quotas against asian americans in the admissions system

[yoMAMA]

so, we have all heard of it, and finally here's some coverage on the national media.

thoughts?


---------------------------------------------------------------

washingtonpost.com
Quotas for Asian Americans? Yes and No

By Jay Mathews
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 25, 2005; 10:12 AM

Asian American applicants to selective colleges appear to be at a disadvantage. Nationally, they have the highest average SAT scores, and yet many African American and Hispanic students with lower scores and grades are accepted to Ivy Leagues schools while high-performing Asian American students are rejected even when their families are similarly poor and undereducated.

My Oct. 12 column ("Should Colleges Have Quotas for Asian Americans?") discussed this, and I assumed it would attract little comment. Unfairness to that relatively small minority group is almost never mentioned by major news organizations. Outspoken advocates for change, like New Jersey physician Ed Chin who inspired the column, are few in number and mostly ignored.

But I was wrong. The e-mails poured in, obliging me to share the surprising reaction I received to this overlooked aspect of the affirmative action issue.

As Chin noted, the percent of African American and Hispanic students in selective college freshman classes is often higher than the percent of applicants from that group, while the opposite is true of Asian Americans. In 2001, 20.3 percent of applicants to Brown University's class of 2005 were Asian American, but only 16 percent of the acceptances were. The percent of white applicants and acceptances was about the same, 66 percent, while African Americans comprised 9 percent of the acceptances and only 6 percent of the applicants, and Hispanics had 9 percent of the acceptances and only 7.1 percent of the applicants.

Chin is of Chinese descent, and was raised in New York City by low-income, immigrant parents. I thought I would hear from many Asian Americans who supported Chin, while other readers would be skeptical. But I was wrong. Readers of Asian descent were as divided on the issue as everyone else. The clash of race and class, of fairness and equity in this particular debate is so complex that nobody seems to have a predictable reaction, which is fine with me.

Virginia Y. Kim, for instance, is a lawyer in Chicago who grew up in an affluent, suburban Cleveland Korean-American family with what she called "the traditional Asian education ethos." She said she has heard complaints like Chin's all her life and her response has always been, "Who said life was fair?"

Huy N. Tran, a San Jose State University student of Vietnamese descent, said he thought it was wrong for Chin to suggest that other cultures do not value education as much as Asian American cultures do. "I have met students of all different cultures who take a full load of classes and work several jobs to pay for their education," he said.

Anne Soh, a Korean-American Wellesley graduate, said she agreed with Chin that "it is theoretically unfair that there is a quota at the top schools that works against Asians." But she said she would not want to attend a college that dispensed with the affirmative action race-balancing policies that Chin and others find so distasteful because she wants a chance to get to know many people different from her. "To grossly generalize for a minute, Korean Americans in the U.S., and I can be blunt because I am one of them, are entirely two-dimensional and rigid," she said. "All they know is studying and test taking and lessons and Ivy Leagues. . . . While they deserve to be evaluated and admitted based upon the same criteria as everyone else, I also wouldn't choose a school that was made up 100 percent of them. Even if it was Harvard."

On Chin's side, however, was Arun Mantri, who was born in India and has children at a very selective public school, the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Fairfax County. He said it was wrong that high-quality Asian students at that school were being rejected by top colleges. "Their chances would improve dramatically if race was not used as a factor in admissions, perhaps at the cost of the white applicants, something that only a few selective schools have dared to do," he said.

Also supporting Chin's argument was a member of one of the minority groups that tends to get more of a break in college admissions than Asian Americans do. Paul Grandpierre described himself as "a first generation Haitian American from a really poor family who managed to graduate law school." He said he thought affirmative action was better than doing nothing about the "inclination of the human heart to rationalize superficial differences into fundamental differences." But, he said, "I agree with Mr. Chin that today, affirmative action should focus on the poor and not merely on blacks. . . . I can tell you that from my experience that being poor presented more powerful obstacles to my unlikely ascent than being black."

Chin also had support from non-Hispanic white readers. Jeff Werthan said it was paternalistic and patronizing for me to suggest that "a hard-working and brilliant Asian student and his or her family . . . should be satisfied with the other admittedly good schools out there if they are otherwise deserving of admission to Harvard or Yale."

A white reader, who declined to let me use his name because he does not want to offend the university that employs him, said his experience as an admissions officer confirms Chin's sense of unfairness. "What scares the top colleges is what their campuses might look like, racially speaking" if they followed Chin's suggestion and rejected middle-class African American and Hispanic students in favor of higher-scoring, low-income Asians. They fear, he said, "the sort of intense heat they'd take for the presumed drop in 'diversity.'"

Chin's argument does, however, rest upon sophisticated analysis of test scores and a willingness to emphasize averages, rather than the many individual cases that do not support his point. Many readers saw that as a weakness.

Mike Martin, a research analyst with the Arizona School Boards Association, warned Chin against putting so much weight on test scores in determining who is being discriminated against, particularly when looking at the narrow band at the very top of the SAT scale. "So if you accidentally mismark a question, or misconstrue a question, only one question, you could drop out of the 1600 club," he said. "In W. Edward Deming's preaching about corporate management he warned about making decisions based on differences that were within normal variation."

Michael J. McCabe, whose children have attended the challenging D.C. private school, St. Anselm's Abbey, noted that white kids are also rejected by selective colleges for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of their applications. His older son graduated in the top five of his high school class, had a 1470 SAT, was an Eagle Scout, captain and founder of the school's Science Bowl team and co-captain of its "It's Academic" team. Yet he was rejected by Dartmouth, Rice and the University of Virginia. McCabe thinks U-Va. had reached its quota for students from D.C. private schools, not an unreasonable theory given the way such colleges fill their classes.

So now, McCabe said, his son is thriving academically at Carnegie Mellon, but he and his roommate, who is from China, often complain about "the large proportion of Asians in the engineering and computer programs and the limited interaction they have with students of different socioeconomic backgrounds."

Most of the people who responded to the column appeared sympathetic, however, to Chin's view that colleges should make less of race in their admissions decisions and look more closely at family income. A student who had overcome difficult circumstances to compile an impressive high school record was likely to appreciate what a great university had to offer.

If the system is to change, and worthy Asian American students are to get what they deserve, they are going to need more advocates than just Ed Chin and the few other civil rights and admissions experts who have raised these issues. Shellye McKinney, a former college admissions officer, said that "affirmative action was created because people fought for it" and those who think it is hurting students of Asian descent are going to have to struggle in the same way to make themselves heard.

As I usually tell Chin when he rails against the American media in general and me in particular for not giving his concerns enough attention, there has to be dramatic evidence of support for his thinking before editors and news directors will get interested. Street demonstrations, boycotts, major conferences, bills in Congress -- all those things would help.

The press tends to pay attention to those who are shouting the loudest, and so far the people Chin is trying to help have been very quiet.

© 2005 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive

part 1 of the article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26499-2004Oct12.html)

[nola]

A white reader, who declined to let me use his name because he does not want to offend the university that employs him, said his experience as an admissions officer confirms Chin's sense of unfairness. "What scares the top colleges is what their campuses might look like, racially speaking" if they followed Chin's suggestion and rejected middle-class African American and Hispanic students in favor of higher-scoring, low-income Asians. They fear, he said, "the sort of intense heat they'd take for the presumed drop in 'diversity.'"Nice dodge, anonymous white boy. What he's really saying is his campus would be alarmed if there were more chinks than he already has there.

[VV o n g B a]

The press tends to pay attention to those who are shouting the loudest, and so far the people Chin is trying to help have been very quiet.too true. but what position to take? if we are conflicted ourselves about the issue, how can we shout loudly?

[nola]

We're not really confliced about the issue.

[sOKaLiBoY]

i'd say just get rid of the quotas all together. why not have just the best students in college?

[kimpossible]

So now, McCabe said, his son is thriving academically at Carnegie Mellon, but he and his roommate, who is from China, often complain about "the large proportion of Asians in the engineering and computer programs and the limited interaction they have with students of different socioeconomic backgrounds."


why is this a problem? they make the grades, they finish the program, they pay their tuition. it's four years that ideally should be for getting all the knowledge and experience you can wring out from the program. i have yet to meet an engineer that wasn't basically holed up in the lab for four years. it's a tough program that requires many all-nighters.

school is hardly a reflection of society at large anyhow. at the very least you're on a campus full of people on their way to a degree, or those who have graduate, phDs, etc. to really mix with a 'diversity' of people get any McJob with the primary function of working with the general public.

[nola]

It'd be so Asian like I hear Berkeley is now.

[SunWuKong]

So now, McCabe said, his son is thriving academically at Carnegie Mellon, but he and his roommate, who is from China, often complain about "the large proportion of Asians in the engineering and computer programs and the limited interaction they have with students of different socioeconomic backgrounds."

err... yeah... i graduated from Carnegie Mellon. a white college friend of mine once commented that the school was filled with Asian people... yet at the time the school was only about 13% Asian.

sorry, i don't really have sympathy for CMU students that complain about the lack of diversity. the school is situated inside the city of Pittsburgh, not in some suburbs in the middle of nowhere. CMU nerds don't find diversity because they don't seek it and would rather stick with other nerds doing nerdy things.

i mean, what are they really expecting? easy girls and wild parties amongst a bunch of engineering students? no matter what colour, black, white, Asian, etc. i haven't met one computer science guy at CMU that wasn't nerdy.

[hooligan]

Wow, welcome to the 1980s. Yeah, there's been this weird quota for APIAs in colleges, it can't be proven, but a lot of active APIA professors know that its there. There is a huge lack of data.

[Meki]

i'd say just get rid of the quotas all together. why not have just the best students in college?

Well by that statement then the upper class will always have the advantage and that is what affirmative action is trying to work against. It is not only for racial diversity but also social diversity, since statistically minorities are mainly the ones in the lower income households. For instance, people who attend a private school will have a better overall education versus those who attend public schools. Schools are ranked by what programs are implemented and the overall average tests scores of the students. So let say that someone from a poor neighborhood had the best scores and was the top of their class but if his grades are averaged out with the rest of the students and their test scores were low then the school would get a low ranking. On top of that, if this school did not provide a variety of electives then that would also put the students at a disadvantage because colleges look for the most well rounded student and not just test scores. It also is a matter of quality. Let’s face it, most lower class public schools don’t have the best education out there. So while the upper class student is attending a private school and is learning calculus from one of the top professors in the profession, the lower class student is learning via the under paid teacher that is most likely regurgitating information out of a book. Put that same student from the lower income household in the private school and that student would most likely excel without the restrictions of a publicly funded school. All I’m saying is all education is not equal so to say removing quotas all together so the best students have a shot is not a fair statement because the lower income student could have been one of the best students given the opportunity. So until our society has more of a level playing field, I do not believe affirmative action should be abolished.

[deez nuts]

uhm you kinda know something is wrong when the interviewers from harvard, princeton, yale, u penn, columbia and mit all either indirectly said stuff like like "your chances of acceptance won't be hurt because you're asian" or some shit like that.

if they didn't mention it during the interview, it was mentioned in the college brochure that they handed to me that there is no quota on admitting asians.

in the case where the interviewer casually mentioned it to me during the interview, i didn't even ask about it. i mean what the hell? so i'm gonna take a wild guess and say there is a quota on admitting asians. i might've been a young high school kid. but, i wasn't that naive.

[Craig]

Admitting people on merit would never work in the USA. In this society, the good schools are considered 'good' because that's where the old school rich white people (with connections) are at. Academics have never been the primary concern.

[kimpossible]

Nice dodge, anonymous white boy. What he's really saying is his campus would be alarmed if there were more chinks than he already has there.

I read it a little differently. I took it to mean that because it would be less 'middle-class African American and Hispanic students in favor of higher-scoring, low-income Asians' the 'drop in diversity' would mean the college would not have its favored assortment pack of minorities to keep its so-called diversity.

That's kind of a weird take on affirmative action though. Why is it minority versus minority? Why not less middle-class European Americans in favor of higher-scoring, low-income Asians?

Whatever the case, I think it's stupid and xenophobic to have an artificial cap in place on Asian American admissions.

[sOKaLiBoY]

Well by that statement then the upper class will always have the advantage and that is what affirmative action is trying to work against. It is not only for racial diversity but also social diversity, since statistically minorities are mainly the ones in the lower income households. For instance, people who attend a private school will have a better overall education versus those who attend public schools. Schools are ranked by what programs are implemented and the overall average tests scores of the students. So let say that someone from a poor neighborhood had the best scores and was the top of their class but if his grades are averaged out with the rest of the students and their test scores were low then the school would get a low ranking. On top of that, if this school did not provide a variety of electives then that would also put the students at a disadvantage because colleges look for the most well rounded student and not just test scores. It also is a matter of quality. Let’s face it, most lower class public schools don’t have the best education out there. So while the upper class student is attending a private school and is learning calculus from one of the top professors in the profession, the lower class student is learning via the under paid teacher that is most likely regurgitating information out of a book. Put that same student from the lower income household in the private school and that student would most likely excel without the restrictions of a publicly funded school. All I’m saying is all education is not equal so to say removing quotas all together so the best students have a shot is not a fair statement because the lower income student could have been one of the best students given the opportunity. So until our society has more of a level playing field, I do not believe affirmative action should be abolished.

you do have a valid point about the public school/private school comparison. However, AA does not make things fair either. A lower class asian-american or caucasian does not get the benefit as other minorities do. Take my good friend for example. He's hapa and was the valedictorian at our high school. Which was a public school in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Very crappy district IMO. Anyways, he scored 1480 on his SAT and had a 4.3 GPA. Did he get in to Berkeley? Yes. Did he get into UCLA? No. Why is it that he was the best student in the class but could not get in? Because of AA.

I've always felt that it's unfair that two specific ethnic races have been discriminated because of their color. Yes it might be unfair for the other minority races because of the lack of elite education. But you shouldn't discriminate against the people that have been fortunate. There is nothing stopping students from going to a community college/state college and transferring to a more prestigious university.

Yes maybe all of this will be worked out one day. I hope so. But AA is not the right way.

[nola]

Focus of economic diversity instead of racial.

Focus on grades which are based on effort and not tests which favor rich whites.

[Meki]

you do have a valid point about the public school/private school comparison. However, AA does not make things fair either. A lower class asian-american or caucasian does not get the benefit as other minorities do. Take my good friend for example. He's hapa and was the valedictorian at our high school. Which was a public school in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Very crappy district IMO. Anyways, he scored 1480 on his SAT and had a 4.3 GPA. Did he get in to Berkeley? Yes. Did he get into UCLA? No. Why is it that he was the best student in the class but could not get in? Because of AA.

I've always felt that it's unfair that two specific ethnic races have been discriminated because of their color. Yes it might be unfair for the other minority races because of the lack of elite education. But you shouldn't discriminate against the people that have been fortunate. There is nothing stopping students from going to a community college/state college and transferring to a more prestigious university.

Yes maybe all of this will be worked out one day. I hope so. But AA is not the right way.

I never said that affirmative action was perfect or fair but you stated that students that have been more fortunate should not be penalized for being so. In that case do you feel that students that have been less fortunate should have to settle for attending a lesser college or university? They also did not have a choice in what social class they where brought up in.

I attended a university in which the federal court barred affirmative action and the only ones that benefited from it were Asian Americans. The admissions percentage of all other races fell, including whites and especially, in the Hispanic community. The university is in Texas so with the huge number of Hispanics, there should have been an increase in the percentage of Hispanic students and not a decrease. Unfortunately, the Hispanic community is statistically in one of the lowest income brackets. How is it fair to penalize Hispanics for circumstances of which they did not choose?

By all means, I do not think that affirmative action is the best solution but I also do not know of a way to resolve these issues that would appease all races and all social classes. I’ve seen first hand what the effect of barring affirmative action has. It is also unfair for only one race to benefit from barring the implementation of some kind of system. Until we do find a solution where it would be beneficial to all races and social classes we should not remove the only system we have.

[hooligan]

you do have a valid point about the public school/private school comparison. However, AA does not make things fair either. A lower class asian-american or caucasian does not get the benefit as other minorities do. Take my good friend for example. He's hapa and was the valedictorian at our high school. Which was a public school in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Very crappy district IMO. Anyways, he scored 1480 on his SAT and had a 4.3 GPA. Did he get in to Berkeley? Yes. Did he get into UCLA? No. Why is it that he was the best student in the class but could not get in? Because of AA.

I've always felt that it's unfair that two specific ethnic races have been discriminated because of their color. Yes it might be unfair for the other minority races because of the lack of elite education. But you shouldn't discriminate against the people that have been fortunate. There is nothing stopping students from going to a community college/state college and transferring to a more prestigious university.

Yes maybe all of this will be worked out one day. I hope so. But AA is not the right way.

Is this recently because Affirmative Action has been dismantled in the UC system since the mid-1990s.

It has to be for both, because if we don't focus on race, it's as though race doesn't really exist. There are elements of racism in the UCs and to deny that they don't have an affect on admissions is just as good as denying there is any racism. Although, I do believe that we need to focus on economic diversity as well. Some of the people that I know who most deserve to get their higher education are from the lower to low-middle class.

[sOKaLiBoY]

Is this recently because Affirmative Action has been dismantled in the UC system since the mid-1990s.

It has to be for both, because if we don't focus on race, it's as though race doesn't really exist. There are elements of racism in the UCs and to deny that they don't have an affect on admissions is just as good as denying there is any racism. Although, I do believe that we need to focus on economic diversity as well. Some of the people that I know who most deserve to get their higher education are from the lower to low-middle class.

AA might be gone but they have found a way around the system.

UC's new policy allows a minimum of 50 percent of all admissions to be solely based on academic achievement, a change from the current policy, which allows anywhere from 40 to 60 percent at each school. The remaining 60 to 40 percent are admitted because of race, special talents, athletic ability and other special circumstances.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affirmative Action Is Alive, Well, and Illegal at the University of California
Written by Patrick Mattimore
Tuesday, June 08, 2004

The words persistent and stubborn both mean perseverance or refusing to yield in the face of obstacles. However, whereas persistent normally has positive overtones, stubborn quite often is used negatively. Someone who is obstinate is dogged and resolute but in a decidedly unreasonable way. Pack stubbornness and obstinance into a college admissions policy and you will have some sense of the degree to which the admissions committee at the University of California has become intractably entrenched over the policy of affirmative action.

Not in name of course. Affirmative action has been illegal at public universities in California since the voters passed Proposition 209 in 1996.

But social admissions’ engineers in California have never quite accepted defeat. In 2001, the University of California Board of Regents approved a modern version of affirmative action, labeling it comprehensive review.

According to a radio interview last November with Berkeley’s director of Undergraduate admissions, Pam Burnett, the policy allows Berkeley to look beyond just an applicant’s grade point average and test scores. Now why would they want to do that?

Ms. Burnett explained that comprehensive review affords
admissions’ officers a chance to consider an ''expanded definition of merit.'' Officials make subjective judgments as to what students ''might contribute to the diversity and vitality of the student body.'' That sounds an awful lot like race-based admissions!

The Burnett criteria get fuzzier as she describes how it is important to consider the ''whole student'' and examine the ''context of achievement.'' She criticized the SAT I because the test score merely reflects what you have done on a particular day and doesn’t reflect achievement over time.

That assessment runs contrary to the evidence. A study published in May by the American Psychological Society concluded that the SAT I is mainly a test of general intelligence and cites prior research supporting the relationship between academic achievement and general intelligence.

There is over a 200-point difference on the SAT I between the typical black student who enters college and her white counterpart. Lower academic qualifications surely contribute to a higher college dropout rate among black students. The New York Times reported recently that 54% of African-American students fail to graduate within six years.

A former director of admissions at Berkeley, Bob Laird, a proponent of affirmative action, candidly admitted in an article he wrote in 2002 for the Chronicle of Higher Education, that ''the most effective way to increase the enrollment of underrepresented minorities is through thoughtful affirmative-action policies.'' Unfortunately, laments Laird, those policies are illegal.

Laird believes that the various surrogates for race-based admissions, such as comprehensive review criteria which give preferences for low income or for students from specific high schools, violate Proposition 209, and are therefore illegal as well.

Here’s a radical idea to chew on. The most competitive UC schools should select students who are not diverse, but who are academically similar, i.e. the best and the brightest. Berkeley and UCLA have no business in the ''making allowances for (fill in the blank with appropriate hardship or race)'' game. Leveling the playing field does not level students in any event, but merely highlights the differences between them.

There are plenty of spots at less competitive UC campuses for qualified minority applicants. Minority admissions at UC campuses have actually increased since 1996. What has happened is that admissions at some of the less competitive UC schools, such as Riverside, have offset declines at the more competitive colleges. When the new campus at UC--Merced opens, that trend will increase even more.

Berkeley and the other University of California colleges should abolish the comprehensive review policy which has perpetuated racial preferences and is therefore contrary to the majority will and the law.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comprehensive Review

University of California campuses that have more qualified freshman applicants than spaces available use a process called comprehensive review to ensure that each application is fairly and thoroughly evaluated.

The process allows campuses to use all of the information in an application to assess a student’s academic and personal achievements in light of the educational opportunities available and how the student responded to them.

Each student’s records are analyzed not only for grades and test scores – important baseline indicators of academic potential – but also for accomplishments beyond the classroom that illustrate qualities such as leadership, intellectual curiosity and initiative. These qualities play an important role in student success in an academic environment as rigorous and challenging as that of UC, and can be demonstrated through a variety of achievements and experiences.

Each application is given the same thorough reading by one or more evaluators who draw on 14 criteria for selecting freshman students:

1. High school grade point average in UC-required courses
2. Standardized test scores
3. Number of, content of and performance in academic courses completed beyond the University’s minimum eligibility requirements
4. Number of, and performance in honors and AP courses
5. Being identified as “eligible in the local context” by ranking in the top 4 percent of the high school class, as determined by the University’s academic criteria
6. Quality of the senior year program, as measured by the type and number of academic courses in progress or planned
7. Quality of academic performance relative to educational opportunities available in the applicant's school
8. Outstanding performance in one or more academic subject areas
9. Outstanding work in one or more special projects in any academic field
10. Recent marked improvement in academic performance
11. Special talents, achievements, and awards in a particular field, or experiences that demonstrate unusual promise for leadership or ability to contribute to the intellectual vitality of the campus
12. Completion of special projects that offer significant evidence of an applicant’s special effort and determination or that may indicate special suitability to an academic program on a specific campus
13. Academic accomplishments in light of an applicant’s experiences and circumstances, such as disabilities, low family income, first generation to attend college, need to work, disadvantaged social or educational environment, difficult personal and family situations or circumstances, refugee status or veteran status
14. Location of the applicant’s secondary school and residence, to provide for geographic diversity in the student population and to account for the wide variety of educational environments existing in California

All campuses use the same selection criteria to evaluate applications; however, the weight of each factor and the specific evaluation process differ from campus to campus.

Students who demonstrate strong academic performance and have challenged themselves to the best of their ability and circumstances will continue to receive the highest priority in admissions.

Contact:
Strategic Communications
UC Office of the President
1111 Franklin St., 12th floor
Oakland, CA 94607-5200
(510) 987-9200

I never said that affirmative action was perfect or fair but you stated that students that have been more fortunate should not be penalized for being so. In that case do you feel that students that have been less fortunate should have to settle for attending a lesser college or university? They also did not have a choice in what social class they where brought up in.

I attended a university in which the federal court barred affirmative action and the only ones that benefited from it were Asian Americans. The admissions percentage of all other races fell, including whites and especially, in the Hispanic community. The university is in Texas so with the huge number of Hispanics, there should have been an increase in the percentage of Hispanic students and not a decrease. Unfortunately, the Hispanic community is statistically in one of the lowest income brackets. How is it fair to penalize Hispanics for circumstances of which they did not choose?

By all means, I do not think that affirmative action is the best solution but I also do not know of a way to resolve these issues that would appease all races and all social classes. I’ve seen first hand what the effect of barring affirmative action has. It is also unfair for only one race to benefit from barring the implementation of some kind of system. Until we do find a solution where it would be beneficial to all races and social classes we should not remove the only system we have.


Things cannot get better unless the education system can be fixed starting in elementary school. But my other point is that the the less fortunate can go to a community college and work up to a 4 year university.

It's unfair with or without some form of AA. Someone always gets screwed either way

[Chu Chi]

I say cut the three Black students and the 3 "Latino" students and give the 6 open spots to Asians with high SATs.

Then the racists will be forced to state "whats wrong with Asians" because they will be the only non white people on campus.


CC

[kimpossible]

what?

[hooligan]

AA might be gone but they have found a way around the system.

UC's new policy allows a minimum of 50 percent of all admissions to be solely based on academic achievement, a change from the current policy, which allows anywhere from 40 to 60 percent at each school. The remaining 60 to 40 percent are admitted because of race, special talents, athletic ability and other special circumstances.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affirmative Action Is Alive, Well, and Illegal at the University of California
Written by Patrick Mattimore
Tuesday, June 08, 2004

The words persistent and stubborn both mean perseverance or refusing to yield in the face of obstacles. However, whereas persistent normally has positive overtones, stubborn quite often is used negatively. Someone who is obstinate is dogged and resolute but in a decidedly unreasonable way. Pack stubbornness and obstinance into a college admissions policy and you will have some sense of the degree to which the admissions committee at the University of California has become intractably entrenched over the policy of affirmative action.

Not in name of course. Affirmative action has been illegal at public universities in California since the voters passed Proposition 209 in 1996.

But social admissions’ engineers in California have never quite accepted defeat. In 2001, the University of California Board of Regents approved a modern version of affirmative action, labeling it comprehensive review.

According to a radio interview last November with Berkeley’s director of Undergraduate admissions, Pam Burnett, the policy allows Berkeley to look beyond just an applicant’s grade point average and test scores. Now why would they want to do that?

Ms. Burnett explained that comprehensive review affords
admissions’ officers a chance to consider an ''expanded definition of merit.'' Officials make subjective judgments as to what students ''might contribute to the diversity and vitality of the student body.'' That sounds an awful lot like race-based admissions!

The Burnett criteria get fuzzier as she describes how it is important to consider the ''whole student'' and examine the ''context of achievement.'' She criticized the SAT I because the test score merely reflects what you have done on a particular day and doesn’t reflect achievement over time.

That assessment runs contrary to the evidence. A study published in May by the American Psychological Society concluded that the SAT I is mainly a test of general intelligence and cites prior research supporting the relationship between academic achievement and general intelligence.

There is over a 200-point difference on the SAT I between the typical black student who enters college and her white counterpart. Lower academic qualifications surely contribute to a higher college dropout rate among black students. The New York Times reported recently that 54% of African-American students fail to graduate within six years.

A former director of admissions at Berkeley, Bob Laird, a proponent of affirmative action, candidly admitted in an article he wrote in 2002 for the Chronicle of Higher Education, that ''the most effective way to increase the enrollment of underrepresented minorities is through thoughtful affirmative-action policies.'' Unfortunately, laments Laird, those policies are illegal.

Laird believes that the various surrogates for race-based admissions, such as comprehensive review criteria which give preferences for low income or for students from specific high schools, violate Proposition 209, and are therefore illegal as well.

Here’s a radical idea to chew on. The most competitive UC schools should select students who are not diverse, but who are academically similar, i.e. the best and the brightest. Berkeley and UCLA have no business in the ''making allowances for (fill in the blank with appropriate hardship or race)'' game. Leveling the playing field does not level students in any event, but merely highlights the differences between them.

There are plenty of spots at less competitive UC campuses for qualified minority applicants. Minority admissions at UC campuses have actually increased since 1996. What has happened is that admissions at some of the less competitive UC schools, such as Riverside, have offset declines at the more competitive colleges. When the new campus at UC--Merced opens, that trend will increase even more.

Berkeley and the other University of California colleges should abolish the comprehensive review policy which has perpetuated racial preferences and is therefore contrary to the majority will and the law.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comprehensive Review

University of California campuses that have more qualified freshman applicants than spaces available use a process called comprehensive review to ensure that each application is fairly and thoroughly evaluated.

The process allows campuses to use all of the information in an application to assess a student’s academic and personal achievements in light of the educational opportunities available and how the student responded to them.

Each student’s records are analyzed not only for grades and test scores – important baseline indicators of academic potential – but also for accomplishments beyond the classroom that illustrate qualities such as leadership, intellectual curiosity and initiative. These qualities play an important role in student success in an academic environment as rigorous and challenging as that of UC, and can be demonstrated through a variety of achievements and experiences.

Each application is given the same thorough reading by one or more evaluators who draw on 14 criteria for selecting freshman students:

1. High school grade point average in UC-required courses
2. Standardized test scores
3. Number of, content of and performance in academic courses completed beyond the University’s minimum eligibility requirements
4. Number of, and performance in honors and AP courses
5. Being identified as “eligible in the local context” by ranking in the top 4 percent of the high school class, as determined by the University’s academic criteria
6. Quality of the senior year program, as measured by the type and number of academic courses in progress or planned
7. Quality of academic performance relative to educational opportunities available in the applicant's school
8. Outstanding performance in one or more academic subject areas
9. Outstanding work in one or more special projects in any academic field
10. Recent marked improvement in academic performance
11. Special talents, achievements, and awards in a particular field, or experiences that demonstrate unusual promise for leadership or ability to contribute to the intellectual vitality of the campus
12. Completion of special projects that offer significant evidence of an applicant’s special effort and determination or that may indicate special suitability to an academic program on a specific campus
13. Academic accomplishments in light of an applicant’s experiences and circumstances, such as disabilities, low family income, first generation to attend college, need to work, disadvantaged social or educational environment, difficult personal and family situations or circumstances, refugee status or veteran status
14. Location of the applicant’s secondary school and residence, to provide for geographic diversity in the student population and to account for the wide variety of educational environments existing in California

All campuses use the same selection criteria to evaluate applications; however, the weight of each factor and the specific evaluation process differ from campus to campus.

Students who demonstrate strong academic performance and have challenged themselves to the best of their ability and circumstances will continue to receive the highest priority in admissions.

Contact:
Strategic Communications
UC Office of the President
1111 Franklin St., 12th floor
Oakland, CA 94607-5200
(510) 987-9200




Things cannot get better unless the education system can be fixed starting in elementary school. But my other point is that the the less fortunate can go to a community college and work up to a 4 year university.

It's unfair with or without some form of AA. Someone always gets screwed either way

Actually, if you look at the data, even without AA and with comprehensive review the amount of people of color are dropping. I think the amount of poor people are dropping as well. Well, if someone has to be screwed why not those born into privilege? Why do the less privileged always have to pay?

[sOKaLiBoY]

Actually, if you look at the data, even without AA and with comprehensive review the amount of people of color are dropping. I think the amount of poor people are dropping as well. Well, if someone has to be screwed why not those born into privilege? Why do the less privileged always have to pay?


I just think it's wrong for someone to be handed an opportunity because of their color or background. I also think it's wrong for someone to have that opportunity taken away because of their color. With AA, the privileged get screwed. Without, the lower class get screwed. Neither are right.

[thaite]

it's all part of a vast white conspiracy to divide the minority class!@

[Tao]

i've made up my mind, AA is unfair in my opinion

[Chu Chi]

it's all part of a vast white conspiracy to divide the minority class!@


Too late, they are already divided.

Thats what makes them MINORities.


CC

[bluemonq]

ahem

Main Entry: mi·nor·i·ty
Pronunciation: m&-'nor-&-tE, mI-, -'när-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Usage: often attributive
1 a : the period before attainment of majority b : the state of being a legal minor
2 : the smaller in number of two groups constituting a whole; specifically : a group having less than the number of votes necessary for control
3 a : a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment b : a member of a minority group <an effort to hire more minorities>

i thought we were minorities because in recent times (the past few decades) there have been always more white people than any other group. but i could be wrong about that.

you know what's really silly? all this talk about aa. it's closing the barn door after the horses have left. for those of you who've never heard that metaphor, it's putting on a condom after you've had sex. if any aa is going to happen, it should happen at the primary and secondary school levels. personally, i think there should be some sort of program for private universities, some sort of "adopt-a-school" thing, essentially creating funnel schools. the catch? they have to choose from a prepared list which is populated by underfunded/mismanaged schools. after things have been improved a bit, they moved on to another set of schools. the incentive? they get higher priority for research funding. remember that at many prestigious universities, their claim to fame is lots and lots of financial resources for prospective professors to utilize. so, if you don't adopt a school, you pushed a bit lower on the ladder. this would impact more heavily to private universities than public, since many public university systems already have outreach programs and the like.

[yoMAMA]

ahem

i thought we were minorities because in recent times (the past few decades) there have been always more white people than any other group. but i could be wrong about that.

you know what's really silly? all this talk about aa. it's closing the barn door after the horses have left. for those of you who've never heard that metaphor, it's putting on a condom after you've had sex. if any aa is going to happen, it should happen at the primary and secondary school levels. personally, i think there should be some sort of program for private universities, some sort of "adopt-a-school" thing, essentially creating funnel schools. the catch? they have to choose from a prepared list which is populated by underfunded/mismanaged schools. after things have been improved a bit, they moved on to another set of schools. the incentive? they get higher priority for research funding. remember that at many prestigious universities, their claim to fame is lots and lots of financial resources for prospective professors to utilize. so, if you don't adopt a school, you pushed a bit lower on the ladder. this would impact more heavily to private universities than public, since many public university systems already have outreach programs and the like.


very good point.

[Chu Chi]

ahem

i thought we were minorities because in recent times (the past few decades) there have been always more white people than any other group. but i could be wrong about that.

.

Bluemong, I think the confusion is rooted in an inadequate definition of "minority". The definition you are using is a numerical one. You need one which reveals power dynamics based in FUNCTION, i.e SAYING and DOING.

A smaller number of people who understand and never divert from their ultimate goal will alway be more powerful than a larger number of people who have various ultimate goals .

On this planet, White people may have disagreements with each other, but they "shake hands" when it comes to race.
They may speak different languages, they may eat different foods...but when it comes to race; they are on the same page.

Non white people have no equivalent "agreement" with each other because we lack a word and definition to describe something BETTER than race.

We lack a better concept.

In numerical terms, White people are a MINORity on this planet.

But interms of FUNCTION (saying and doing) they are an effective MAJORity.

They have something more powerful than numbers,

they have a concept.

CC

[Yeahman]

ahem

i thought we were minorities because in recent times (the past few decades) there have been always more white people than any other group. but i could be wrong about that.

you know what's really silly? all this talk about aa. it's closing the barn door after the horses have left. for those of you who've never heard that metaphor, it's putting on a condom after you've had sex. if any aa is going to happen, it should happen at the primary and secondary school levels. personally, i think there should be some sort of program for private universities, some sort of "adopt-a-school" thing, essentially creating funnel schools. the catch? they have to choose from a prepared list which is populated by underfunded/mismanaged schools. after things have been improved a bit, they moved on to another set of schools. the incentive? they get higher priority for research funding. remember that at many prestigious universities, their claim to fame is lots and lots of financial resources for prospective professors to utilize. so, if you don't adopt a school, you pushed a bit lower on the ladder. this would impact more heavily to private universities than public, since many public university systems already have outreach programs and the like.
What exactly would they be doing for their adopted schools?

But seriously guys, am I the one that has to defend AA here? What's happening to leftyworld.org? But then again support for AA is a libertarian position. Or least opposition to its ban.

I'm actually undecided on the issue. Is it unfair? About as unfair as jury selection. It isn't the motive or goal that I have a problem with, it's the individual end results. AA affects the future earnings of the prospective students so it ends up being a discrimination of wages.

[kitty]

wow... talk about an oversimplification of affirmative action in this thread.

just to throw it out there: there's no guarantee that high test scores will get you into a school. universities have realized that a student with great test scores doesn't necessarily mean that he or she will have what it takes to be a good student -- an academic environment doesn't thrive on having a bunch of eggheads but requires diversity in its student body -- like having a debate where everyone is white and middle-class, there are some perspectives that will be ignored.

admissions people take into consideration the kind of environment they want for their school: racial, gender diversity to ensure their general dedication to educating all kinds of people and not just those who can afford a good secondary school education. they also take into consideration well rounded people who do more than just study, to ensure that the extracurricular life of students at their schools does well -- a school will suffer if all the students do nothing but study because there will be no one introducing elements to the student body that has nothing to do with courses. after all, universities realize that a good portion of learning happens outside the classrooms, and schools are supposed to be preparing you for life, not just cramming your heads full of knowledge.

sokaliboy, you and your friend have the wrong idea about schools and aff. action. there is no guarantee in this world -- having good test scores does not guarantee you a spot in a university, nor do they guarantee you anything in real life. affirmative action didn't "take your spot" because it wasn't "your" spot to begin with. your friend may not have gotten into UCLA for many reasons, including the fact that minority enrollment has decreased since the UC schools ended aff. action. But also, your friend may not have had a good essay, good recommendations, or any good extracurricular activities.

there are no quotas: aff. action is basically saying "if there's a tie, we assume, given that the playing field isn't even, that the underprivileged minority worked harder to earn the scores that got him to tie with a privileged white student". other forms of choosing in the "tie" pile is to say "this person plays the trumpet, AND he worked hard enough to get a tie with someone who didn't. let's accept the guy who plays the trumpet because he's a hard worker, and because having a trumpet player indicates that this guy is more well-rounded". to argue against aff. action is to argue that racism or oppression does not exist in the world. it's also to argue that academia is not benefited by diversity of backgrounds and perspectives.

sure it seems unfair to those who fall into the privileged category. but america is unfair to the underprivileged.

[SunWuKong]

But then again support for AA is a libertarian position. Or least opposition to its ban.

it is? last time i read any libertarian literature, it was advocating that people should have the right to discriminate based on race, or based on anything else for that matter, as far as employment or college acceptance goes.

[yoMAMA]

wow... talk about an oversimplification of affirmative action in this thread.

just to throw it out there: there's no guarantee that high test scores will get you into a school. universities have realized that a student with great test scores doesn't necessarily mean that he or she will have what it takes to be a good student -- an academic environment doesn't thrive on having a bunch of eggheads but requires diversity in its student body -- like having a debate where everyone is white and middle-class, there are some perspectives that will be ignored.

admissions people take into consideration the kind of environment they want for their school: racial, gender diversity to ensure their general dedication to educating all kinds of people and not just those who can afford a good secondary school education. they also take into consideration well rounded people who do more than just study, to ensure that the extracurricular life of students at their schools does well -- a school will suffer if all the students do nothing but study because there will be no one introducing elements to the student body that has nothing to do with courses. after all, universities realize that a good portion of learning happens outside the classrooms, and schools are supposed to be preparing you for life, not just cramming your heads full of knowledge.

sokaliboy, you and your friend have the wrong idea about schools and aff. action. there is no guarantee in this world -- having good test scores does not guarantee you a spot in a university, nor do they guarantee you anything in real life. affirmative action didn't "take your spot" because it wasn't "your" spot to begin with. your friend may not have gotten into UCLA for many reasons, including the fact that minority enrollment has decreased since the UC schools ended aff. action. But also, your friend may not have had a good essay, good recommendations, or any good extracurricular activities.

there are no quotas: aff. action is basically saying "if there's a tie, we assume, given that the playing field isn't even, that the underprivileged minority worked harder to earn the scores that got him to tie with a privileged white student". other forms of choosing in the "tie" pile is to say "this person plays the trumpet, AND he worked hard enough to get a tie with someone who didn't. let's accept the guy who plays the trumpet because he's a hard worker, and because having a trumpet player indicates that this guy is more well-rounded". to argue against aff. action is to argue that racism or oppression does not exist in the world. it's also to argue that academia is not benefited by diversity of backgrounds and perspectives.

sure it seems unfair to those who fall into the privileged category. but america is unfair to the underprivileged.

yes, I agree.

But why aren't asian americans part of the diversity pool?

you gotta treat all minorities equally, and there's no argument that asian americans are a visible minority.

[kimpossible]

What's happening to leftyworld.org?

In part, your assumption that YW is primarily leftyworld. There's quite a few here that have more 'right' views than you but I think it doesn't manifest for a couple of reasons.

1) They (we, whatever) don't post about it as much as you do. Probably because we focus a bit more on AA issues on YW than our general political views.
2) The issues where we're more righty than you don't come up very much, probably because you apply your religious convictions to your political opinion much more than other (conservative) people do on YW.


Anyhow, that's where I'd say the largest differences are. I'm not 100% sure but I think the people that you debate with are usually the same people.

[SunWuKong]

admissions people take into consideration the kind of environment they want for their school: racial, gender diversity to ensure their general dedication to educating all kinds of people and not just those who can afford a good secondary school education. they also take into consideration well rounded people who do more than just study, to ensure that the extracurricular life of students at their schools does well -- a school will suffer if all the students do nothing but study because there will be no one introducing elements to the student body that has nothing to do with courses. after all, universities realize that a good portion of learning happens outside the classrooms, and schools are supposed to be preparing you for life, not just cramming your heads full of knowledge.

heh, tell that to engineering and science departments. the school can introduce as much diversity it wants, but many students won't have the time to enjoy it anyway.

personally i think diversity is overrated. but i guess that depends on what you're trying to learn. for my part, learning how to program didn't have much to do with whether or not i know people from a variety of backgrounds.

there are no quotas: aff. action is basically saying "if there's a tie, we assume, given that the playing field isn't even, that the underprivileged minority worked harder to earn the scores that got him to tie with a privileged white student". other forms of choosing in the "tie" pile is to say "this person plays the trumpet, AND he worked hard enough to get a tie with someone who didn't. let's accept the guy who plays the trumpet because he's a hard worker, and because having a trumpet player indicates that this guy is more well-rounded". to argue against aff. action is to argue that racism or oppression does not exist in the world. it's also to argue that academia is not benefited by diversity of backgrounds and perspectives.

sure it seems unfair to those who fall into the privileged category. but america is unfair to the underprivileged.

officially there are no quotas in admission. but the school has a limited number of allocated seats for every new freshman year. each applicant that gets accepted means a few other applicants are being rejected.

i don't think affirmative action needs to be eliminated. i just think it needs to be class-based instead of race-based. to argue against affirmative action is not to argue that racism or oppression does not exist. it is to argue that race-based affirmative action is not the solution to racism and oppression. i would even be okay with race-based affirmative action if it is secondary to class-based affirmative action.

[kitty]

i guess whether you're for class-based or race-based would simply depend on whether you think class oppression hurts students more than racial oppression when it comes to education. personally, i think there's enough evidence to support the belief that even in poor schools, black kids receive a poorer education than white students, based largely upon ingrained stereotypes of black vs. white kids in teachers, and the other hardships a minority kid faces by being part of that community, that indirectly contributes to poor access to schools and a proper education.

if you go class-based, i think those racial obstacles would be ignored, because white students still have the edge because of institutionalized racism and white privilege. i would probably agree in having both in effect, but not substituting one for the other.

the reason asians aren't part of the diversity pool is because of the model minority myth. admissions officers assume that becuse asian students tend to achieve higher scores in tests, that they don't need affirmative action. untrue -- first of all, lumping al asians together will greatly disadvantage south asians, hmong, and other poorer asians who don't have access to the education of richer east asians. secondly, asians are still underrepresented minorities in most schools, given that schools for some reason don't distinguish between asian americans and asian international students.

[Yeahman]

it is? last time i read any libertarian literature, it was advocating that people should have the right to discriminate based on race, or based on anything else for that matter, as far as employment or college acceptance goes.
Exactly. Colleges should be allowed to use AA if they want, according to the libertarians.

i guess whether you're for class-based or race-based would simply depend on whether you think class oppression hurts students more than racial oppression when it comes to education.
I think it has more to do with the fact that class oppression (or rather income disadvantage) is, more or less, quantifiable. If we allow AA based on unquanifiable cultural disadvantages then why just race? How about sex, religion, sexual orientation, and physical appearance? Ugly, overweight, white, Wiccan lesbians are oppressed too, no?

if you go class-based, i think those racial obstacles would be ignored, because white students still have the edge because of institutionalized racism and white privilege. i would probably agree in having both in effect, but not substituting one for the other.
Don't you think that AA overcompensates for the problem? Banning institutionalized racism is one thing. Institutionalizing it in reserve is quite another.

[SunWuKong]

the reason asians aren't part of the diversity pool is because of the model minority myth. admissions officers assume that becuse asian students tend to achieve higher scores in tests, that they don't need affirmative action. untrue -- first of all, lumping al asians together will greatly disadvantage south asians, hmong, and other poorer asians who don't have access to the education of richer east asians. secondly, asians are still underrepresented minorities in most schools, given that schools for some reason don't distinguish between asian americans and asian international students.

come on let's be real here. the reason why Asians aren't part of the diversity pool is because Asian students are overrepresented. for those schools where Asians aren't actually overrepresented, they actually make an effort to try to recruit Asian students. i applied to 5 schools when i was a senior in high school, and Bucknell was the only one to send me some brochure about minority students at Bucknell because that school is overwhelmingly filled with rich white kids. the campus has an 18-hole golf course, for crying out loud.

i guess whether you're for class-based or race-based would simply depend on whether you think class oppression hurts students more than racial oppression when it comes to education. personally, i think there's enough evidence to support the belief that even in poor schools, black kids receive a poorer education than white students, based largely upon ingrained stereotypes of black vs. white kids in teachers, and the other hardships a minority kid faces by being part of that community, that indirectly contributes to poor access to schools and a proper education.

not that i'm denying this happens, but is race-based affirmative action the solution? wouldn't it make more sense to implement stricter anti-discrimination policies in K-12 education? the difficulties that poor kids face is that maybe their schools are poor, or they have to work part-time to contribute to the family financially, etc etc. the difficulties that a black kid face in the situation you describe is straight up discrimination.

[kitty]

come on let's be real here. the reason why Asians aren't part of the diversity pool is because Asian students are overrepresented. for those schools where Asians aren't actually overrepresented, they actually make an effort to try to recruit Asian students. i applied to 5 schools when i was a senior in high school, and Bucknell was the only one to send me some brochure about minority students at Bucknell because that school is overwhelmingly filled with rich white kids. the campus has an 18-hole golf course, for crying out loud.


depends. overrepresentation depends on how you do the counting, and while it's possible that asian americans are overrepresented, i highly doubt it. most of the numbers i've seen lump all asians, including international students into one large percentage, and then point to that as a reason why asian americans don't need to be included in the 'diversity pool'...

and i'm fairly sure that hmong, south asian, and other 'lesser known' asian groups (other than the big three) are hugely underrepresented in most higher education schools.


not that i'm denying this happens, but is race-based affirmative action the solution? wouldn't it make more sense to implement stricter anti-discrimination policies in K-12 education? the difficulties that poor kids face is that maybe their schools are poor, or they have to work part-time to contribute to the family financially, etc etc. the difficulties that a black kid face in the situation you describe is straight up discrimination.

does it have to be an either or thing? why can't you have both? especially given that targetting unconscious discrimination of a secondary school teacher is extremely tough. they don't even know they're doing it, but if you stand in the back of the room and watch the teacher's responses or encouragements to kids according to colour, you'll notice a trend in which teacher's are more encouraging to whites, asians and, to a lesser degree, black females. what're you going to do, though? quota how often a teacher can pick a student of a certain race and gender to answer a question?

[bluemonq]

Bluemong

first of all, please address me by my correct name; it is bluemonq, not bluemong (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mong&r=f). it may seem like a small thing, but it's a general matter of respect; i don't think this is the first time.

In numerical terms, White people are a MINORity on this planet.
CC
i don't doubt that statement. however, you've forgotten that in the topic at hand, we're not discussing the entire freakin' planet, but the united states, in which i can assure you that people of non-caucasian descent are in the numerical minority. you're right, non-caucasians all over the world are screwed over lots cause we squabble with each other all the time; "divide and conquer". however, it doesn't change the fact that in this case we're discussing a topic involving NUMBERS in the UNITED STATES.

What exactly would they be doing for their adopted schools?
But seriously guys...
not sure what you meant by that "seriously". they would esentially help with the establishment of curriculum, help a bit with the funding, perhaps train teachers, share invaluable resources such as the library, computing labs, etc. what would they get out of it? somewhat preferential treatment when requesting research funding (this does not mean that they get more money whenever they want, just that if two equal groups are competing for the funds, they get a bit of an advantage; i've heard of worse reasons for ranking a certain app for another), ability to keep tabs on prospective future students, and lots of goodwill from the community. hell, it's not like it would cost any more government money.

[SunWuKong]

depends. overrepresentation depends on how you do the counting, and while it's possible that asian americans are overrepresented, i highly doubt it. most of the numbers i've seen lump all asians, including international students into one large percentage, and then point to that as a reason why asian americans don't need to be included in the 'diversity pool'...

i don't know. international student populations are usually small enough that it doesn't make a sizable difference even if they lump it together with Asian American students. plus, most international students are actually graduate students. either way, it's kind of difficult to say that Asian students aren't overrepresented at the UCs. i'm talking about 30 to 40% Asian, to the best of my knowledge.

[kitty]

oh well, it's possible that the UC schools have a higher stat than over here. from my personal experience, cornell's 'Asian American' stat includes all undergrad and grad students, both foreign and domestic... so it's not a terribly good stat for figuring out whether there's 'overrepresentation'.

[Yeahman]

not sure what you meant by that "seriously". they would esentially help with the establishment of curriculum,
Done by the school board not by the individual schools.

help a bit with the funding,
You mean just give them money? So these universities have to give funding to receive funding? Why not just cut out the middle man?

perhaps train teachers,
In what? Judo?
It's not the teacher's lack of knowledge that's keeping poor urban schools from performing well.

share invaluable resources such as the library, computing labs, etc.
Now this isn't a bad idea. And I know many public universities open their libraries to the public. But honestly, I don't see many poor urban youths at libraries or Barnes & Noble. The problem is with getting them to pick up a book. The entire culture of the school has to change.

I'm more in favor of a big sib program and privatization.

[Chu Chi]

first of all, please address me by my correct name; it is bluemonq, not bluemong (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mong&r=f). it may seem like a small thing, but it's a general matter of respect; i don't think this is the first time.

i don't doubt that statement. however, you've forgotten that in the topic at hand, we're not discussing the entire freakin' planet, but the united states, in which i can assure you that people of non-caucasian descent are in the numerical minority.

.


Sorry Blurmonq, my bad...like Ive said before, Im getting old and the eyes don't work like they used to.

But regarding the topic, You are correct. about this discussion being limited to geographical boundries, and therein lies the key to the power White people have on this planet.

They play the entire chess board,

all at the same time.

There is no "Whiteistan"

There is no "Whitetonia"

They don't limit their power to some "corner of the chess board" like we do.

They put you in a box and paint the sky on the cieling and tell YOU that its the whole world.

Meanwhile, they think in terms of the entire planet.

The results are clear.

CC

[nola]

It's Bluemonq

not Blurmonq, Mr. White Gold. :biggrin:

[SunWuKong]

It's Bluemonq

not Blurmonq, Mr. White Gold. :biggrin:

i'm pretty sure the mispelling is, once again, intentional.

Chu Chi. if you do not spell bluemonq's screenname correctly next time, i will consider that harassment on your part.

oh well, it's possible that the UC schools have a higher stat than over here. from my personal experience, cornell's 'Asian American' stat includes all undergrad and grad students, both foreign and domestic... so it's not a terribly good stat for figuring out whether there's 'overrepresentation'.

here you go:
http://dpb.cornell.edu/irp/pdf/CDS/cds_200405.pdf

for undergraduates...
total nonresident aliens: 971
total APIs: 2,214
total undergrads: 13,625

as stated, international students are only included in the category of nonresident aliens. so currently Cornell's population is about 16% API.

[nola]

There is a strict API quota at these schools usually 15-20% or something.

Sorry I haven't read the whole thread, but I think this is true.

[bluemonq]

Done by the school board not by the individual schools.
*currently* done by the school board. this would essentially make the school involved a temporary charter/magnet school. those aren't the correct terms either, but it's closer than anything else i can think of right now.


You mean just give them money? So these universities have to give funding to receive funding? Why not just cut out the middle man?
no, the main job of the university would not be to give them money; only in certain instances in which the university deems a program it wants to start (say, afterschool classes/tutoring) but can't find the funding would they pay up. and they don't get necessarily get any extra money. it's just a little boost for funding requests when they are in competition with other schools. this does *not* mean that they get more money when they ask for it.


In what? Judo?
It's not the teacher's lack of knowledge that's keeping poor urban schools from performing well.

you're right. there's also a matter of getting the parent(s) involved in their children's education. but i can tell you numerous horror stories concerning unqualified teachers, originating from some of my friends who went to junior highs in oakland.


Now this isn't a bad idea. And I know many public universities open their libraries to the public. But honestly, I don't see many poor urban youths at libraries or Barnes & Noble. The problem is with getting them to pick up a book. The entire culture of the school has to change.
you're certainly right there. there's also an issue of deadwood, even at the individual school level, what with the tenure and strong teacher's union. failure out of inertia rather than malevolence. i'm not sure i like the merit pay system that the governator here in california wants to implement; im also highly annoyed that (the last i heard) bush intends to hold the school systems to the "no child left behind" policy, but hasn't allocated enough money to provide for it.

I'm more in favor of a big sib program and privatization.
that would be good too, though there hasn't been much news from those schools that were run by for-profit companies (edison?) whatever happened to them? i know that a few other, smaller companies were forced to quit the field, due to a lack of substantial profit.

what i'm really thinking about is something that i saw in china; certain universities have high schools "attached", and some high schools have junior highs attached. what this means is that the divisions pool their resources. the university, examining the characteristics of the incoming students, advises the high school to implement certain policies whenever improvements can be made. this may be suggestions on curriculum (perhaps the incoming students from the high school are a bit weak in the sciences) and also reviews the performance of the faculty from time to time. that's sort of what i'm aiming for.

[kasia]

moving to students.