国家评论:想减少对亚裔美国人的大学录取歧视,市场的压 力比法院决定更有 力 zt

来源: 2021-02-22 05:59:36 [] [旧帖] [给我悄悄话] 本文已被阅读: 次 (7047 bytes)

国家评论:想减少对亚裔美国人的大学录取歧视,市场的压 力比法院决定更有 力 zt

Mon, February 22, 2021

America’s top colleges trumpet their commitment to racial equity, but if you’re a hard-working, high-achieving Asian-American student, you’re probably vexed about the discrimination you face when applying to many colleges. One 2009 study of ten elite schools found that, after controlling for key observable attributes of applicants, Asian-American SAT scores (on a scale of 1600) had to be 140 points higher than those of white applicants and 450 points higher than those of African-American applicants to have the same chances of acceptance. More recently, a careful study of Harvard’s admissions record (employing richer data on applicants’ characteristics) found that Asian-Americans were 19 percent less likely to be accepted than similarly qualified whites.

Unfortunately, our legal system seems to offer no remedy. In 2015, Asian-American plaintiffs lost a discrimination case against Princeton. Last November, a federal appeals court affirmed a lower-court decision that Harvard’s use of race in admissions was permissible because it did not constitute a “racial quota” (though plaintiffs promise to appeal to the Supreme Court). This month, the Department of Justice dropped a discrimination lawsuit against Yale that it had filed just before the last election. And though voters in some states soundly defeated efforts to overturn laws aimed at race-neu tral college admissions, many institutions are discarding the SAT and ACT tests in admissions decisions — whether to be “more holistic” or to better disguise penalties and advantages for various applicants, depending on your point of view.

But there is a powerful remedy for discriminatory conduct apart from law or politics: Market competition is an enduring and reliable force for justice. One famous example occurred 75 years ago, as big-league baseball spring training camps opened and included their first black player, Jackie Robinson.

From the late 1880s until 1946, organized baseball was lily-white. Employment discrimination was legal in the U.S. and would remain so for almost two more decades, but competitive forces in sports were starting to undermine it. Brooklyn Dodgers executive Branch Rickey, looking for a way to best his more successful New York rivals, the Yankees and Giants, saw opportunity in the abundant talent that a “gentle men’s agreement” among team owners had consigned to separate Neg ro Leagues.

After a year in the minor leagues at Montreal, Robinson ascended to the majors in 1947 and immediately led the Dodgers to a pennant — and five more before retiring. But his mark on both the sport and society was even more profound. Seeing how the Dodgers had won a competitive advantage by overcoming prejudice, their rivals hastened to imitate them. By the late 1960s, baseball was well integrated and there was little evidence of salary discrimination against black players. Further, some argue, Robinson’s courageous performance and undeniable success hastened desegregation in many other fields.

In higher education, something similar took place at roughly the same time. Between the World Wars, many Ivy League schools employed rigid admissions quotas. A Yale medical school dean once decreed “never admit more than five Jews . . . two Italian Catholics . . . no blacks at all.” Harvard devised an admissions process (stressing “geographic diversity” and “character”) that reduced its Jewish enrollment from 25 percent to about 10 percent by the ’30s.

But as excluded Jewish students and faculty gravitated to rival schools and enhanced their prestige, some of the gentlemen in academe took note. Brandeis University, founded in 1948 to become the “Harvard of the Jews,” attracted stars such as Leonard Bernstein and Herbert Marcuse to its faculty. As it and other competitors rose, Harvard and other Ivies were forced to reverse course. Today, Jews represent less than 3 percent of the nation’s population but staff 9 percent of university faculties and 17 percent of those at top-ranked institutions.

If Asians are, for whatever reason, the academy’s “new Jews,” the good news is that market pressures are present even in this context, and there are some institutions primed to play the role of the Brooklyn Dodgers or Brandeis.

A prime example is the California Institute of Technology, which is highly meritocratic in its admissions policies. As Asian-Americans have encountered admissions barriers at other elite schools, they now are 43 percent of Caltech’s student body. But Caltech’s failure to pursue demographic “balance” hasn’t harmed its international reputation: The Times Higher Education’s 2020 rankings rated it second in the world — ahead of Harvard (seventh) and every other Ivy. A decade ago, Harvard and Caltech were ranked first and second respectively. Employers have caught on: According to PayScale, early career earnings for alumni of Caltech exceed those for Harvard by 16 percent.

What’s more, the Jackie Robinson effect is at work even though the legal system may not be. Though Princeton was victorious in its 2015 discrimination case, its Class of ’24 is 25 percent Asian-American, up from 14 percent a little over a decade ago — and it has moved ahead of Harvard to sixth in the world rankings. Whether because of competitive or legal pressure, Harvard’s admission rate of Asians has trended upward recently, and at a sharp pace. Some 25 percent of the class of 2023 is Asian-American; Yale’s Asian-American enrollment is up from 10 percent to 17 percent, and it is up from tenth a decade ago. Outside the Ivy League, at schools such as Duke, Rice, Carnegie-Mellon, and Georgia Tech, proportions of Asian-American students exceed 20 percent and have increased by at least five percentage points in the last decade. It is easy to think that other rivals will join right in.

That’s the way markets work to penalize bias and reward virtue: Schools that become excessively devoted to identity politics and underweight merit will find their competition gaining on them. Rankings will shift and applicant enthusiasm and alumni support will wax or wane accordingly. In response, all are likely to do a better job shedding their biases — or those that do not will struggle until they see the error of their ways.

 



斯坦福工作10年后,她告诉家长养育孩子这3条红线不能碰

美国孩子要看的8000本学科阅读书单里藏着什么秘密?

The Land of Stories紅透全球 90后天才作家代表作

好书推荐:I Survived 系列- 理解灾难,理解历史,还是逃生指南!

《推介》给全职推爸推妈推荐两本爬藤指南书

让孩子爱上阅读,那些必须收藏的儿童经典读物

美国当下最流行的STEM玩具(4-15岁)

350万美国读者票选出:20本今年最受欢迎的书(组图)

推荐适合小朋友看的英文绘本

好书推荐:“All the Light We Cannot See” by Anthony Doerr

推荐一本历史小书,主要是欧洲史

2015年看的几本书

我在北京雾霾时用这个面具!

强力推荐的一本好书,家长不妨买一本来读读(图)

家有5年级的男娃全家必看的一本书


减少疲劳:给网虫们推荐一样非常适用的东西

一个小小的的detector或许会挽救很多人的生命

正在看一本帮助男孩成长的书,一点笔记

推荐两本新书,应该对孩子的思维很有帮助

给大家推荐一本书 希望培养孩子研究科学的家长看

推荐Wordly Wise 3000的书

犹太推儿经:看到B-,犹爸会不会怒发冲kipa?

强烈推荐给大人孩子都要读:高效能孩子的七个习惯

推荐一本家有 Teenager 的好书

想知道如何进理想大学?推荐二本书,很有帮助

有关孩子阅读,介绍一套相当不错的书

推荐一本书 Gifted Lives by Joan Freeman

所有跟帖: 

career earnings for alumni of Caltech exceed those for Harvard b -杰西- 给 杰西 发送悄悄话 杰西 的博客首页 杰西 的个人群组 (0 bytes) () 02/22/2021 postreply 09:41:46

加跟帖:

  • 笔名:      密码: 保持登录状态一个月,直到我退出登录。
  • 标题:
  • 内容(可选项): [所见即所得|预览模式] [HTML源代码] [如何上传图片] [怎样发视频] [如何贴音乐]
回到顶部