My high school was >70% asian. what i noticed about my asian peers was that the extremely high performing asian all did essentially the same thing…they all played the piano or the violin and they all were members of the same 2 or 3 academic clubs. it’s no surprise that schools are going to turn down a large number of individuals who on paper look exactly the same.

the students themselves were different and had widely different personal interests. but they all bowed to parental pressure and did the same activities and went into a standard premed major.

that’s not to say that all asians did this. my school had very active extracurriculars and being 70% asian all clubs had a large asian component. but 1) white and hispanic students were generally more active and 2) the asian students in non-academic clubs weren’t as high performing as others. they were much more well rounded but, on average, had lower gpas and lower sats.

P.S. This reminds me of what Bard had to start doing a few years back. An excellent school, but they had so many applicants for arts and writing and so few for sciences that they had to do a little ‘affirmative action’ – including special scholarships – for students interested in science.

Excellent candidates, some no doubt ‘better’ on paper than those admitted for the sciences, had to be turned away.

Yes, I think we are making similar points. I admit that as an academic I hate the emphasis on intermural sports at some of the big Us. But having musicians, artists, physicists – as well as students from different backgrounds and geographical locations – is important for many reasons. As you note, not ending up with only students in fields X and Y is a significant one.

And, yes, q, that includes racial/ethnic diversity. We encourage our students [my college] to go abroad or at least spend a couple of weeks in another country for the same reasons: it opens their eyes, broadens their horizons – however one wishes to express it.

Colleges – even DIII schools like my alma maters – need athletes, musicians, dancers, and people who are going to be active on campus and make it a vibrant place to be. The stereotype, true or not, of Asians is that their activities tend to be limited to academic extra-curricular activities (e.g. French club, math team) or music.

You and others have made similar arguments: that Asians are not engaging in the “correct” extracurricular activities and therefore colleges are justified in choosing academically inferior students because of it. As an Asian, I find this to be both inaccurate and borderline racist, peddling on the bogus stereotype that Asians are only preoccupied with academics.

Even assuming colleges actually need a diverse set of interests, it’s silly to presume Asians as a group are not as interested in sports, music, dance and other arts relative to other racial groups. They are, and if college admissions care that much about such extracurricular activities, then Asians would be that much interested. Extracurricular activities, unlike race, are easy to self-select into; it is true that Asian students and their parents are very concerned about college admissions, and thus any admission requirement that focuses on an activity of the student’s choosing rather than an immutable quality will attract Asians. My own experience tells me that Asians engage in all forms of sports and art programs, that many of them will join clubs focused on community service, that many of them will run for student office. Look at a yearbook of any high school that has a large Asian student population and this will hold true. In my own high school, Asians had more extracurriculars on average than any other racial group, and no, we did not all do orchestra.

Asians do understand that extracurricular activities help college admissions, but nothing can absolve the fact that being an URM trumps any other choice an Asian can make. A diverse set of interests may be good for a college, but by allowing race to have such a large factor in admissions, it’s clear “interest diversity” is not the goal they seek. Above all else, they value racial diversity, because that is the best way to signal diversity, since skin color is, unfortunately, the first thing people see. On its own, racial diversity may be good in assuaging our fears of homogeneity, but I do not believe they balance the social injustice of burdening poor Asians and whites in favor of middle-class Blacks and Hispanics.

College admissions officers will readily admit that there is some element of luck to the process: admissions officers will keep track of things like how many states and countries are represented in the incoming class; types of instruments that admitted students play; sports; other extracurricular activities; potential majors (complete with a formula for estimating how many students, given their proclivities, will end up in each type of major); economic and family backgrounds; and even high schools. Thus, students whose interests and background happen to align with a need that a school has stand a better chance of getting in.

Reality is that a university which ignores those things and happens to admit a racially diverse class full of upper-middle-class piano-playing future French majors from the tri-state area is going to have problems. Those problems are not just logistical (e.g. empty science labs and too-full French classes); they also relate to the experience that those kids will have (e.g. no soccer team, no one with a radically different background, no one who lives far away and can drag them out to the Montana countryside for fall break, etc.).

In any zero-sum game, giving a preference to one group will disadvantage another; such is the root of the anger behind affirmative action. (While colleges may be able to admit a few more people, their numbers are relatively limited; moreover, a lot of the cachet of a top-notch school is its selectivity.)

That said, re: Asians and the 1600 SAT scores: it’s possible that supremely accomplished people of any race could come off as grinds. Colleges – even DIII schools like my alma maters – need athletes, musicians, dancers, and people who are going to be active on campus and make it a vibrant place to be. The stereotype, true or not, of Asians is that their activities tend to be limited to academic extra-curricular activities (e.g. French club, math team) or music. So I’m skeptical of straight-up SAT comparisons, at least for undergraduate admissions.

No, I don’t think that preparing students for living in a world of ‘diversity’ is a particularly important task for universities. I have yet to see any great academic advantages to having students of ‘diverse’ ethnic backgrounds (and including them as a result of affirmative action creates problems). The advantages are primarily social, and as I said, those can just as easily be acquired during the course of their everyday lives before and after college.

My comments were not about AA. They were about looking beyond SAT scores (or GPA) in admitting applicants.

And, I’m sorry you do not think our students need to be prepared for lives very different from those that could be expected for the young gentlemen of yesteryear. That was my argument.

I think you have me confused with someone else.

I would dare you to survey a random sample of 1,000 Hispanics and Asians and Blacks and ask which party they think is more racist, and why, but I think we all know what the answer would be, don’t we?

Well, this “Asian” knows perfectly well which party threw “Japs” into camps in WWII. This “Asian” knows perfectly well which party set up the racial spoils system that keeps Asians from “dominating” the elite universities. And this American knows that his Asian heritage has been hijacked for political purposes by the party currently in power.

But, of course, that isn’t how AA works, especially at more selective universities where admissions standards are significantly lower for preferred minorities (e.g., see Gratz v. Bollinger).

This particular member of the faculty dissents from the professoriate’s reigning dogma, which is that the faculty decide that ‘diversity’ as the faculty define it is important for students. And that agenda is primarily social and political in nature, not academic.

While I certainly got the gratuitous insult, I cannot parse this:

but the criteria are sufficiently vague and nonquantitative are are there only to provide cover for overt discrimination.

Please explain how a race-blind admissions process would prevent an institution from using these same “diversity” criteria.

It wouldn’t of course, but the criteria are sufficiently vague and nonquantitative are are there only to provide cover for overt discrimination. We all know it, as do you, so please at least have the integrity to stop the dissembling.

I was not offering these kinds of ‘diversity’ to cover for anything. I was responding to the implicit suggestion that colleges should only seek out the most academically worthy of applicants. I tried to suggest that this is harder to do than folks who reference the SATs think, and then noted that there are reasons for colleges to want ‘diverse’ student bodies – where ‘diverse’ means many things.

Please have the courtesy to not impute to me an intention to dissemble about anything.

What a coincidence. Both of you named all these qualities that made up this thing called “diversity” that universities should strive to promote, but neither found that “diversity” of opinion or ideas would be important enough to make the list.

I cannot speak for anyone else. I assume that diversity of interests encompasses diversity of ideas.

(As to ‘opinions,’ if these differ from ‘ideas,’ I assume these too are covered by ‘interests.’)

I don’t want a group of significantly inferior students

Neither do I. Did anyone suggest we should want ‘significantly inferior’ students? My point was that we might be willing to have some who appear to be the academic cream of the crop go elsewhere in order to have qualified students with other talents/gifts to offer.

some sort of oriental bazaar for faculty (who desires, of course, come first and foremost) and students

The desires of Faculty certainly ought not to ‘come first.’ That is why I noted that Faculty think it is important for students to be prepared for a diverse world.

This is a story I have always heard told about Ronald Reagan when he was governor. Someone pointed out to him that the California University system (or maybe it was just the top ones like Berkeley) was going to be all Asian soon and his response was supposedly, “So what?”

My favorite Reagan story; hope it is true.

ChrisTS: Most higher ed institutions want ‘diversity’ of many kinds: of talents, of skills, of interests, as well as of economic and ‘ethnic’ background.

B-Rob: There are many different kinds of diversity that colleges try to achieve: geographic, racial, religious, interest, extracurricular, intended major, etc.

Please explain how a race-blind admissions process would prevent an institution from using these same “diversity” criteria.

It wouldn’t of course, but the criteria are sufficiently vague and nonquantitative are are there only to provide cover for overt discrimination. We all know it, as do you, so please at least have the integrity to stop the dissembling.

As to allowing private schools to discriminate, doesn’t that then allow an innkeeper to prohibit blacks? How is a hotel any less of a public accomodation than a university and its dorms?

Sooner or later, this whole mess will collapse of its inherent logical inconsistency. Do you really want to be the last one defending this nonsense?

sgi says:

Here’s a solution to this mess.

Everyone who wants to go to an elite university should just learn to work as hard as Asians. Assuming of course that hard work is why Asians have such high test scores.

Otherwise, there are other universities, colleges, and technical schools, other careers, that would produce the desired outcome.

The underlying problem with affirmative action is that it is a typical American shortcut for dealing with a difficult problem insofar as it focuses on outcomes rather than on opportunities. The problem in question is that few black children are properly prepared for going to even a so-so college or university. This is due to circumstances that begin before the day when they first enter kindergarten. So many of them have not been prepared by their parents or guardians even for that stage; they do not know the alphabet, they do not know numbers, they cannot identify colors or shapes, and so forth.

The achievement gap begins right then, and it takes a lot of time, effort, and money to address it. Most school districts simply do not have the resources to make up for the failure of the parents and guardians. Too many of them have failed at their duty to prepare their children for school. You can be upset about this, but when someone who is supposed to be responsible for a child is unemployed, undereducated (and perhaps even illiterate), unmotivated, abusive, alcoholic, drug-using, and so forth, there is a limit to how successful a school can be at educating that child, especially when the child has never met anyone who went to college (besides his teachers) or has been successful in pursuing lawful activities. Yes, we have charter schools, voucher programs, remedial efforts under No Child Left Behind, and the like, as well as some special institutions like Girard College, and yet the problem is so vast that there just is not enough money to address it. Over half the kids who start school in Philadelphia drop out before graduation.

Kids who have never been read to at home, whose real teachers are similarly situated peers, who confront violence every day, who do not get nagged to do their homework, who have no opportunity to develop a sense of the future–how can they possibly be prepared to go to even a so-so college or university? Yet if nothing is done for them, how will they escape being economic and social losers? That is why we have the affirmative-action programs that we do. These kids should be in community colleges, many of which have extensive remedial programs. (In fact, a large proportion of community-college students are older, having been out in the world and having their eyes opened.)

But AA is cheaper, it allows institutions to seem more virtuous, and its victims are dismissed as people who could always go elsewhere. That it tends to benefit people who could compete anyway, that even these people tend to do less well in school than others, we don’t like to talk about things like this. So AA addresses a real problem–poorly.

Of course it is the Republicans because that is the line that Hollywood, most forms of media, and people like B-Rob have repeated until it has become “the truth.” I am Hispanic(Mexican), age 56, and my life experience has taught me that no one group or people has the market cornered on racist beliefs or behavior.
I grew up in south central Idaho and currently live in Idaho. If I have to tally up the racist encounters that have been personally directed at me in my lifetime, well surprise! They have come overwhelmingly from individuals that identify themselves as liberal/progressives. It doesn’t come dressed up in white robes but in the form of insulting condescension and patronizing behavior on the part of someone demonstrating how “enlightened” they are. I can’t recall the last time some redneck gave me grief, but the other is quite regular.
Asking a 1,000 people of what they believe to be popularly “true” does not make it the truth.

It was okay that a state educational institution did not have a single black student enrolled, but it was not okay for the students at that state institution to ensure that a single black student did attend. I thought then that the law works in mysterious ways.

Well, then. Maybe high SAT scores really aren’t a good measure of intelligence.

Jeannette: Since our last name sounds Spanish (and my half-Filpino, half French-Canadien husband looks Hispanic), we’re tempted to let the kids lie on applications, or at least try to “pass” as whites.

If you’re really concerned, look for a “multi-racial” option. That option seems to be standard now. BTW, I have cousins who are also 1/4 filipino and have a spanish-sounding name, and they’re blond haired and blue eyed. As the saying goes, you really can’t tell a book from it’s cover.

been_there: Asians already have their own universities – they are located in Asia. Their education system is VERY competitite and not diverse.

The most well-known professors at the most prestigious Asian universities often have PhDs from American universities.

It is an absurdity to think that the most challenging and disorienting thing about the “real world” for the earnest young graduates of elite universities will be the skin color of the new hire in the adjacent cubicle. Allow me to suggest that a far more challenging reality is that most people these graduates will have to deal with are either stupid or willfully ignorant. If we accept the premise that universities must impose racial quotas so that the campus will “look like the real world”, we are led to the inescapable conclusion that universities should seek to enroll people of all intelligences and aspirations. If the university experiences a deficit of “D” students who intend to follow their fathers into the truck-driving sector of the economy, does it not then follow that they must — if they truly believe in “diversity” — shower scholarships and relaxed admission standards on such students in an effort to recruit them?

How on earth did we get to the point where intelligent people think “diversity” is synonymous with “range of pigmentation”? Apart from intelligence, what about religion? What about politics? What about the diversity of learning styles? Do universities attempt make sure that Lutherans are not under-represented? Or that their incoming freshman are not weighted too heavily toward verbal rather than mathematical skill?

The point is that the race-mongers will only accept skin color as a defining characteristic, because that suits their purpose. The full meaning of “diversity” is lost on them because they have convinced us, and the universities, and the corporations, and the government that it is not just permissible, but mandatory, that we continue in perpetuity to judge people by their skin color.

The system is perverse and immoral. I find Ilya’s suggestion that the solution to “the Asian problem” is to subdivide us further into finer-grained racial groups absolutely repugnant.

BBB

I believe in equality for people of all races and sexes but the fact remains there are way too many Asians taking up spots at universities that could be best used to increase the diversity of these universities. It is not like these Asians aren’t going to get into other schools.

Jeez! That had to have been an intentional troll. What a magnificent example of “I’m not a racist, BUT …”

I believe in equal opportunity for people of all races and sexes but the fact remains there are way too many underqualified, poorly prepared people taking up spots at universities that could be best used to educate people who would make better use of the opportunity. It is not like these low achievers aren’t going to get into other schools.

DjDiverDan: Last I checked, the 14th Amendment still provided, in relevant part, as follows:

No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

According to Bingham, the constitution always had the words “equal protection of the laws”: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law,” not no white person or freeman.

As Bingham pointed out, the clause reads no state shall deny to any person the “equal protection of the laws,” and not the “equal protection of its laws.”

Isn’t truth wonderful?

Here’s a solution to this mess.

Everyone who wants to go to an elite university should just learn to work as hard as Asians. Assuming of course that hard work is why Asians have such high test scores.

That solution doesn’t work because it requires the cooperation of the university (and the government). Otherwise they’ll just prefer non-Asians who don’t work as hard to Asians who do.

Everyone who wants to go to an elite university should just learn to work as hard as Asians. Assuming of course that hard work is why Asians have such high test scores.

Otherwise, there are other universities, colleges, and technical schools, other careers, that would produce the desired outcome.

All federal grants require the receiving institution to affirm that they practice AA. So if a university indeed opted out they would lose their NSF/NIH etc funding. This would basically shut down most major research universities.

Until Affirmative Action is discontinued at the level of national government there will be NO CHANGE in the practice by the universities.

Why is it that people can understand that having free speech means that Nazis get to march in Skokie, but seemingly can’t generalize that principle. That some use their freedom in undesirable ways doesn’t mean that freedom is undesirable. Defending freedom doesn’t mean approving of every action that free people perform.

Or do you agree with those who say that the ACLU are terrorists because they have defended terrorists.

I may be wrong or I may be correct but the rules have changed, but I recall back in the late 1970s or 1980s there was a lot of argument about percentages and proof—real Nuremberg Laws stuff–and in the end the Feds said it would all be based on self-identification.

So, as the psychiatrist said to Emo Phillips when Emo told him that he was feeling suicidal, “Go for it!”