicants who were offered admission. I wonder why?

Nevertheless, the information contained in this data is sufficient to dispel a number of myths. For example, take a look at this chart showing the freshman admits at each campus of the university system from Fall 1997 (the last class admitted under the racially preferential system barred, in theory, by Prop. 209) through the class just admitted for Fall 2008. It reveals, contrary to what supporters of race preferences argue in each state where they are threatened with extinction by civil rights initiatives, that the number and proportion of “underrepresented minorities” is greater now than it was in 1997 at seven of the nine campuses of the university system (not counting Merced, which did not exist in 1997). At UCLA, along with Berkeley one of the two most selective, the Fall 2008 proportion of “underrepresented minorities” is 19.4%, compared with 21.2% in 1997. At un-holistic Berkeley, the Fall 2008 proportion is 17.7%, compared to 25.2% in 1997.

Now take a look at this chart showing the freshman admits by race and ethnicity for the system as a whole. It may have the most surprising data of all. Again comparing 1997, the last classes admitted under preferential admissions, with Fall 2008, we find the following:

• the proportion of white admits fell from 40.8% to 34.4%

• the proportion of Asian admits rose from 33% to 34%

• the proportion of URM admits rose from 18.6% to 25.1%.

These statistics do raise at least one question they don’t answer: since whites are now 43% of the California population but only 34.4% of the entering freshmen in the University of California system next fall, why are they not categorized as an “underrepresented minority”?

Say What? (3)

  1. Cobra April 18, 2008 at 10:55 pm | | Reply

    John writes:

    >>>”These statistics do raise at least one question they don’t answer: since whites are now 43% of the California population but only 34.4% of the entering freshmen in the University of California system next fall, why are they not categorized as an “underrepresented minority”?”

    Of course, what John NEGLECTS to mention:

    >>>”Whites accounted for 54 percent of California’s population in 1995 and 73 percent of the US population.”

    http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=1262_0_2_0

    So although the White population percentage in California decreased by 11%, White representation in the UC system ONLY decreased 6.4%.

    Whites, by this vantage point are still AHEAD of this game you’re trying to play, John.

    –Cobra

  2. Chetly Zarko April 19, 2008 at 5:29 am | | Reply

    Cobra,

    Am I missing something here, or is that the most immoral and ridiculous argument I’ve ever seen from you.

    Your data point addition proves that in both 1995 and the present whites were under-represented relative to the California population, but you suggest because they’re population fell they’re under-representation should increase even more. It’s like you insist on a communistic sort of race to the bottom — regardless, even your ridiculous math shows that there has been almost no change in RELATIVE WHITE underrepresentation proportional to California’s population.

    In 1995-97 the white attendance was 41% relative to 54% – that’s roughly 80% of the baseline (baseline = 54%). In 2007, it was 34.4% relative to 43%, again close to 80% the baseline (of 43%). Simple law of math and statistics – as a group of percentages becomes smaller, the delta (change) between them must also become smaller. Whatever change there was was within a tiny margin – clearly within a margin of random-ness. In fact, that proves to me there is little real difference (certainly for whites, there is almost no difference) between pre-preference and post-preference policies.

    The sky isn’t falling – the sun won’t go nova – and a black hole won’t suck Earth up if preferences are prohibited.

    In 2007, the white attendance was 34.4 relative

  3. Cobra April 19, 2008 at 9:09 pm | | Reply

    Chetly Zarko writes:

    >>>”Am I missing something here, or is that the most immoral and ridiculous argument I’ve ever seen from you.

    Your data point addition proves that in both 1995 and the present whites were under-represented relative to the California population, but you suggest because they’re population fell they’re under-representation should increase even more. It’s like you insist on a communistic sort of race to the bottom — regardless, even your ridiculous math shows that there has been almost no change in RELATIVE WHITE underrepresentation proportional to California’s population.”

    You wound me, Chetly. Far be it from me to make “immoral and ridiculous” arguments on Discriminations…unless–

    I’m responding in exact measure to John’s argument:

    >>>”Nevertheless, the information contained in this data is sufficient to dispel a number of myths. For example, take a look at this chart showing the freshman admits at each campus of the university system from Fall 1997 (the last class admitted under the racially preferential system barred, in theory, by Prop. 209) through the class just admitted for Fall 2008. It reveals, contrary to what supporters of race preferences argue in each state where they are threatened with extinction by civil rights initiatives, that the number and proportion of “underrepresented minorities” is greater now than it was in 1997 at seven of the nine campuses of the university system (not counting Merced, which did not exist in 1997). At UCLA, along with Berkeley one of the two most selective, the Fall 2008 proportion of “underrepresented minorities” is 19.4%, compared with 21.2% in 1997. At un-holistic Berkeley, the Fall 2008 proportion is 17.7%, compared to 25.2% in 1997.”

    If you’re claiming that John is allowed to use the same statistics to make his “woe be unto White Californians” argument with not a hint of scolding from you, why would you label my contrasting statistical argument as “immoral and ridiculous?”

    Chetly Zarko writes:

    >>>”Whatever change there was was within a tiny margin – clearly within a margin of random-ness. In fact, that proves to me there is little real difference (certainly for whites, there is almost no difference) between pre-preference and post-preference policies.”

    But John Rosenberg writes:

    >>>”These statistics do raise at least one question they don’t answer: since whites are now 43% of the California population but only 34.4% of the entering freshmen in the University of California system next fall, why are they not categorized as an “underrepresented minority”?”

    I will now stand back, and make a clear path for you to scold John, Chetly.

    I might even pop some corn for this.

    –Cobra

Say What?