Harvard's odd quota on Asian-Americans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Data that (a) is all taken from after affirmative action was eliminated and (b) pays no attention to the state's demographics doesn't really shed any light on this issue.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23516740/affirmative-action-ban-at-uc-15-years-later shows how much Latino admission rates to Berkeley have declined post-Prop 209. See the red lines on the graphs. Similar trajectory for African American and Native American admissions.

Note also that the Latino population of CA exceeds the non-Hispanic white population at this point. 13.6% of the freshman class at UCB is Latino while 39% of CA's population is Latino. I wouldn't characterize that as "doing pretty well."

I agree with many of your general points, but look in detail at the chart embedded in the article. UC system admission rates (yellow line) of Latinos are extremely close to whites':
http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=5222490

So, Prop 209 is far from the cataclysm for all minorities that some people seem to believe it was.

Also, notice this key paragraph in the article you sent:

"Overall, UC campuses are admitting more students from poor families than before the ban -- no surprise, perhaps, given demographic shifts and the system's post-Proposition 209 emphasis on reaching low-income students of all races. More than one third of the roughly 35,000 UC freshmen enrolled in 2010 came from families making less than $40,000, up from 28 percent in 1995. And even with record-high applications, the system's universities accepted 75 percent of all first-generation college students that year who applied."

It is obvious that no system is perfect, but that one seems to work better than the one they had before based on racial affirmative action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Data that (a) is all taken from after affirmative action was eliminated and (b) pays no attention to the state's demographics doesn't really shed any light on this issue.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23516740/affirmative-action-ban-at-uc-15-years-later shows how much Latino admission rates to Berkeley have declined post-Prop 209. See the red lines on the graphs. Similar trajectory for African American and Native American admissions.

Note also that the Latino population of CA exceeds the non-Hispanic white population at this point. 13.6% of the freshman class at UCB is Latino while 39% of CA's population is Latino. I wouldn't characterize that as "doing pretty well."

I agree with many of your general points, but look in detail at the chart embedded in the article. UC system admission rates (yellow line) of Latinos are extremely close to whites':
http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=5222490

So, Prop 209 is far from the cataclysm for all minorities that some people seem to believe it was.

Also, notice this key paragraph in the article you sent:

"Overall, UC campuses are admitting more students from poor families than before the ban -- no surprise, perhaps, given demographic shifts and the system's post-Proposition 209 emphasis on reaching low-income students of all races. More than one third of the roughly 35,000 UC freshmen enrolled in 2010 came from families making less than $40,000, up from 28 percent in 1995. And even with record-high applications, the system's universities accepted 75 percent of all first-generation college students that year who applied."

It is obvious that no system is perfect, but that one seems to work better than the one they had before based on racial affirmative action.

I don't like UC-system wide data when it comes to things like this because it is easy to game. Has the increase in poor students getting been equal among all UC campuses or are they shoving poor kids disproportionately to Riverside but Cal and UCLA getting 'less poor' in demographics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Data that (a) is all taken from after affirmative action was eliminated and (b) pays no attention to the state's demographics doesn't really shed any light on this issue.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23516740/affirmative-action-ban-at-uc-15-years-later shows how much Latino admission rates to Berkeley have declined post-Prop 209. See the red lines on the graphs. Similar trajectory for African American and Native American admissions.

Note also that the Latino population of CA exceeds the non-Hispanic white population at this point. 13.6% of the freshman class at UCB is Latino while 39% of CA's population is Latino. I wouldn't characterize that as "doing pretty well."

I agree with many of your general points, but look in detail at the chart embedded in the article. UC system admission rates (yellow line) of Latinos are extremely close to whites':
http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=5222490

So, Prop 209 is far from the cataclysm for all minorities that some people seem to believe it was.

Also, notice this key paragraph in the article you sent:

"Overall, UC campuses are admitting more students from poor families than before the ban -- no surprise, perhaps, given demographic shifts and the system's post-Proposition 209 emphasis on reaching low-income students of all races. More than one third of the roughly 35,000 UC freshmen enrolled in 2010 came from families making less than $40,000, up from 28 percent in 1995. And even with record-high applications, the system's universities accepted 75 percent of all first-generation college students that year who applied."

It is obvious that no system is perfect, but that one seems to work better than the one they had before based on racial affirmative action.

I don't like UC-system wide data when it comes to things like this because it is easy to game. Has the increase in poor students getting been equal among all UC campuses or are they shoving poor kids disproportionately to Riverside but Cal and UCLA getting 'less poor' in demographics?

Well, from my perspective (Latino immigrant) it is precisely the UC-system metrics I care most about. I care much more about the thousands who can finally attend a UC campus (any!) than about the (potentially) dozens or hundreds who cannot attend Cal or UCLA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Data that (a) is all taken from after affirmative action was eliminated and (b) pays no attention to the state's demographics doesn't really shed any light on this issue.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23516740/affirmative-action-ban-at-uc-15-years-later shows how much Latino admission rates to Berkeley have declined post-Prop 209. See the red lines on the graphs. Similar trajectory for African American and Native American admissions.

Note also that the Latino population of CA exceeds the non-Hispanic white population at this point. 13.6% of the freshman class at UCB is Latino while 39% of CA's population is Latino. I wouldn't characterize that as "doing pretty well."

I agree with many of your general points, but look in detail at the chart embedded in the article. UC system admission rates (yellow line) of Latinos are extremely close to whites':
http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=5222490

So, Prop 209 is far from the cataclysm for all minorities that some people seem to believe it was.

Also, notice this key paragraph in the article you sent:

"Overall, UC campuses are admitting more students from poor families than before the ban -- no surprise, perhaps, given demographic shifts and the system's post-Proposition 209 emphasis on reaching low-income students of all races. More than one third of the roughly 35,000 UC freshmen enrolled in 2010 came from families making less than $40,000, up from 28 percent in 1995. And even with record-high applications, the system's universities accepted 75 percent of all first-generation college students that year who applied."

It is obvious that no system is perfect, but that one seems to work better than the one they had before based on racial affirmative action.

I don't like UC-system wide data when it comes to things like this because it is easy to game. Has the increase in poor students getting been equal among all UC campuses or are they shoving poor kids disproportionately to Riverside but Cal and UCLA getting 'less poor' in demographics?

Well, from my perspective (Latino immigrant) it is precisely the UC-system metrics I care most about. I care much more about the thousands who can finally attend a UC campus (any!) than about the (potentially) dozens or hundreds who cannot attend Cal or UCLA.

Point taken. however, would you not want to know if Poor kids are getting a fair shot at cal or ucla, if they show an ability to succeed there? I am uncomfortable if one or two campuses in the UC system are used as 'dumping grounds' for a lack of a better term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Data that (a) is all taken from after affirmative action was eliminated and (b) pays no attention to the state's demographics doesn't really shed any light on this issue.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23516740/affirmative-action-ban-at-uc-15-years-later shows how much Latino admission rates to Berkeley have declined post-Prop 209. See the red lines on the graphs. Similar trajectory for African American and Native American admissions.

Note also that the Latino population of CA exceeds the non-Hispanic white population at this point. 13.6% of the freshman class at UCB is Latino while 39% of CA's population is Latino. I wouldn't characterize that as "doing pretty well."

I agree with many of your general points, but look in detail at the chart embedded in the article. UC system admission rates (yellow line) of Latinos are extremely close to whites':
http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=5222490

So, Prop 209 is far from the cataclysm for all minorities that some people seem to believe it was.

Also, notice this key paragraph in the article you sent:

"Overall, UC campuses are admitting more students from poor families than before the ban -- no surprise, perhaps, given demographic shifts and the system's post-Proposition 209 emphasis on reaching low-income students of all races. More than one third of the roughly 35,000 UC freshmen enrolled in 2010 came from families making less than $40,000, up from 28 percent in 1995. And even with record-high applications, the system's universities accepted 75 percent of all first-generation college students that year who applied."

It is obvious that no system is perfect, but that one seems to work better than the one they had before based on racial affirmative action.

I don't like UC-system wide data when it comes to things like this because it is easy to game. Has the increase in poor students getting been equal among all UC campuses or are they shoving poor kids disproportionately to Riverside but Cal and UCLA getting 'less poor' in demographics?

Well, from my perspective (Latino immigrant) it is precisely the UC-system metrics I care most about. I care much more about the thousands who can finally attend a UC campus (any!) than about the (potentially) dozens or hundreds who cannot attend Cal or UCLA.

Point taken. however, would you not want to know if Poor kids are getting a fair shot at cal or ucla, if they show an ability to succeed there? I am uncomfortable if one or two campuses in the UC system are used as 'dumping grounds' for a lack of a better term.

Sure, I'd like to know that (but I have seen nothing to suggest that is the case).

[Anonymous]

I want to know where all these CALIFORNIANS are doing on DCUM! DCUM IS FOR DC! STAY AWAY YOU FILTHY WEST COASTERS.

Clearly we need to build a fence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I want to know where all these CALIFORNIANS are doing on DCUM! DCUM IS FOR DC! STAY AWAY YOU FILTHY WEST COASTERS.

Clearly we need to build a fence.

I suspect
1. You didn't go to Harvard
2. You are not Asian American
3. None of your DC friends come from California

Go back to your cave

[Anonymous]

I focused on Berkeley because this was a thread about Harvard and a discussion about access to elite universities but, yes, I agree that access to universities generally is probably more important. Though, presumably, we can and should have both.

FWIW, UC Merced's undergrad population is 45.6% Hispanic and UC Riverside's is 34.1% vs. Berkeley's 13.6%.

I'd be interested in seeing more data on economics -- I can imagine at last three different scenarios. The best is that the 10% policy is giving kids who would otherwise have gone to CSUs more access to UCs. Another would be that since CA has been hard hit by the recession, there are more low income families. And the last would be that as upper middle class kids find it harder to get into Cal or UCLA

[Anonymous]

they exit the system generally.

[Anonymous]

NP here, time to chime in since this is a topic I actually know a lot about.

The real issue isn't the end of race-based preferences, it's what kind of socio-economic admission preferences replace it.

One big difference between CA and a lot of other states that have moved from race-based preferences to socio-economic preferences is that they give preference based on income, but don't take family wealth into account. The results are very clear that if you take family wealth into account (African Americans at the same income level as whites tend to have a staggering amount less family wealth, due to a really fucking sad history stretching back to red-lining, Jim Crow, etc.), AfAms continue into a college system at similar rates, but if you just look at income when determining a family's SES you lose them.

When a system is properly set up (taking both income and wealth into account) to provide race-blind preferences based on SES, what generally happens is that AfAm and Latino enrollment rates remain about the same, white enrollment rates drop, Asian/Jewish enrollment rates rise.

In other words, the system as it exists today gives major unearned privileges to white people. What a shock.

[Anonymous]

Also, to answer the troll, Californian here -- DC is a hardship post, it's not as bad as New York but it's definitely not the paradise-on-earth that is southern California. If you want us to leave, move the federal government to LA so we can live in a real city and still do the work that we do; I'd gladly fly back tomorrow.

[Anonymous]

I don't think that was a troll -- that seemed like an obvious joke. Of course on DCUM you never can tell!

Another Expat Californian (whose view of LA is less Edenic)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here, time to chime in since this is a topic I actually know a lot about.

The real issue isn't the end of race-based preferences, it's what kind of socio-economic admission preferences replace it.

One big difference between CA and a lot of other states that have moved from race-based preferences to socio-economic preferences is that they give preference based on income, but don't take family wealth into account. The results are very clear that if you take family wealth into account (African Americans at the same income level as whites tend to have a staggering amount less family wealth, due to a really fucking sad history stretching back to red-lining, Jim Crow, etc.), AfAms continue into a college system at similar rates, but if you just look at income when determining a family's SES you lose them.

When a system is properly set up (taking both income and wealth into account) to provide race-blind preferences based on SES, what generally happens is that AfAm and Latino enrollment rates remain about the same, white enrollment rates drop, Asian/Jewish enrollment rates rise.

In other words, the system as it exists today gives major unearned privileges to white people. What a shock.

Some good points there, but your obvious agenda seems to blind you in one important aspect. True, AfAm and Latino enrollment rates remain about the same, but its composition changes. Fewer (relatively unqualified) children of doctors and lawyers, more (truly qualified) first generation college students.

Guess who likes this? Those new students and their families, and also the white students who get to enjoy more real diversity.

Guess who doesn't like it? Black doctors and lawyers, and their children (who now have to compete on equal terms with everyone else)

[Anonymous]

speaking of agendas....

Why do you hate/resent African American professionals so much?

And do you have any evidence at all that their children are keeping *more qualified* first generation college African African students out of elite schools? Seems highly unlikely.

Are you opposed to legacy preferences generally?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:speaking of agendas....

Why do you hate/resent African American professionals so much?

And do you have any evidence at all that their children are keeping *more qualified* first generation college African African students out of elite schools? Seems highly unlikely.

Are you opposed to legacy preferences generally?

TBH, I have said something similar to this before. Any type of discussion like this always zeroes in on AA's (and specfically MC AA's) before too long.