|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Dec 7, 2006 15:36:32 GMT -5
This article examines the effects of California's Proposition 209, 10 years after its passage. Contains, perhaps, some lessons for GU and peer institutions. www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8366426Should be free, but if anyone has trouble with access let me know and I'll post excerpts.
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on Dec 7, 2006 18:10:25 GMT -5
Love the Economist, but sometimes, it just misses.
|
|
tgo
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 816
|
Post by tgo on Dec 12, 2006 11:28:43 GMT -5
what "misses" in this article? very straight forward, almost completely statistical analysis.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2006 11:36:08 GMT -5
what "misses" in this article? very straight forward, almost completely statistical analysis. You can use statistics to prove anything you want, Kent. Forty percent of all people know that.
|
|
tgo
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 816
|
Post by tgo on Dec 12, 2006 12:32:11 GMT -5
i see
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2006 13:34:44 GMT -5
This piece does neglect to make one point: there are more Asians at state schools in California because, well.....there are more Asians in California. I imagine that's a factor...
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on Dec 12, 2006 14:04:45 GMT -5
It "misses" because it reads as if it was a big surprise that Asian American numbers shot up in the CA public universities post 209. Everyone knew this! Also, underrepresented minorities at those same universities are now even less represented...it's a sad state of affairs. Those "outreach" efforts in the high schools are nothing to write home about. The way the Economist describes them, you'd think they were a big success. They are not, and it's depressing.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Dec 12, 2006 14:49:45 GMT -5
The percentage of enrolled Asian-American students skyrocketing in California post-209 may have been easy to predict. However, I don't know if anyone predicted that in Texas our Top 10% Rule (Students in the top 10% of their HS class are given first shot at admission) would have a similar effect. The percentage of Asian students has increased greatly while the percentage of black and Hispanic students has remained roughly the same. Interestingly, the only people who seem to be upset by this this are legislators from urban areas with large black populations and legislators from South Texas who thought Top 10% would benefit their constituents. And at least California is making some effort to improve its worst public schools in conjunction with Rule 209 -- that's something Texas has not done. Anyway, I think the moral of the story here is that when large public universities do away with racial preferences, that doesn't end diversity.
As far as "elite universities on the east coast," as the article puts it, are concerned, what would happen if they collectively put forth their own Rule 209? Would the results be similar? Would such a rule be worthwhile? Should the rule include not only preferences based on race but also preferences based on whether mommy or daddy is an alum? Would schools like GU lose diversity?
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Dec 12, 2006 15:29:58 GMT -5
The percentage of Asian-American applicants skyrocketing in California post-209 may have been easy to predict. However, I don't know if anyone predicted that in Texas our Top 10% Rule (Students in the top 10% of their HS class are given first shot at admission) would have a similar effect. The percentage of Asian students has increased greatly while the percentage of black and Hispanic students has remained roughly the same. Interestingly, the only people who seem to be upset by this this are legislators from urban areas with large black populations and legislators from South Texas who thought Top 10% would benefit their constituents. And at least California is making some effort to improve its worst public schools in conjunction with Rule 209 -- that's something Texas has not done. Anyway, I think the moral of the story here is that when large public universities do away with racial preferences, that doesn't end diversity. As far as "elite universities on the east coast," as the article puts it, are concerned, what would happen if they collectively put forth their own Rule 209? Would the results be similar? Would such a rule be worthwhile? Should the rule include not only preferences based on race but also preferences based on whether mommy or daddy is an alum? Would schools like GU lose diversity? Georgetown is too stubborn to follow the admissions policies of other universities, especially if the move came from the Ivies. That said the current system seems to work well, I don't feel that there are groups here that don't deserve to be here because they got an "unfair" advantage and the student body is diverse (with the exception of the lack of Asians compared to West Coast schools as mentionted in the article)
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Dec 12, 2006 17:53:16 GMT -5
I feel many times the whole story behind "affirmative action" isn't told. That is, the vast majority of debate on the subject comes from "minorities" fighting for affirmative action because it's a way of promoting diversity in college campuses and providing a means of underprivileged students to attend a top university or at the very least, a good school. But, many times, Asian-Americans, while obviously lumped into the category of "minorities" in just about every other method of categorization, don't benefit from affirmative action. In fact, they are dramatically hurt by it. The requirements for Asian-Americans to attend an elite East Coast university, as well as many other schools, are substantially higher than any other race. So while I can't argue against giving under-represented and under-privileged minorities a chance to somewhat level the playing field as far as college admissions is concerned, I also can't argue in favor of screwing Asian-Americans out of admissions into unversities just because as a race, they tend to score better on standardized tests and do better in school than other races.
In the case of California, it's true that the state has a very high Asian-American population. But what you're seeing in the statistics laid out by the Economist is what would happen if affirmative action was wiped out anywhere, not just California. That is, more Asian-Americans would be admitted into schools than before, and they would take the place of "under-represented minorities." Hey, they did well when it came to school and tests. Why should they be punished just because Asians tend to do better on average in the classroom? They shouldn't.
|
|
tgo
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 816
|
Post by tgo on Dec 12, 2006 17:55:40 GMT -5
It "misses" underrepresented minorities at those same universities are now even less represented define your terms. poor people and recent imigrants are underrepresented in universities. should this be addressed through racist policies that benefit people based on their skin color? the population of... california California schools 42% white 34%white 35% hisp 15% hisp 12% asian 41% asian 7% black 7% black white & hispanic are underrepresented is that something we should be upset about? is that because they are white or hispanic? causation is not proven by these statistics. if you want to talk about equality of opportunity then do so, then we can address the lack of access to schools for those in poor communities due to the state monopoly on education and the union's who fight school choice at every turn. that is not the fault or the responsibility of the universities. sounds like you want equality of results, however. going to a good college and getting a good job are the results of many steps along the way, you cant equal the playing field once you have gone through so many steps without making a sham of the entire process, especially when it is uneven for reasons that have nothing to do with race or factors that can be isolated.
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on Dec 12, 2006 18:59:08 GMT -5
Actually, the term "underrepresented minority" is defined by the regions/states/universities. At the University of Hawaii, Asians probably do not constitute an underrepresented minority. At the University of South Carolina, they probably do. So, it is far more complex than most think. Since some are persuaded by the Economist's anti-affirmative action = equality for Asian-Americans argument (a common oversimplification), I encourage you to take a look at a few other (more researched) articles. You might be surprised that many (72% as of 2001) Asian Americans are actually pro affirmative action. "Beyond Self-Interest" is a good start: www.aasc.ucla.edu/aascresources/policy/beyond.pdf. Written by a handful of Asian American Professors, it does an excellent job of providing information on why Asian Americans ARE strongly behind the principles of affirmative action, and tries to discourage people from (wrongfully) using Asians as a "model minority" and wedge in affirmative action discussions.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Dec 12, 2006 19:43:35 GMT -5
Although they are Asian-Americans, I wouldn't take too much from what Asian-Americans living in California have to say about affirmative action. Asian-Americans are far closer to a majority in CA than in any other state in the US. Asians from California typically are less anti-affirmative action than most Asians, but that is to be expected, considering their in-state insitutions don't penalize them for being Asian like many other places. Basically, a "why should we care if we're not affected by it" type deal, as my cousins put it. They can afford to be PC and champion the rights of underrepresented minorities, while their non-CA Asian counterparts cannot.
As an Asian-American who has family and Asian friends living in numerous locations on both on the east and west coasts, I can tell you that no well-informed Asian-American would in his or her right mind favor a system that would make it harder for himself or herself to get admitted into their college of choice.
Here's a personal example. When I was applying to colleges, these are a few observations from my college guidance counselor (at a respected private school), who at the time had served for nearly 15 years as his position and relied heavily on statistics (he was known to carry a large binder to meetings with students which contained all the GPAs and SAT scores of students who applied and were ultimately accepted or denied... for every school). First, I was told as an Asian-American living in NJ, I would have no shot at being accepted into Princeton with my SAT scores, because they were not at least mid 1500s. I was then shown statistical evidence of our HS's students accumulated over decades that backed up that statement. Second, I was told that I would have a tough time getting into any Ivies, mainly because of my race. The binder included stats that backed up that statement as well, as Asians who attended my HS typically needed SAT scores of 100-150 points higher to gain admission to the same colleges as other students from my HS. After admissions for our class had been submitted to the HS in April/May, I was shown the profiles of all students either accepted and denied at all the Ivies, and aside from exceptions (such as legacies, three-sport athletes, etc. which were noted in the binder), it was clear to me that my Asian classmates and I were negatively affected by schools which employ racial preferences in their admissions. The most egregious in my memory was Cornell, in which an Asian classmate and I had the two of the best academic profiles of all of that year's applicants, but several of our classmates with substantially lesser academic profiles (and overall profiles) were accepted while we were both wait-listed. I'm aware that things like extracurriculars, service, and athletics count, and I did them all.
I'm not bitter (obviously, I love GU), but the reality is that being Asian kept me from getting into a lot of schools I would have otherwise gotten into, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has had to deal with that. That is the bottom line.
My parents came to this country with nothing, and they along with many other Asian immigrants worked damn hard to keep their kids in line and hitting the books. And now we're being penalized because of our inherent mentality (which is to work harder to overcome obstacles in life rather than complain about them)? Someone please try to tell me that's fair. No Asian I know thinks it is, regardless of what your statistics say.
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on Dec 12, 2006 20:20:41 GMT -5
To Rock:
I'd take a look at "the Price of Admission," a book written by a WSJ writer who details why it is not affirmative action that is producing the effect you describe, but alumni preferences/athletic scholarships. The book does a pretty good job highlighting the issue.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Dec 12, 2006 20:43:37 GMT -5
Affirmative action for some. Miniature American flags for others.
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on Dec 13, 2006 13:31:08 GMT -5
|
|