[jlangemeier]

Higher Ed Number cruncher here (who also read the report, which apparently was a big deal to the author since they cited the page count - and many of their arguments hinge on you taking their word for it and not reading at least the exec summary yourself - which is only 8 pages):

So, fun thing about the actual study that the author references... the committee actually __DIDN'T__ tell UC regents to not get rid of the test; they recommended against making it test optional due to variability in assessment requirements between institutions - and the exec summary doesn't include any recommendation for or against fully excising standardized testing from their eval process.

Further, the committee found that while the tests over HSGPA (high test score, low GPA) weighting was used in a subset of cases it was more likely that a student was admitted with just the opposite (low test score, high GPA); and overall it looks like the strongest recommendation was to disincentivize the HSGPA due to it losing almost 25% predictive effectiveness over the tested time period.

This article reads fine until it gets to the last couple of paragraphs, covering "affirmative action" and over-representation of AAPI students; and this is where a glaring issue comes through with their analysis. Like any higher ed institution there is a monetary incentive to get international students; as there isn't usually an out for lower tuition like WUE/WGE (which coincidentally the UC system no longer participates in), interstate compact agreements, and the like for tuition reduction; and the home country in many cases subsidizes the student so the higher ed institution gets full out-of-state tuition rates on a nearly guaranteed basis. So, by using AAPI students as a proxy argument for their weird screed at the end while leaving off factors like what percentage of that UG population is in-state v. out-of-state v. international does a disservice to that over/under-represented claim; while also leaving them off of the earlier analysis pieces moves the slant of the article in a weird way.

For further reference; AAPI students are __NOT__ included in Underrepresented Minority (URM) calculations - even though in many cases a layperson __WOULD__ include them; so by not mentioning them until you reach the point you're calling out the discrepancy they end up begging the question around the "model minority" bs; when it really may be explained more concretely through international and out of state student draw.

[usaar333]

> So, by using AAPI students as a proxy argument for their weird screed at the end while leaving off factors like what percentage of that UG population is in-state v. out-of-state v. international does a disservice to that over/under-represented claim; while also leaving them off of the earlier analysis pieces moves the slant of the article in a weird way.

UC reports international students separately. They also have dedicated reports for CA. Here's the CA admissions data: https://ucop.edu/institutional-research-academic-planning/_f...

> For further reference; AAPI students are __NOT__ included in Underrepresented Minority (URM) calculations - even though in many cases a layperson __WOULD__ include them;

Not in higher ed.

[jlangemeier]

> UC reports international students separately. [sic]

The report cited in the article isn't as clear on their distinction and in some cases the numbers indicate that the comparisons are among feeder, in-state high schools; and others are general enough that the lack of detail is concerning as the study leaves out the total population and only provides percentages.

> Not in higher ed.

While the common/colloquial understanding through recent years shows that Asian students are more represented in higher ed; the general notion of what URM is codified as in higher ed contexts is less known; and wasn't clearly defined in the article. And I initially spoke too broadly, as the PI (pacific islander) portion of AAPI is included in URM, the Asian portion is not; and the PI portion is not mention anywhere in the article; and with AAPI discrimination being in the current cultural Zeitgeist, if that distinction goes unmentioned it's a leading statement.

[nyc640]

> The report cited in the article isn't as clear on their distinction and in some cases the numbers indicate that the comparisons are among feeder, in-state high schools; and others are general enough that the lack of detail is concerning as the study leaves out the total population and only provides percentages.

You can look at the data[1] yourself. It's clear that of in-state students enrolling in UCs (not international), Asian Americans make up 36% of enrollees and white Americans make up 20% of enrollees (indeed "underrepresented"). It seems like you are leading on with your comments that it is maybe OK to cut down on Asian representation because most of those students are probably international anyway (which I also don't agree with), but the data clearly shows that such a cut to Asian representation would harm Asian Americans as well.

[1] https://accountability.universityofcalifornia.edu/2021/chapt...

[jlangemeier]

You're literally __NOT__ citing the study used and provided to the regents and which forms the basis for the article.

Again, as I noted to the GP, the study is not clear in all cases what n they are using when calculating their percentages, and the author of the article takes advantage of that.

Further, you're reading a lot into my comments; I am neither advocating for or against changes to given policy, but that the study leaves inconsistencies that the author readily takes advantage of for their own agenda.

[zzt123]

Ah. So when the article says that by percentage, white students are underrepresented, that’s because the denominator for the student body population includes all students (thus also international and out of state students), rather than just in-state California students?

Tricky article!

[nyc640]

This is not true, you can see the data[1] yourself for in-state students. It is true that of in-state students at UCs, white students are "underrepresented" compared to their share of the population, but their share of admissions is actually very close to their share of applications so there could be other reasons for this. For example, white students in CA may be:

* more likely to apply to private schools

* more able to afford private schools

* more likely to get accepted to private schools that don't have the same race-blind admissions restrictions that UCs do

* more likely to go out-of-state for college

[1] https://accountability.universityofcalifornia.edu/2021/chapt...

[zzt123]

Ah, thanks for the link!

[jlangemeier]

There is a chance; but more than likely they're quietly mixing what they count in the denominator; especially since with the rest of the URM group and whites it seems they are very careful to call out that its comparisons between the high school pipeline and the in-state collegiate pipeline, but aren't as careful when discussing the AAPI pipeline.

Also, it looks like the study is following federal guidelines (IPEDS/NCES) on student groups; so Asian in this context for international students includes everyone from Korea, China, and Japan, down to the Malaysian Peninsula, through India, all the way west to the Arabian Peninsula (you know, like about 50% of the world population, no biggie there); so there may be some weird mixing of what's included in the denominator for AAPI students.