[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.