4 ms·

This is not true according to CalTech's Common Data Set filings [0] (see section C7) [0] http://finance.caltech.edu/Resources/cds http://finance.caltech.edu/Re

This is not true according to CalTech's Common Data Set filings [0] (see section C7) [0] http://finance.caltech.edu/Resources/cds http://finance.caltech.edu/Resources/cds

thaumasiotes 12y ago
This is an issue of some interest. For example, the UC system in California is currently prohibited by law from discriminating by race in admissions. But we know they're doing it anyway by looking at the statistics of the students they keep admitting. When we look at the CalTech statistics, racial biases are not apparent (admittedly, we have to do this in a very rough way because universities will generally fight tooth and nail to prevent researchers from looking into the effect of race on admissions). And the source you cite doesn't actually specify any amount of bias by race - it says that race is "considered", which is the least significance a variable can have before being "not considered". If we think that other universities are lying when they say race is not considered, based on massive discrepancies between the records of admitted freshmen of different races, why shouldn't we discount CalTech's statement that race is considered, based on a lack of such discrepancies?
- Anechoic 12y ago
  For example, the UC system in California is currently prohibited by law from discriminating by race in admissions. But we know they're doing it anyway by looking at the statistics of the students they keep admitting. Do "we know they're doing it anyway"? When Prop 209 passed, minority enrollment dropped. And there are any number of factors that the system may consider that are not race, but may be correlated with race. In any event, the numbers I can find show black and latino admissions combined are less than expected based on CA and national numbers. And the source you cite doesn't actually specify any amount of bias by race - it says that race is "considered" I was responding to a poster that said "CalTech doesn't discriminate by race at all" - CalTech itself disagrees. I was not commenting on the extend or magnitude of that consideration. If we think that other universities are lying when they say race is not considered, I'm not sure I accept this premise. why shouldn't we discount CalTech's statement Occam's razor. In any event, we know that CalTech does target minorities via outreach programs [0] so it would not be out of character for them to consider race. And anecdotally (I'm black), I was heavily recruited by CalTech despite my showing no interested in attending and having below (CalTech) average SAT scores (and above average grades/school rank/extra curricular) [0] http://diversitycenter.caltech.edu/resources/rfus http://diversitycenter.caltech.edu/resources/rfus
  - wl 12y ago
    The University of California is prohibited by law from discriminating by race in admissions, but they've found other ways to increase minority representation that don't violate the law. Perhaps the most significant example is the "Eligibility in the Local Context" program. If a student is in the top 9% of their high school class, their application gets a bump. It doesn't involve race on the face of things, but it has increased minority enrollment in practice.
  - thaumasiotes 12y ago
    All right, I think I agree with you on many points. Let me try to summarize my view here: 1. We can only see the effect of race on admission at a very coarse resolution, because universities try their hardest to obscure it. 2. Even at this coarse resolution, it's easy to see that at most US universities, race has a massive effect. We see this by noting that when you break down admitted freshmen by race, they show very large group differences on all the characteristics that the universities will admit they're looking for. 3. Although minority enrollment in the UC system dropped after Prop 209, we still see these large differences. As they are our only way of inferring any effect of race, we conclude that race still has large effects, despite the fact that this is now illegal. Ward Connerly will tell you any number of stories (well, write stories down that you can read) about other UC regents specifically plotting to subvert prop 209 and get minorities in by whatever pretexts they can think of. 4. We fail to observe significant differences among the racial groups at CalTech. 5. You are almost certainly correct to estimate that, since CalTech says it considers race, we should believe that it does consider race. 6. But I, personally, while admitting that in the sense of point (5) CalTech does consider race, still think that it's usefully correct to go around telling people "CalTech, unlike other US schools, doesn't discriminate by race". This is because when we use our own metric, which is what we have to do for other schools, we can't detect any discrimination on the part of CalTech. When we compare it to other schools, it seems reasonable to measure them all the same way. Put another way, in the wise words of Cecil Adams, what we cannot reliably measure we are entitled to ignore. CalTech has information that we don't, but until it makes a difference that we can see, there's not much of a reason for us to pay attention. Comparing our view of UCLA with CalTech's view of itself is terrible statistics.

This is not true according to CalTech's Common Data Set filings [0] (see section C7) [0] http://finance.caltech.edu/Resources/cds http://finance.caltech.edu/Resources/cds

thaumasiotes 12y ago

This is an issue of some interest. For example, the UC system in California is currently prohibited by law from discriminating by race in admissions. But we know they're doing it anyway by looking at the statistics of the students they keep admitting. When we look at the CalTech statistics, racial biases are not apparent (admittedly, we have to do this in a very rough way because universities will generally fight tooth and nail to prevent researchers from looking into the effect of race on admissions). And the source you cite doesn't actually specify any amount of bias by race - it says that race is "considered", which is the least significance a variable can have before being "not considered". If we think that other universities are lying when they say race is not considered, based on massive discrepancies between the records of admitted freshmen of different races, why shouldn't we discount CalTech's statement that race is considered, based on a lack of such discrepancies?

Anechoic 12y ago
For example, the UC system in California is currently prohibited by law from discriminating by race in admissions. But we know they're doing it anyway by looking at the statistics of the students they keep admitting. Do "we know they're doing it anyway"? When Prop 209 passed, minority enrollment dropped. And there are any number of factors that the system may consider that are not race, but may be correlated with race. In any event, the numbers I can find show black and latino admissions combined are less than expected based on CA and national numbers. And the source you cite doesn't actually specify any amount of bias by race - it says that race is "considered" I was responding to a poster that said "CalTech doesn't discriminate by race at all" - CalTech itself disagrees. I was not commenting on the extend or magnitude of that consideration. If we think that other universities are lying when they say race is not considered, I'm not sure I accept this premise. why shouldn't we discount CalTech's statement Occam's razor. In any event, we know that CalTech does target minorities via outreach programs [0] so it would not be out of character for them to consider race. And anecdotally (I'm black), I was heavily recruited by CalTech despite my showing no interested in attending and having below (CalTech) average SAT scores (and above average grades/school rank/extra curricular) [0] http://diversitycenter.caltech.edu/resources/rfus http://diversitycenter.caltech.edu/resources/rfus
- wl 12y ago
  The University of California is prohibited by law from discriminating by race in admissions, but they've found other ways to increase minority representation that don't violate the law. Perhaps the most significant example is the "Eligibility in the Local Context" program. If a student is in the top 9% of their high school class, their application gets a bump. It doesn't involve race on the face of things, but it has increased minority enrollment in practice.
- thaumasiotes 12y ago
  All right, I think I agree with you on many points. Let me try to summarize my view here: 1. We can only see the effect of race on admission at a very coarse resolution, because universities try their hardest to obscure it. 2. Even at this coarse resolution, it's easy to see that at most US universities, race has a massive effect. We see this by noting that when you break down admitted freshmen by race, they show very large group differences on all the characteristics that the universities will admit they're looking for. 3. Although minority enrollment in the UC system dropped after Prop 209, we still see these large differences. As they are our only way of inferring any effect of race, we conclude that race still has large effects, despite the fact that this is now illegal. Ward Connerly will tell you any number of stories (well, write stories down that you can read) about other UC regents specifically plotting to subvert prop 209 and get minorities in by whatever pretexts they can think of. 4. We fail to observe significant differences among the racial groups at CalTech. 5. You are almost certainly correct to estimate that, since CalTech says it considers race, we should believe that it does consider race. 6. But I, personally, while admitting that in the sense of point (5) CalTech does consider race, still think that it's usefully correct to go around telling people "CalTech, unlike other US schools, doesn't discriminate by race". This is because when we use our own metric, which is what we have to do for other schools, we can't detect any discrimination on the part of CalTech. When we compare it to other schools, it seems reasonable to measure them all the same way. Put another way, in the wise words of Cecil Adams, what we cannot reliably measure we are entitled to ignore. CalTech has information that we don't, but until it makes a difference that we can see, there's not much of a reason for us to pay attention. Comparing our view of UCLA with CalTech's view of itself is terrible statistics.