7 ms·

Isn't this patently obvious that dropping the SAT is entirely about creating pretext for continued discrimination against Asian applicants? In 1996, California

by tokey 4y ago

Isn't this patently obvious that dropping the SAT is entirely about creating pretext for continued discrimination against Asian applicants? In 1996, California repealed affirmative action via Prop 209. At the UC Berkeley and UCLA, considered the 'best' of the UC system, Asians represented 25-30% of the student base. Studies and fear-mongering at the time showed that a repeal of affirmative action would imply that Asians would become 90% of the enrollment based on the admissions factors used. The UC system dismantled its admissions framework, and yet despite moving to a 'softer' framework, Asian enrollment at UC Berkeley rose to 65-70%, which is the case today. Now the ithe same thing happening, but on a national scale, 27 years later. It's about time! The reality is on any quantifiable, OBJECTIVE framework, Asians and to a lesser extent, whites, have been shown to be discriminated against. The only way to sustain this, especially in light of the pending ruling from SCOTUS likely banning affirmative action policies at Harvard et al... is to dismantle any external, objective framework for measuring applicants. Chief Justice Roberts said it plainly: "the only way to end discrimination is to end discrimination." My question is, if you eliminated race - 'banned the box' on applications, what would the outcomes be? Answer is self-evident and that's the true reason the SAT and test scores in general are going away. "a rose by any other name".

kenjackson 4y ago
How could whites be discriminated against if Asians would rise to 90% of the accepted population? There aren’t enough underrepresented minorities at selective all combined to get Asians to 90%. That is most of the pool that Asians would take is from White students. From a pure counting perspective, more whites get in over “more deserving” Asians than any other group (assuming your numbers are accurate). Based on this Whites are the greatest beneficiaries of affirmative action (by numbers), even if blacks are by ratio. There just aren’t enough blacks at these schools to make that much of a difference of scale.
- tokey 4y ago
  I was incorrect about the 65% of Berkeley as Asian. It's 30.6%. Note this is double the percentage as the Ivy League schools - and it's based on a framework that was specifically developed as a way to get around the 1996 ban on affirmative action. I still believe the only explanation for eliminating clear, measurable and quantifiable metrics for university admissions is because universities are looking for discrete ways to continue discriminatory tactics against Asians and to a lesser extent, whites. This is not about legacy admissions practices. "Berkeley diversity statistics show that the enrolled student population at the University of California, Berkeley is composed of individuals who identify as Asian (30.6%), White (25.4%), Hispanic or Latino (16.3%), Two or More Races (5.5%), Black or African American (2.42%), American Indian or Alaska Native (0.139%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders (0.132%), and Other Pacific Islanders (0.132%)."
  - kenjackson 4y ago
    I still don’t see how it’s discrimination against White students. This actually looks more like discrimination against Asians, with Whites being the biggest beneficiary of the discrimination based on the numbers. Blacks get the biggest bump, but it is Whites who “steal” the most spots. It does make me wonder about the marketing of anti-affirmative action. For example you see on social media the kids who posts about their great grades and scores and not getting into the Ivies. The common refrain is that some black kid got their spot due to affirmative action. Although it’s actually more likely, if the applicant is Asian, that it is a white kind who got that spot due to affirmative action. I wonder how public perception changes if they knew that reality?
    - hedora 4y ago
      In the UC system, Asians are the only over-represented group, specifically because they are higher achieving on average. Any effective equity based admissions system will have a similar effect as UC’s old (edit: offensively racist) Asian quotas.
    - bsdetector 4y ago
      > I still don’t see how it’s discrimination against White students. This actually looks more like discrimination against Asians, with Whites being the biggest beneficiary of the discrimination based on the numbers. Because you are looking at it through the lens of total student makeup of certain top universities. If Whites need 100 points higher on SAT than some others, then Whites are being discriminated against. That is, if you remove only the discrimination against Whites then they do better in the current system. If Asians need 200 points higher on SAT and you remove all discrimination then Whites do worse at some top universities than currently. So Whites would be both being discriminated against and for at those certain universities. If you look at the overall college system, there's something like 35% of undergrads that are Black/Hispanic and 5% for Asian so in the overall system Whites net benefit more from no discrimination than Asians do. So you've picked a particular point of view between principled and subjective, global and local, to conclude Whites aren't being discriminated against. Maybe it's worth exploring why.
pmoriarty 4y ago
"any quantifiable, OBJECTIVE framework" The whole contention is that these measures are not objective, and that they're biased in favor of certain groups. You can't just base the core of your argument on the assumption of objectivity when that objectivity itself is what is in question.
- slibhb 4y ago
  If your a priori belief is that every group (however defined) has the same merit then every measure of merit is biased except 1. a coin flip 2. some form of group quotas. Standardized tests are the least-bad way to measure merit. We should try to make them better, not get rid of them.
- vasco 4y ago
  Your argument makes no sense because as the comment you are replying says, when you drop the shenanigans, the universities get full of Asians. If what you say is true, they'd become full of rich people of any race, common denominator being the richest you are the likelier you are to be there. But instead what happens is hard working Asians are admitted. Universities should optimize for the best students.
  - jwilber 4y ago
    No. They mentioned what happens upon dropping affirmative action. Standardized tests still exist.
- rayiner 4y ago
  > The whole contention is that these measures are not objective, and that they're biased in favor of certain groups. And it's a silly contention. The SATs were invented by American WASPs. Yet the group that does extraordinarily well, Asians, are the most recent immigrants to the country, from places that have the least similarities (in terms of language, culture, political knowledge, etc.) to American WASP culture.
  - tptacek 4y ago
lvl102 4y ago
Do you know how many people cheated on the SAT in test centers across Asia? If you knew, you’d not say this. It’s only discriminatory against Asian AMERICANS.
DebtDeflation 4y ago
I'm white, my wife is Asian, our kids will be applying to university over the next couple of years. We've started to have the conversation about which race they will check off on the application. I'm coming to the conclusion that they have to just check white, as this means they will face less discrimination than if they check Asian. This makes me very uncomfortable, and also just seems absurd.
- csa 4y ago
  Let me put your concerns to rest… There are no elite schools that systematically discriminate against Asians. Zero. None. Let me add a few points that counter some folks who think that schools do discriminate against Asians: - Some schools do give preferential treatment to Black and Latino/an applicants. This is not a particularly good look for the schools, imho, but it’s the reality. This is not the same as discrimination against Asians. Not declaring a race or declaring white does not help with this. Note that schools give preferential treatment to many groups (e.g., recruited athletes), and race is just one of them. - I see many folks arguing a case for discrimination based on differences in test scores and grades between different races. If those were the only criteria for admission, then I would agree with them. Like it or not, those are not the only admissions criteria that are used at elite schools. Just because the system isn’t what these folks think it is (or possibly should be), that doesn’t make it racist. - The cases of Stuyvesant and Berkeley having an increase in Asian admissions once rules/laws were changed are accurate. The part that they leave out is that the systems changed (almost) purely to some combination of grades and test scores. So I wouldn’t call this necessarily an improvement in fairness, but it definitely was in increase in transparency and move to a system that seems to be (at least currently) more favorable for Asian applicants. - Note that the lawsuit against Harvard was sponsored by a folks who are anti-affirmative action. This wasn’t some charity move towards Asians. Imho, it was an attempt to use one minority group as a weapon to strike against other minority groups. Note that I think that affirmative action has its flaws, but it’s not the villain many folks make it out to be. - Imho, and this is just my opinion based on many anecdotes, I think that the narrative of “elite schools discriminate against Asians” is often used in Asian American communities by folks who don’t understand or just can’t accept that their kids are not strong applicants in the elite school applicant pool. The argument I most often hear is “… but perfect grades and SAT scores”, and this shows me that they really don’t understand what makes for a strong elite school applicant (e.g., recruited athlete, having done something of impact at a national or international level, etc.). I strongly encourage you not to feed this narrative, especially to your children. There is enough real discrimination against Asians in the US — we don’t need to make up additional sources that aren’t real. Note that this phenomenon is not unique to Asian-Americans — I’ve heard equally incorrect narratives from White folks in the NE corridor that (imho) serve an equivalent function. - To help your kids, familiarize yourself and them with what is evaluated in admissions at the schools they are interested in. As a simple example, Harvard rates applicants on athletics even if they are not a recruited athlete. Also note that 15% of Harvard undergrads are varsity athletes; and something like 35% of white undergrads are varsity athletes (not all recruited, but probably rate 1 or 2 in athletics). Not to push athletics, but I think that a lot of people are surprised by these numbers, and it provides some insight into why some seemingly less qualified students are accepted over “perfect grades and SAT” folks. - The article below provides some good insights into Harvard admissions. I honestly don’t think that they go far enough in explaining how impressive the folks who get 1s in any category actually are. That said, these types it things are good for college applicants and their parents to know, and many don’t. https://veritasessays.org/college-admissions-blog/posts/types-of-students-admitted-to-harvard-requirements https://veritasessays.org/college-admissions-blog/posts/type... - Lastly, note that some schools actually don’t get enough high quality Asian applicants, and they not only get favorable admissions treatment as an underrepresented minority group, but these schools will also throw scholarship money at them like there is no tomorrow. I know of one specific very good (R1) large state school in the Midwest that does this, and I imagine that there are many more. Best of luck to you and your kids. I’m sure they will be fine. Don’t stress about the race issue. Focus on things that actually matter (e.g., location, access to desired major, social fit, etc.).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
opportune 4y ago
Outside of the UC system (which doesn’t have as much emphasis on legacy/donations) I don’t think it’s about anti-Asian discrimination as many might think. I just think Asians are the most adversely affected by non-meritocratic admissions. Legacies and big donors are much more likely to not be Asian. The other well-off white upper class is getting admitted based off all the holistic extracurricular/volunteering/etc bullshit. And there are secret quota systems for other minority (not all racial) groups. Then there are athletes, needing representation across academic disciplines to match teaching capacity, etc. Basically, I think middle class Asians and white people who fit the “high scores, want to study stem” paradigm are just figuring over a very small pie when it comes to selective university admissions. Within this group Asians dominate (because demographically they make up a large portion of high scorers) but outside of it they are not as likely to fit into any of the other admissions buckets. If admissions were based purely on test scores and academic achievement, yes there would be more Asians and less underrepresented groups, but most importantly it would completely shake up which white people get admitted, which is what the admissions system cares most about.
hot_gril 4y ago
In 2021 or so, the UC Berkeley chancellor sent out an email to students and alumni (that's me) cheering an increase to racial diversity in the incoming class following them dropping the SAT requirement. The timing of that change was uncannily close to the failing of Prop 16 in 2020, which would have repealed prop 209 of 1996 and was publicly endorsed by the UC administration. Back to the email, it showed before and after charts. Asian percentage dropped sharply, and all other percentages rose.

by tokey 4y ago

kenjackson 4y ago

How could whites be discriminated against if Asians would rise to 90% of the accepted population? There aren’t enough underrepresented minorities at selective all combined to get Asians to 90%. That is most of the pool that Asians would take is from White students. From a pure counting perspective, more whites get in over “more deserving” Asians than any other group (assuming your numbers are accurate). Based on this Whites are the greatest beneficiaries of affirmative action (by numbers), even if blacks are by ratio. There just aren’t enough blacks at these schools to make that much of a difference of scale.

tokey 4y ago
I was incorrect about the 65% of Berkeley as Asian. It's 30.6%. Note this is double the percentage as the Ivy League schools - and it's based on a framework that was specifically developed as a way to get around the 1996 ban on affirmative action. I still believe the only explanation for eliminating clear, measurable and quantifiable metrics for university admissions is because universities are looking for discrete ways to continue discriminatory tactics against Asians and to a lesser extent, whites. This is not about legacy admissions practices. "Berkeley diversity statistics show that the enrolled student population at the University of California, Berkeley is composed of individuals who identify as Asian (30.6%), White (25.4%), Hispanic or Latino (16.3%), Two or More Races (5.5%), Black or African American (2.42%), American Indian or Alaska Native (0.139%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders (0.132%), and Other Pacific Islanders (0.132%)."
- kenjackson 4y ago
  I still don’t see how it’s discrimination against White students. This actually looks more like discrimination against Asians, with Whites being the biggest beneficiary of the discrimination based on the numbers. Blacks get the biggest bump, but it is Whites who “steal” the most spots. It does make me wonder about the marketing of anti-affirmative action. For example you see on social media the kids who posts about their great grades and scores and not getting into the Ivies. The common refrain is that some black kid got their spot due to affirmative action. Although it’s actually more likely, if the applicant is Asian, that it is a white kind who got that spot due to affirmative action. I wonder how public perception changes if they knew that reality?
  - hedora 4y ago
    In the UC system, Asians are the only over-represented group, specifically because they are higher achieving on average. Any effective equity based admissions system will have a similar effect as UC’s old (edit: offensively racist) Asian quotas.
  - bsdetector 4y ago
    > I still don’t see how it’s discrimination against White students. This actually looks more like discrimination against Asians, with Whites being the biggest beneficiary of the discrimination based on the numbers. Because you are looking at it through the lens of total student makeup of certain top universities. If Whites need 100 points higher on SAT than some others, then Whites are being discriminated against. That is, if you remove only the discrimination against Whites then they do better in the current system. If Asians need 200 points higher on SAT and you remove all discrimination then Whites do worse at some top universities than currently. So Whites would be both being discriminated against and for at those certain universities. If you look at the overall college system, there's something like 35% of undergrads that are Black/Hispanic and 5% for Asian so in the overall system Whites net benefit more from no discrimination than Asians do. So you've picked a particular point of view between principled and subjective, global and local, to conclude Whites aren't being discriminated against. Maybe it's worth exploring why.

pmoriarty 4y ago

"any quantifiable, OBJECTIVE framework" The whole contention is that these measures are not objective, and that they're biased in favor of certain groups. You can't just base the core of your argument on the assumption of objectivity when that objectivity itself is what is in question.

slibhb 4y ago
If your a priori belief is that every group (however defined) has the same merit then every measure of merit is biased except 1. a coin flip 2. some form of group quotas. Standardized tests are the least-bad way to measure merit. We should try to make them better, not get rid of them.
vasco 4y ago
Your argument makes no sense because as the comment you are replying says, when you drop the shenanigans, the universities get full of Asians. If what you say is true, they'd become full of rich people of any race, common denominator being the richest you are the likelier you are to be there. But instead what happens is hard working Asians are admitted. Universities should optimize for the best students.
- jwilber 4y ago
  No. They mentioned what happens upon dropping affirmative action. Standardized tests still exist.
rayiner 4y ago
> The whole contention is that these measures are not objective, and that they're biased in favor of certain groups. And it's a silly contention. The SATs were invented by American WASPs. Yet the group that does extraordinarily well, Asians, are the most recent immigrants to the country, from places that have the least similarities (in terms of language, culture, political knowledge, etc.) to American WASP culture.
- tptacek 4y ago

lvl102 4y ago

Do you know how many people cheated on the SAT in test centers across Asia? If you knew, you’d not say this. It’s only discriminatory against Asian AMERICANS.

DebtDeflation 4y ago

I'm white, my wife is Asian, our kids will be applying to university over the next couple of years. We've started to have the conversation about which race they will check off on the application. I'm coming to the conclusion that they have to just check white, as this means they will face less discrimination than if they check Asian. This makes me very uncomfortable, and also just seems absurd.

csa 4y ago
Let me put your concerns to rest… There are no elite schools that systematically discriminate against Asians. Zero. None. Let me add a few points that counter some folks who think that schools do discriminate against Asians: - Some schools do give preferential treatment to Black and Latino/an applicants. This is not a particularly good look for the schools, imho, but it’s the reality. This is not the same as discrimination against Asians. Not declaring a race or declaring white does not help with this. Note that schools give preferential treatment to many groups (e.g., recruited athletes), and race is just one of them. - I see many folks arguing a case for discrimination based on differences in test scores and grades between different races. If those were the only criteria for admission, then I would agree with them. Like it or not, those are not the only admissions criteria that are used at elite schools. Just because the system isn’t what these folks think it is (or possibly should be), that doesn’t make it racist. - The cases of Stuyvesant and Berkeley having an increase in Asian admissions once rules/laws were changed are accurate. The part that they leave out is that the systems changed (almost) purely to some combination of grades and test scores. So I wouldn’t call this necessarily an improvement in fairness, but it definitely was in increase in transparency and move to a system that seems to be (at least currently) more favorable for Asian applicants. - Note that the lawsuit against Harvard was sponsored by a folks who are anti-affirmative action. This wasn’t some charity move towards Asians. Imho, it was an attempt to use one minority group as a weapon to strike against other minority groups. Note that I think that affirmative action has its flaws, but it’s not the villain many folks make it out to be. - Imho, and this is just my opinion based on many anecdotes, I think that the narrative of “elite schools discriminate against Asians” is often used in Asian American communities by folks who don’t understand or just can’t accept that their kids are not strong applicants in the elite school applicant pool. The argument I most often hear is “… but perfect grades and SAT scores”, and this shows me that they really don’t understand what makes for a strong elite school applicant (e.g., recruited athlete, having done something of impact at a national or international level, etc.). I strongly encourage you not to feed this narrative, especially to your children. There is enough real discrimination against Asians in the US — we don’t need to make up additional sources that aren’t real. Note that this phenomenon is not unique to Asian-Americans — I’ve heard equally incorrect narratives from White folks in the NE corridor that (imho) serve an equivalent function. - To help your kids, familiarize yourself and them with what is evaluated in admissions at the schools they are interested in. As a simple example, Harvard rates applicants on athletics even if they are not a recruited athlete. Also note that 15% of Harvard undergrads are varsity athletes; and something like 35% of white undergrads are varsity athletes (not all recruited, but probably rate 1 or 2 in athletics). Not to push athletics, but I think that a lot of people are surprised by these numbers, and it provides some insight into why some seemingly less qualified students are accepted over “perfect grades and SAT” folks. - The article below provides some good insights into Harvard admissions. I honestly don’t think that they go far enough in explaining how impressive the folks who get 1s in any category actually are. That said, these types it things are good for college applicants and their parents to know, and many don’t. https://veritasessays.org/college-admissions-blog/posts/types-of-students-admitted-to-harvard-requirements https://veritasessays.org/college-admissions-blog/posts/type... - Lastly, note that some schools actually don’t get enough high quality Asian applicants, and they not only get favorable admissions treatment as an underrepresented minority group, but these schools will also throw scholarship money at them like there is no tomorrow. I know of one specific very good (R1) large state school in the Midwest that does this, and I imagine that there are many more. Best of luck to you and your kids. I’m sure they will be fine. Don’t stress about the race issue. Focus on things that actually matter (e.g., location, access to desired major, social fit, etc.).

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

opportune 4y ago

Outside of the UC system (which doesn’t have as much emphasis on legacy/donations) I don’t think it’s about anti-Asian discrimination as many might think. I just think Asians are the most adversely affected by non-meritocratic admissions. Legacies and big donors are much more likely to not be Asian. The other well-off white upper class is getting admitted based off all the holistic extracurricular/volunteering/etc bullshit. And there are secret quota systems for other minority (not all racial) groups. Then there are athletes, needing representation across academic disciplines to match teaching capacity, etc. Basically, I think middle class Asians and white people who fit the “high scores, want to study stem” paradigm are just figuring over a very small pie when it comes to selective university admissions. Within this group Asians dominate (because demographically they make up a large portion of high scorers) but outside of it they are not as likely to fit into any of the other admissions buckets. If admissions were based purely on test scores and academic achievement, yes there would be more Asians and less underrepresented groups, but most importantly it would completely shake up which white people get admitted, which is what the admissions system cares most about.

hot_gril 4y ago

In 2021 or so, the UC Berkeley chancellor sent out an email to students and alumni (that's me) cheering an increase to racial diversity in the incoming class following them dropping the SAT requirement. The timing of that change was uncannily close to the failing of Prop 16 in 2020, which would have repealed prop 209 of 1996 and was publicly endorsed by the UC administration. Back to the email, it showed before and after charts. Asian percentage dropped sharply, and all other percentages rose.