See? This is why you have some serious issues... with INTEGRITY.quote:According to THIS INTERVIEW about the hisotrical racism in the Ivy League the recent discrepancy in admissions for Asians was due to their lack of participation in ATHLETICS and extra-curricular activities as compared to other populations of students.
LEGACIES were explicitly mentioned in this INTERVIEW right along with Athletics, etc. as factors that accounted for the different admit rate between Whites and Asian-Americans.
One of the themes is this idea that Asian-Americans are "The New Jews":
Hmmm.... How come you neglected to mention anything about GEOGRAPHICAL PREFERENCES? The author, Karabel, made the link to those geographical preferences being non-meritocratic admission 'points' that were added to install a Jewish capping quota.quote:The New Jews
By Matthew Yglesias
...What tends to get less attention is the extent to which the mechanisms formerly used to informally cap the number of Jewish students haven't so much been dismantled as merely redirected at Asian-Americans. All of the major departures from a strict academic meritocracy -- affirmative action, legacy preferences, athletic recruitment, emphasis on extracurricular activities, geographical diversity, etc. -- just so happen to cut against Asian applicants. As a result, just as with Jews back in the day, the Asian-Americans who wind up admitted have substantially better test scores and other academic qualifications than do the non-Asians...
How come you didn't highlight the concept of "Cultural Capital" and the idea that "there isn't as much upward mobility" as people would like to believe (quoting the author almost verbatim)??
Hmmmmm..... And the author also alluded to:
So, Berkeley's Asian-American admit policy/rate/percentage, contrary to your "blanket statement", had a lot to do with Berkeley dealing with how it favored Whites over Asians as well as other factors.quote:Japanese, Chinese and Koreans have a reputation for doing well academically, and are generally not treated as minorities if they were born in the United States. In fact, there have been reports of "reverse discrimination" in which Asian applicants were required to have higher LSAT scores and grades than their Caucasian counterparts. In 1988, the Justice Department investigated charges that Harvard and UCLA were limiting the number of Asians granted admission. (New York Times, Nov. 20, 1988, p. A35 col. 1.) In May of 1989, Berkeley announced a change of admissions standards to correct for (among other things) an acknowledged "disproportionately negative impact on Asian Americans." (Id., May 25, 1989, at A16 col. 3.)
There was a lot of controversy over drops or plateauing of Asian-American admissions at Berkeley (and other schools) in the 80's, etc. And that's a factor in the higher percentage of Asian-American students currently at Berkeley. It was the public attention and protest over those "Hidden Quotas", more specifically the notion that Asians were superior qualifications when compared to their White counterparts that spurred a change in Berkeley's admission policies that pre-date Berkeley "scrapping" AA.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/issr/paper/issr420.pdf -- pg 5 +
quote:Berkeley has always been the preferred campus for many Asian American parents, dating back to the pre-war era. The fact that it is tuition free and is readily accessible by public transportation makes it even more attractive to the largely lower-middle and lower-class Asian American families who simply cannot afford to send their children to more expensive and distant private colleges and other UC campuses (Thomson 1986).