March 10, 2004
University of Broken Promise
Interesting things going on at the University of California—one of the nations premier university systems.
1. According to the San Diego Union Tribune a University of California (UC) study shows that, “Asian-American students are less likely to be admitted into the University of California than students from other racial groups with comparable academic qualifications….” The effect is fairly small, probably because California outlawed racially discriminatory admission practices a few years ago.
According to The California Aggie :
The task force was established after Board of Regents Chair John Moores released a report highly critical of comprehensive review, the admissions policy used by the university since Proposition 209 ended the use of affirmative action in the state.
Without going into much detail, Associate Vice President for Student Academic Affairs Dennis Galligani said in a conference call with reporters on Monday that the findings showed that the university is in compliance with Prop. 209. But Galligani also said the group found that the university was having trouble creating a student body that was as ethnically diverse as the state population.
Figures released by the study group showed that the UC Davis campus admitted slightly fewer Asian American applicants than statistically predicted. The campus admitted slightly more African American, Latino and Caucasian applicants than predicted. However, Galligani noted that the prediction models were not perfect, and some of the differences could be due to mathematical error.
I find it amusing that Galligani wants to hang his hat on a theoretical mathematical error, as if it weren’t a possibility in any statistical analysis.
The strange thing about this discussion is that it is an issue at all. So long as Asian-Americans do better academically than other groups, any attempt to create a student body as ethnically diverse as the state population will absolutely have to discriminate against them. It is a mathematical necessity. It is the dark side of affirmative action. It isn’t justice that Asian-Americans have to pay for the fact that they do better. But this is what happens when you count people’s group affiliations over their individual accomplishments.
2. The UC system has always promised UC access to the top 12.5% of California high school students, and the top 4% of any particular high school. This admission policy was a part of the UC mission to educate the brightest California students. You were not guaranteed to get into the UC campus of your choice, but if you fit the qualifications, a place was made for you somewhere in the system.
For the first time in UC history, this promise is likely to be broken. The Daily Bruin reports on this. The stated reason for the denial of admissions is Schwarzenegger’s proposal “to reduce freshman enrollment by 10 percent in 2004-2005.” The UC system is diverting eligible students to the Junior College (JC) system for two years, and they claim they will guarantee admission to those who finish in the JC system. I don't understand where the spots will come from to make room for them in two years, but perhaps I'm missing someting. Having personally experienced both a full UC education and some JC classes, I can tell you that many JC classes are not comparable to UC classes. I’m not saying they are bad. But I am saying that they are not typically quite as good.
Interestingly enough there is a letter from a professor to the California Aggie suggesting that there is a way to resolve this problem. (Scroll down to the letter entitled There is a solution to enrollment problems .
Between 14 and 18 percent of currently enrolled students are on the academic probation, disqualification and dismissal list. The UC administration, acting as the delegated agent of the Academic Senate on this matter, refuses to dismiss students that have been on the dismissal list for several quarters. Furthermore, the same administration refuses to implement the minimum progress regulation that requires every full-time student to carry a load of at least 13 (or 12 according to different campuses) units per quarter, averaged over three quarters.
Dismiss those who aren’t doing well, and allow other qualified students to enter and take their places.
This proposal won’t happen, of course. The reason is related to creating a student body that is as ethnically diverse as the state population.
Someday we are going to have to fix the problem of awful inner-city elementary and high-school education. Trying to fix it at the university level is attacking the problem far too late.
Sebastian, I get a wierd feeling reading this. You’re obviously against Affirmative action, and blame it for the problems there.
But the evidence you present is about things happening in the absence of affirmative action, which has been declared illegal to some extent. Also in evidence is that the University is taking in levels of certain ethnic groups that are out of whack with, not consistent with, the statistical spread of the population.
Then you bring up the enrollment problem and blame it on this non-existent or non-functional diversity program, with the implication that the letting in of these minorities is creating a pool of underachievers in the college. You do this without the benefit of any statistical examination of the ethnicity of the underachievers. Minus that, it’s just a conflation of two different problems, and the solution is obvious, and direct: kick out the underachievers, regardless of race or ethnicity.
That will do the job, unlike some screwed up response to diversity measures.
It seems to me, that sometimes you republicans count on indirect effects too heavily. Just about every practice, regardless of its direct effect is supposed to be taken up because some magic thing will happen that will mitigate the harm of the direct effects.
Tax cuts drag down revenue? Don’t worry, the improving economy will float that boat. Lack of enforcement on diversity measures disadvantaging certain minority groups? Don’t worry, they’ll just get more competitive. No jobs being created by the parts of the economy that are being improved? Don’t worry, it’ll start coming around soon. Any time now. Corporate corruption not being faced with tough new regulations? Don’t worry, the market will select against those sorts of people now. It always does. And on, and on, and on. Everytime it seems that your people are faced with the negative consequences of what your policies do, your response is to say that the second order effects of the policies will set things right.
Your people, more or less, have been getting your way since Reagan got into office. You’ve put your theories out into play, enough to see that many of your policies do not work as a practical matter, and that the predictable effects of this can and do occur.
I don’t ask that you completely give up on your ideals, but that you not dismiss evidence, or ignore deficits of evidence, that endangers your theory. As a avid student of science, I’ve learned on true axiom: any theory that can’t be made false by reality is not a useful theory.
For conservatism to have a good effect on society, Republicans must be willing to entertain the thought that their methods might fail at their aims.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 10, 2004 08:36 AMIf you think that racial admissions have ceased in the UC program, you clearly know nothing about it. They were outlawed. That isn’t the same as saying that they were stopped. Also the fact that they are no longer allowed to give weight to the racial box, does not mean that the the diversity program is non-existant. The diversity program is still going strong. UC just isn’t allowed to officially use race as a factor. The diversity program is mentioned in at least two of the cites I have already provided.
I’m not going to get into an extended debate on tax policy in this thread. Suffice to say you simplify for dramatic effect.
“You do this without the benefit of any statistical examination of the ethnicity of the underachievers. Minus that, it’s just a conflation of two different problems, and the solution is obvious, and direct: kick out the underachievers, regardless of race or ethnicity.”
This rhetorical device is used by you constantly. In an 800 word piece I don’t provide evidence for all well known facts. Since I don’t provide evidence in the piece itself, you pretend it does not exist. I’m going to provide exactly one source on this topic (which I shouldn’t do for well known facts because it only encourages your tactic). If you are interested in researching it yourself I suggest beginning with google and using ‘degree completion’ as an excellent search term. Cite
Note: “Conducted by the UCLA Higher Education Research Institute, the study showed that overall, only about two in five students earned a bachelor’s degree within four years after entering college, a decline of nearly 7 percent in the last 20 years. Almost 45 percent of undergraduate students graduate with a bachelor’s degree within six years.
According to the report, African Americans and Chicanos are less likely to obtain their degrees than Asian Americans and white students.
The study also concluded that the largest number of students earning a bachelor’s degree within four years are Asian Americans, nearly half of whom graduate within the first four years of college.
The report also concluded that about 42 percent of whites and 19.4 percent of African Americans complete their undergraduate degrees within four years.”
UC racial characteristics of students on students on academic restriction are not published. But the graduation rate is excellent evidence for my proposition, considering that the direct evidence is being intentionally obscured.
As a student of science, I’m would think you would appreciate indirect evidence more. Particle accelerators collect indirect evidence, but we still use them. And before you accuse me of dismissing evidence, I suggest you both provide some and actually look at the cites I provide.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at March 10, 2004 12:11 PMIf what you say is true then we have a situation that needs to be addressed by Arnold. Perhaps he can assume his role as the Superterminator that became obsolete and saved the human genome. It is clear that we are all making too much of race in the USA these days. We ought to just ignore it and put everyone who misuses drugs in jail including fat white boys. Perhaps even frat boys who use drugs ought to have their civil rights removed for life.
Sebastian, I find it wonderful that you can take up the plight of these students who triumphed over race to get good grades and learn something. Your fondness for statistics is showing but I wonder if it only serves your agenda? How about the statistics on drug use and incarceration. Incarceration changes a lot more lives than college rejection slips today. Why cry out for one and not another, dare I call your reasons political? I think so.
Henri
