December 18, 2014

Asians Dominate California Colleges and Universities in a Post Proposition 209 World

This evening, I am sitting in my home study, drinking a cup of strong, freshly brewed black coffee, reading through the news, studying the annual reports of some of the major oil and natural gas companies, and, in a few moments, about to embark on a new game of Civilization V.  One of the stories I came across was from the Associated Press.  It is called California Affirmative Action: Campus Diversity Suffers Under Race-Blind Policies.  It was written by a reporter named Terence Chea.  It is an interesting read.  

Proposition 209 Affirmative Action California - Image Under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License Published by brainchildvn on Flickr on January 16th, 2009 entitled Campus of the UC Berkeley in Berkeley, California, United States

Proposition 209 was a civil rights amendment to the California state constitution that prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or ethnicity. It passed in 1996.

Here is the back story.  In 1996, the voters of California passed a constitutional amendment called Proposition 209.  It prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or ethnicity.  The prohibition on discrimination included public employment, public education, and public contractors doing business with the state government.  The idea behind the civil rights act was that merit should be all that matters.  The best people should win, regardless of whether they are men or women, black, white, Asian, or Hispanic.

By definition Proposition 209 changed the ways that college boards for state schools were allowed to admit new freshman.  Under the changed California constitution, the admissions boards had to look at grades, attendance, extracurricular activities, and test scores only.  The best students got in, those who didn’t measure up to their peers didn’t.  The chips would then fall where they may.

In the news article, Chea goes back and examines where, precisely, those chips fell.

Asian Students Are Thriving In Race Blind Admissions Thanks to Proposition 209

Turns out, Asian families prioritize education.  Asian students thrived in the post Proposition 209 world.  As Chea puts it:

With affirmative action outlawed, Asian American students have dominated admissions. The freshman class admitted to UC Berkeley this coming fall is 30 percent white and 46 percent Asian, according to newly released data. The share of admitted Asians is four times higher than their percentage in the state’s K-12 public schools.

But traditionally underrepresented Hispanic and black students remain so. In a state where Latinos make up half the K-12 public school population, only 15 percent of the Berkeley students are Hispanic. And the freshman class is less than 4 percent African Americans, although they make up 7 percent of the K-12 students. [snip]

Voters in Arizona, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Washington and Nebraska have since approved similar bans with similar results.

What I find absolutely insane is this passage:

Affirmative-action advocates say Proposition 209 has created a “new Jim Crow regime” in California, where elite public colleges are dominated by white and Asian students while black and Hispanic students are relegated to less prestigious campuses.

Seriously?  In a pure meritocracy, Asian students took 4x the spots at the best schools in California compared to what their underlying demographics in the general population.  

Common sense tells you that in a pool of limited acceptance letters, fewer white, black, hispanic, and mixed race students got in who otherwise would have.  White students are underrepresented relative to state demographics.  Black students are underrepresented relative to state demographics.  Hispanic students are underrepresented relative to state demographics.

Why is this a problem?  If the Asians students studied harder, if the Asian students got better test scores, if the Asian students did what was necessary to succeed, then the Asian students should get the degrees.  They should get the higher paychecks.  They should get the social prestige.  They won.  They won fairly.  They won squarely.  They were academically better.  To deny them the rewards of those labors solely because of their race is unjust.

No one was “relegated” to any subpar school.  They didn’t do what was necessary to secure a top spot.  If you live in a state that doles out educational opportunity based on grades and test scores, the recipe for winning is self-evident: Get higher grades and score better on tests.  To argue any other approach is lazy, entitled whining.  

Simple reason says that, if California is allowed to factor race into its admissions policies, some Asian kid who had higher grades and better test scores is going to be turned down from a spot they earned ethically and honestly.  To argue against Proposition 209 is outright racist.  It is bigoted.  It is anti-equality.  It baffles the mind to think that a decent human being could look at some eighteen year old Asian girl who spent nights and weekends buried in an advanced organic chemistry book and tell her that she lost her spot because of her race.  “We’re sorry.  We know you did the work and scored better than everyone else but we have too many Asians so you don’t get to go to school here.”  It’s just morally reprehensible.  She should get the welcome letter.  

I know I shouldn’t be surprised at intolerance and bigotry in the world.  Between the fight for marriage equality and the anti-immigration nut cases on the far right obsessed with people who want to come to the United States for a better life (I’m not talking about supporting rational immigration reform, I’m talking about the people that basically want America to be nothing but a bunch of blond haired, blue-eyed protestants), nothing should surprise me.  But to oppose race-blind admission policies so meritocracy rules?   To not even attempt to hide the fact that the end game is to try and reduce the total Asian admissions that are granted?  It’s just so hateful, entitled, lazy and racist.  If my kids want to go to college and they don’t have the grades, too bad.  They shouldn’t get, or be denied, a spot because of their race or their dad’s net worth.  They should have to stand on their own merit.

Meritocracy should always rule.  I want my symphonies to be made up of the best players, my doctors to have been the best student in medical school, my cooks to be the most gifted chefs, my newspaper reporters to be the most talented writers, and my sports teams to be made up of those with the highest athletic prowess.  To argue Asian kids should have the door slammed in their face because we “should” have more white college students, black college students, or Hispanic college students?  No.  It’s just too damn bad.  If you want to change it, study harder.  Don’t unfairly punish those who put in the hours, striving to better themselves.

 
  • FratMan

    Hey Joshua, that was a good read. With this stuff in mind, how do you feel about the test prep industry and its effect on college admissions? Here’s where I’m coming from in that regard. I took the ACT “cold” the first time and scored a 29 (I didn’t care if I did poorly since we’re allowed to choose which ACT scores to send colleges, unlike the SAT. On a side note, this was why I naturally gravitated towards the ACT). Then I bought some ACT prep books and took practice tests on my own time. Next time I took the test, I scored a 31. Then, my parents paid about $4,000-$6,000 for me to get a tutor, and I scored a 34. This was great and all, but still, it didn’t measure my “natural” aptitude–it measured my ability to study for a particular test and use extensive resources to do well. This, in turn, opened the door for me to get into Ivy League schools (although I ultimately took a scholarship to go somewhere else). 

    Now my question for you is this–do I “deserve” to get in over another student who comes from a very economically disadvantaged background who scores a 29 “naturally” and then has to spend his evenings working at the bowling alley to help the family pay the bills? This strikes me as a case of the rich getting richer because I had the resources to self-improve in a way that folks of more modest means could not. Of course, I do not feel guilty about this–my prep school was littered with the wasted potential of students who failed to utilize the resources that the school or their parents offered. After all, I still had to “do it”, so that’s why I can sleep at night. 

    Anyway, you mentioned that “If you live in a state that doles out educational opportunity based on grades and test scores, the recipe for winning is self-evident: get higher grades and score better on tests. To argue any other approach is lazy, entitled whining.” But is it necessarily lazy, entitled whining to suggest that a student who gets a 28 on the ACT coming out of East St. Louis (where the ACT average is 18, and high school graduation rates are around 50%) is more deserving of an admissions spot than someone who scores a 31 coming out of Missouri’s finest prep school (where the ACT average is 28, and the graduation rates are damn near 100%)? I don’t mean this as a criticism of what you’re saying necessarily–because the truth is, most of this stuff still falls in my “too hard” pile–but nevertheless, I am leaning in the direction of this, “Admissions should be race-blind, but not circumstance blind.” 

    • Joshua Kennon

      You hit the nail on the head as to the structural problem that very well could reinforce cycles of poverty.  I couldn’t have articulated it better myself.  

      Personally, the conclusion at which I have arrived is that the only sustainable, long-term solution is work in early childhood education, like Jeffrey Canada is doing with Harlem Children Zone.  If you start trying to rectify the disparity by junior high or high school, it is often too late because the students lack the basic tools to function (e.g., reading speed and comprehension, which are necessary to synthesize information on more complex topics, quickly).  

      Yes, I think circumstances should definitely play a role in admissions depending upon the degree program.  For most fields, someone who has a B+ average with a 28 on the ACT but is also the captain of the debate team, student body president, owns a summer pool cleaning business, volunteers at a soup kitchen, and speaks fluent Italian is better leadership material than someone with a 31 score on the ACT and an A average but none of those other achievements.  So, yeah, I definitely think it is broader than standardized tests.  But I think the college admissions panel should have the age, race, and gender of the applicants redacted so the process is based solely on merit, as subjective as that must necessarily be.  To help guarantee fairness in the the process, applications should only have a random number assigned to remove all bias (e.g., certain studies have shown that “black sounding” names result in fewer job offers due to subconscious prejudice; unfair disadvantages such as that would be fixed in a blind admissions setup).  

      The exception would be areas such as medical school.  There, it’s all about book knowledge, information grasp, and test taking ability because you need someone who can recall some esoteric side effect in the middle of an emergency to save lives.  In that line of work, it would be test scores, grades, and more test scores.

      • FratMan

        I agree with just about everything you just said. One thing I’m curious to hear more about your thoughts is this line: “But I think the college admissions panel should have the age, race, and gender of the applicants redacted so the process is based solely on merit, as subjective as that must necessarily be.”
        It reminds me of something my dad said about that–“Why even ask for a person’s race on the application unless you’re going to use that information to discriminate against somebody in one form or another?” So I completely agree with you there. And I like the random number assignment instead of names idea.

        But isn’t it reasonable for a school to want some form of gender parity? At the university I’m about to graduate from, it’s about 50% male, 50% female. The Dean’s Office released a statement a few years back mentioning that if the school were truly meritorious, it would be about 75% female. Personally, I wouldn’t mind that ;) 

        Anyway, the school makes the argument on logistical grounds, claiming they only have so many female dorms, so they have to maintain gender parity due to the set-up of the campus. But I hate arguments like that–I don’t want policies that are the result of logistics; I want policies that are the result of philosophy. My bottom-line question for you would be this: Wouldn’t a school suck if it were 85% male, or 90% female, or whatever? I feel like that would take a sledgehammer to general student body happiness and satisfaction, but I’m curious to hear your thoughts. 

        • Joshua Kennon

          That is a tough one. A really tough one. On one hand, merit should rule, even if that means you have a school that is 95% female. On the other hand, the entire experience is going to be poor preparation for the real world if you aren’t used to dealing with, and learning to adapt to the specific emotional and cultural needs, of the opposite gender in an age of equal opportunity.

          I do think part of the problem comes down to genetic level differences between the genders. Throughout 99.99% of human history, the moment men hit puberty, they were separated off from the girls, became an adult, spent their time in the company of other men building, hunting, and providing, and took on the mantle of responsibility to protect and provide for not only their own wife, but the tribe or group as a whole. The idea that, at 21 or 22, a male should still be sitting in a little desk in a university listening to a lecture, single (not married), a virgin, not working full-time is fundamentally incompatible with how men evolved.

          In other words:

          1. If we know that there is not raw IQ difference between men and women,
          2. We know that women tend to perform better in schools
          3. Our underlying presumption is that schools are responsible for success later in life,
          4. Yet, we know that a vast majority of self-made millionaires, business leaders, scientists, and other high-performance industries are dominated by men

          Then, it stands to reason that the problem is not men, the problem is that the educational system is fundamentally structured in a way that gives women an unfair advantage.

          I would say, then, that the problem isn’t that 75% or 95% of the student body is women. I would say that the problem is an education system that defines merit in a way that does not match up with real world outcomes of success.

          To put it another way, imagine that you sign up for a college course focusing on manufacturing-based engineering. Instead of a chalkboard and textbook, you walk into the classroom and there is the skeleton of a full scale locomotive. Your first pop quiz is to grab pieces and start building it, getting the machine together and in running order. You have 3 hours. The grades are assigned “A to F” in the order of who finishes first to last.

          In such a system, though there will always be exceptions, men would generally score much higher than women. The same knowledge given on a written test would result in the opposite outcome, with the women scoring higher.

          Any system that consistently skews results so that a vast majority of people “winning” are male or female probably has a structural flaw. The current educational system has been feminized too much, which helps explain the disinterest of men. We need some sort of reform, or at the very least, a revival of trade schools that specialize in industry specific knowledge with hands-on training.

          A well designed system should allow equal access to anyone, regardless of gender, into the fields in which they have an interest and in which they excel. Right now, the system rewards people sitting in circles, inside a building, in artificial life, scribbling on little pieces of paper. It is fundamentally incompatible with the genetic evolution of the male.

        • Greling Jackson

          And will the real world be 37% Asian-American?

    • Joshua Kennon

      P.S. As for the test prep industry, it depends on what you mean.  

      I’m all for education in all of its forms, provided it is effective and efficient.  One of the best things my parents ever did for me was get me a private tutor when I was barely a toddler because I was speaking in complete sentences at 10 or 11 months old.  My family has old audio tapes of me singing songs and telling stories before my first birthday; the phone would ring and I’d pick it up and talk to my grandmothers and carry on full conversations.  They (the grandmothers) knew it wasn’t normal, having raised ten kids between them, so they pushed my parents to find a retired elementary school teacher who ran a little group from her house.  We would go there and learn to read using phonics, study how to measure things using rulers, and walk the forest on her property to see how plants grew.  Then, my parents would read to me every night.  That went on through my entire childhood, and it wasn’t light stuff or even age appropriate stuff.  It was everything from the King James Bible to Anthony Robbins’ Awaken the Giant Within, a self-help book on life management.

      At the time, they were young and didn’t have a lot of money.  My mom got married at 19 and had me at 20.  None of this required thousands of dollars.  If it had, they wouldn’t have been able to do it.  A great education doesn’t have to be expensive.  It just requires time and commitment.  Well over 90% of the stuff, probably higher, that I know came from the fact I’m a voracious reader.  I probably read more in six months than the average person does in a lifetime.  

      If you’re talking about paying someone a ton of cash to come into your home and study flash cards with a kid, I don’t know.  If it works, I guess do it.  It is just that in my experience, it isn’t necessary.  The best teacher I ever had in the public school system was in 3rd grade.  She sang us songs on the autoharp, which I can still sing to this day.  By Thanksgiving or Christmas break, we had finished the entire yearly lesson plan and she was forced to stop so the other teachers could catch up.  She had no more funding; she was just better.  More money doesn’t mean a better education.  The Kansas City school district is evidence of that.  It has everything from state-of-the-art computer labs to an Olympic swimming pool and it can’t even get accredited it is so terrible.  

      • Gilvus

        Your family members have foresight. I don’t know if it was developed through critical thinking and years of experience, or a congenital gift. It’s enviable.

    • Gilvus

      Congrats on your success thus far, FratMan. I don’t know what racial group you belong to, but from what you’ve written I think we can agree that it’s irrelevant.

      Have you heard of  the “model minority” stereotype applied to Asian- and Jewish-Americans? I personally hate it because it implies that other races are inherently inferior.

  • Gilvus

    I’m Asian-American. So far, I’ve been able to turn the math stereotype on its head by joking I’m the only Asian in a 100-mile radius who’s bad at it. Otherwise, it’s annoying to see scholarships, internships, and the like offered for “ethnic minorities” only to read the fine print and see that I’m not eligible.

    To be fair to your professor, it may have been a veiled compliment or encouragement, rather than an assumption based on race or ethnicity. Your prof is experienced enough to quickly identify the hardworking, sharp students from the rest (hell, I’ve been a TA for less than two years and I can do it, to a certain degree). I routinely compliment and encourage my students so they know their hard work is being noted, but I generally do it to their faces or via email to avoid this exact sort of misunderstanding (like if someone accused me of trying to hit on female students if they see me complimenting one female student). Unless your professor is obviously a bigot, I’d guess that’s the true meaning behind the comment.

    I’m not well-versed on these issues, but I think social cohesion is the key we’re debating right now. If smart, rational people support affirmative action, I strongly believe they support it as a necessary evil rather than an ideal. Think about the whole “99 vs. 1%” going on right now – part of it’s due to plain ignorance, part of it’s due to human envy and crab mentality.  I’d imagine affirmative action issues have that exact same problem. Anytime there’s social disparity, you hear grumblings about “they’re taking our jobs/men/women/land/whatevers.” Asian dudes often grumble about how so many Asian girls date white guys, did you know that?

    I’m just playing devil’s advocate, btw. On the whole, I still think the concept of fighting discrimination with more discrimination is fundamentally ludicrous.

    • FratMan

      One of my white friends spent the summer in China and talked about how all of his male Asian friends would get pissed at the double standard that Asian women go for the white guys, but not nearly as many white women go for Asian men. Ehhh, don’t know what to do about that one.

      My problem with race-based affirmative action is that it’s stupid. I mean, why should Barack Obama’s daughters get an institutional advantage over a poor white girl raised by a single mom in West Virginia? I mean, that’s stupid. If you’re going to do any kind of affirmative action, it should be based on economic circumstances rather than race. And to be honest, this would still help out most of the blacks.  But I hated seeing a black kid at my high school who came from an affluent family (I’d guess their annual income to be in excess of $300,000+) get all these scholarships and acceptances to Ivy League schools even he never made Honor Roll. So that kind of stuff aggravates me because it doesn’t seem fair.

      And no, my professor probably isn’t anti-Semitic–although there was an uncomfortable silence after the remark was made. I would agree, it is too easy to be too sensitive about these things (we should focus on motives rather than trying to construe something in the most uncharitable light). 

      • Gilvus

        You can play dumb, and pretend to not be aware of the disparity. Or you could insist that you only like white girls (whether that’s true or not). I just tell them to grow a pair and hit the gym for an hour instead of playing Starcraft. I guess you can’t do that because THAT’S RACIST RAWR.

        Remember how Joshua sometimes talks about his internal scorecard? Sure, that kid may be taking life on cruise control. But in this case, you’re letting the external forces keep score for you. Internally, you know you’re the better man because you earned what you have and you’re far less likely to become a prodigal son. And that internal scorecard is all that matters :-)

    • Joshua Kennon

      “it’s annoying to see scholarships, internships, and the like offered for “ethnic minorities” only to read the fine print and see that I’m not eligible.”

      Holy crap, does that really happen? There are actual scholarships for minorities that specifically exclude Asians?

      Even though they are only 4.8% of the population in the United States compared to 12.6% African American and 16.3% Hispanic or Latino? That is insane. I had no idea that was even legal. Wow.

  • TheLonelyHumanist

    In the wake of Hitler, we all agreed it was best to pretend that all humans are really the same in every way–because if people aren’t the same blank slates whose diversity is completely derived from class, then we can’t REALLY be equal and we can’t be cured of our inequality.
    The deep, dark secret of the 20th century is that both individuals and groups ARE different from one another. The range of human intelligence, while it extends to the Darwins and Einsteins, overlaps several other mammals. No one would ever try to substitute an Australian Shepard with a Chihuahua (who are only separated by a few centuries). But if you talk about differences between human populations who have spent a third of the history of our species in completely distinct environments and even interbred with other homo “species,” you are a racist. 
    Until we acknowledge WHO humans are and where we came from, the collective will be blown about in blindness, adopting whatever poetic notions of identity best comfort the observer. We are animals. We are diverse. And all the education or religion in the world can’t change that.  On standardized testing… If standardized test were pure IQ tests, they could be made to be near “unstudyable.”  But they test two separate, yet related, factors. If studying could NOT improve your ACT or SAT score, it would be a pure intelligence metric and would have LESS validity in that it would not say anything about what kind of student you are. You are SUPPOSED to be a better student when you study more… 

    • Joshua Kennon

      This was the topic of conversation for several weeks in one of my undergraduate biology or genetics courses. The professor, who wisely made us consider the real world implications of the findings of science, asked us to explain the moral and ethical concerns with identifying the fact that a certain genetic group (in this case, the Ashkenazi Jews), had the highest natural IQ rates among all races, creeds, and genetic backgrounds.

      That advantage was thought to have arisen as an adaptation against their racist oppressors, who sought to destroy them. Having “evolved” or “adapted” to their environment in the form of selective breeding, the overall intelligence rose as the men and women capable of outsmarting their competition had children, but introduced counter-problems, such as specific genetic defects that tend to afflict those of Jewish background far more heavily.

      Likewise, another example given was that Olympic running competitions were almost always dominated by those of West African descent, because thousands of years of evolutionary adaptation had given them an enormous physical advantage resulting from the fact that only those capable of outrunning the slowest member of a city or tribe weren’t eaten by lions or other predators. Over time, this create a genetic arms race that ended up creating faster and faster offspring as genes that promoted survival were passed down to children and grandchildren.

      The general lesson was that, as scientists (not me, obviously; I took a lot of courses not related to my primary major because I enjoy learning about this stuff), we had to be aware of this genetic diversity, though guard against carrying them to their extremes (e.g., Hitler and eugenics). That way, you could save more lives. An African American man, for example, has much different risk factors for diabetes and heart disease than an Asian female. To ignore that could cost lives.

      It was an interesting discussion, and something that up until that point, I hadn’t even considered. Prior to the introduction of the railroad, genetic populations tended to breed in isolation, leading to different adaptive traits that were suited for specific environments. The question became whether or not certain group-level adaptations were ideal for the current structure of Western Civilization. The general consensus was, if they aren’t, evolutionary adaptation will play its role in time and society will begin to reflect the most optimal survival probabilities for current factors. In this case, it may well be that the single greatest advantage is an immunity to things like trans fats or heart disease given the rise in obesity.

      Further complicating the matter was the fact that virtually no one in the United States is a single race. I forgot the precise figure, but something like 92 out of 100 white people are at least partially black due to male slave owners raping slaves. So, in the United States, at least, much of it is a moot point because we are all the genetic equivalent of mutts.

      I’m an example of that. I can’t even tell you my own background. I know that one of my grandmothers or great grandmothers was a pure blooded Indian from some tribe (and can even sing one of the children’s Indian songs she sang to us), another one was a Frenchwoman who came to the United States, some of my grandfathers were German, others were Irish or Scottish. There are a few British citizens in there. There is a high probability there are at least some African Americans in the family tree, too, because somewhere along the line, according to the older family members who do genealogy, the entire Kennon family split, with one side now entirely white, the other entirely black. One of these days, curiosity will get the best of me and I’ll have my genetics mapped just to find out the history.

  • Ian Francis

    This article makes me want to do one thing, and one thing only.  Play Civ V.  You reminded me that it has been quite a long time since I last played.

    But on a more serious note, I am always amazed how people can be so adamantly against racism, and then in the same sentence support affirmative action.  I understand their ultimate goal, but getting all races on an equal footing requires working at as young an age as possible, not when these kids are ready for college, or even in the workforce.  Back when we lived in Columbus, a coworker of Ashly’s told her flat-out that they voted for Obama precicely because he was black, and anyone who didn’t do the same was racist.  I’m not even sure how I would have responded to this.  I am a fervent supporter of equalily for all peoples, but I cannot understand how some people can justify their racism as equality.  Perhaps as a white privledged male I just don’t get it.  I don’t think that is true, but perhaps.

    • Spingus

      Kinda puts you in an awkward position doesn’t it?  Affirmative action and other neo- anti discrimination initiatives have made me feel uncomfortable for a long time.

      I am saying this from the comfort of my generation –I’m allowed to vote (hell I even have the right to not be beaten by my husband!), own property and go to school in whatever field I please.

      My point is that we in the US have made such large strides in leveling the playing field for our citizens that I’d like us to put effort towards human rights instead of ‘women’s right’ or ‘black rights’.  

      Every time I see a promotional piece for a program to get *girls* more involved in science or engineering it makes me cringe —what about the boys?  Don’t we want more *people* in highly cognitive professions?

      Don’t get me wrong, anytime I see a woman being ignored or passed over because of her sex I step up and try to make it right.  As a general rule though i think it’s a mistake to put the rights of *formerly* underprivileged groups ahead of those who are in a group that used to be favored (white men).  We’re all people and we all should have the opportunity to go for what we want in life.

      Also, what if the Republicans had made Sarah Palin their presidential candidate?  Would your acquaintance  still have voted for Obama? Would we be able to call him/her a misogynist then? ;)

    • Joshua Kennon

      Are you running Civ5 on a Windows or Mac install?  I am on the latter but I think there is a memory leak in the port to Mac because it becomes unplayable 45 minutes into the game.  Too slow to enjoy.  It can’t be my system stats because it is a beast – quad core, 16 gigabytes of RAM, etc.  If it is a mac only port problem I will get the Windows version instead.  Please advise.  Thx. Josh
      Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note™, an AT&T LTE smartphone

      ——– Original message ——–
      Subject: [joshuakennon] Re: Asians Dominate California Colleges and Universities in a Post Proposition 209 World

      • Ian Francis

        Windows, of course Josh.  I know you love your Macs, but the engineer inside me hates being forced to do things a certain way, even if that way works well.  My version seems to work fine.  I’ve played it for about 8 hours straight before (Ashly was away on business) and didn’t have any problems, though I vaguely remember having an issue with the game crashing intermittently.  Can’t remember if that was fixed in subsequent patches or not.  Ooh, and Spore.  I want to play Spore again.  Ok, back to work.

        • Gilvus

          High-five for STEM loyalty to Windows!

  • Wu
  • Guest

    I completely agree. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003042475960 Greling Jackson

    “If the Asians students studied harder, if the Asian students got better test scores, if the Asian students did what was necessary to succeed, then the Asian students should get the degrees.”

    This is actually a more complicated issue than it seems. A big issue that came up back around 2002 was the fact that California high schools and UC campuses were counting AP classes as additional fractional points towards one’s high school GPA. This sounds good in theory, but the problem was that communities that were largely wealthy and dominated by Whites and Asians were much more likely to have high schools that offered these AP classes. The affect was that a white, black or Hispanic kid in a poorer community could get a perfect 4.0 GPA and stellar extracurriculars, but not be able to compete equally with a wealthy white or Asian kid who got a 4.5 of 5.0 GPA due to the inflated AP credit GPA boost. The UC system eventually eliminated the policy of granting extra GPA points based on AP credit because of the dampening affect this had on poorer whites and ethnic minorities in admissions, but the extensive generational damage of having these built-in bonuses built into the system has yet to be undone.

banner