9:22 AM |
Author: Siva
NY Times had an entire debate section on this question: Is there an Asian-American quota in Ivy League Universities? Let us look at the arguments for yes and no.
Statistics says, yes, there is an asian-american quota. Number of asian-americans in CalTech grew from 20% in 1990 to 40% in 2011. The asian-american population doubled in the same period, however, the percentage of asian-americans in the Ivy leagues remain roughly the same.
The argument against that:
In reality, there is no evidence that this is the case. ..... It has long been illegal for universities to impose quotas or ceilings on enrollment of any racial group.
Essentially saying no one does it because it is illegal.
One more argument against the notion that there is racial quota (my para-phrasing):
On the other hand, look at why it is obvious there is a asian-american quota. Check the study by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshad: “to receive equal consideration by elite colleges, Asian Americans must outperform Whites by 140 points, Hispanics by 280 points, Blacks by 450 points in SAT (Total 1600)."
27 percent of Presidential Scholars in 2006 are asian-americans. Look at the data!
Someone from Harvard responding to all this: We have a highly individualized and holistic admission process. That could be from the brochure.
However,
In 1990, when Harvard University was investigated for discriminating against Asian-American applicants, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found that part of the reason Asian-American students fared less well than similarly qualified white applicants was that they were less likely to be legacies.
When one side uses data and other side uses words like holistic admission process and interpersonal dynmaics, who do you think is correct ? Independent of your answer to that question, who will win the argument ?
Statistics says, yes, there is an asian-american quota. Number of asian-americans in CalTech grew from 20% in 1990 to 40% in 2011. The asian-american population doubled in the same period, however, the percentage of asian-americans in the Ivy leagues remain roughly the same.
The argument against that:
In reality, there is no evidence that this is the case. ..... It has long been illegal for universities to impose quotas or ceilings on enrollment of any racial group.
Essentially saying no one does it because it is illegal.
One more argument against the notion that there is racial quota (my para-phrasing):
- Admissions officers seek those who exceed expectations.
- Only few asian-americans have strong comprehensive applications, but lot of them have better scores.
- Only few asian-americans have the skills that enhance classroom discussion or interpersonal dynamics, but they do have better scores.
On the other hand, look at why it is obvious there is a asian-american quota. Check the study by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshad: “to receive equal consideration by elite colleges, Asian Americans must outperform Whites by 140 points, Hispanics by 280 points, Blacks by 450 points in SAT (Total 1600)."
27 percent of Presidential Scholars in 2006 are asian-americans. Look at the data!
Someone from Harvard responding to all this: We have a highly individualized and holistic admission process. That could be from the brochure.
However,
In 1990, when Harvard University was investigated for discriminating against Asian-American applicants, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found that part of the reason Asian-American students fared less well than similarly qualified white applicants was that they were less likely to be legacies.
When one side uses data and other side uses words like holistic admission process and interpersonal dynmaics, who do you think is correct ? Independent of your answer to that question, who will win the argument ?
Category:
Education
|
0 comments: