Close to 2 out of 3 blacks and 1 out of 2 Hispanics should not be in elite colleges?

In a race-neutral policy, that is.

See:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/06/07/affirm

Demographic Dislocation

What if the Supreme Court had banned affirmative action? What if
colleges moved away from the use of affirmative action on their own?

A new study by two Princeton University researchers uses admissions
data from elite colleges to portray what would happen in such a world
without affirmative action. In short, black and Latino enrollment would
tank, while white enrollments would hardly be affected. The big winners
would be Asian applicants, who appear to face "disaffirmative
action" right now. They would pick up about four out of five spots
lost by black and Latino applicants.

The study was conducted by Thomas Espenshade, a professor of sociology
at Princeton, and Chang Chung, a senior staff member in the
university's Office of Population Research. The study will appear in
the June issue of Social Science Quarterly.

"We're trying to put these admission preferences in context so
people understand that lots of students, including those with SAT
scores above 1500, are getting a boost," said Espenshade. "The most
important conclusion is the negative impact on African American and
Hispanic students if affirmative action practices were eliminated."

The study found that, without affirmative action, the acceptance rate
for African American candidates at elite colleges would be likely to
fall by nearly two-thirds, from 33.7 percent to 12.2 percent, while the
acceptance rate for Hispanic applicants probably would be cut in half,
from 26.8 percent to 12.9 percent.

Those drops, in turn, could prompt additional losses, the authors warn.
"If admitting such small numbers of qualified African-American and
Hispanic students reduced applications and the yield from minority
candidates in subsequent years, the effect of eliminating affirmative
action at elite universities on the racial and ethnic composition of
enrolled students would be magnified beyond the results presented
here," the report says.

Drops of that magnitude in admission rates would have serious impacts
on those who actually enroll. The percentage of admitted students who
are black would fall to 3.3 percent, from 9 percent. For Hispanics, the
drop would be to 3.8 percent, from 7.9 percent.

Such dramatic changes in policy would have little impact, however, on
white applicants. Their admission rate would rise slightly, to 24.3
percent, from 23.8 percent.

The big gains would be for Asian applicants. Their admission rate in a
race-neutral system would go to 23.4 percent, from 17.6 percent. And
their share of a class of admitted students would rise to 31.5 percent,
from 23.7 percent.

richasiankid...

Your 23.8% is incorrect - that's the admission rate for white
applicants, not the share of a class of admitted white students.

Thus, before and after:

Black 9% -> 3.3%
Hispanics 7.9% -> 3.9%
Asians 23.7% -> 31.5%
Whites/others presumably the rest - don't think it's stated in
article

dk...

Got it, didn't pay attention to the difference in terms.

The Princeton scholars also studied the impact of admission preferences
for athletes and for alumni children and found that both groups are
overwhelmingly white. However, despite the advantages such applicants
receive, the study found little impact on overall demographics.
That's because the total proportion of applicants in such categories
is relatively small - 3.1 percent for alumni children and 4.5 percent
for athletes.

The study backs up the statements of many educators that the
elimination of affirmative action right now would displace many
minority students and decrease diversity at top institutions.

But Roger Clegg, general counsel for the Center for Equal Opportunity,
a group that opposes affirmative action, said that the study was
irrelevant to the arguments he makes against current admissions
policies. He said that there is an assumption behind the study that
people don't want Asian enrollments to go up, and that affirmative
action is somehow stronger if white students aren't hurt by it.

The problem with affirmative action, he said, is that it is
discrimination, regardless of who benefits. "It's always useful to
put the shoe on the other foot," he said. "Suppose Ole Miss had
argued that the fact that it discriminated against blacks wasn't such
a big deal because most of them would be turned down anyway. No one
would find that argument very persuasive."

He also questioned whether the displaced minority students would really
be hurt. Students who are less qualified are less likely to succeed, he
said, and may be more likely to succeed a notch down the college
prestige rankings. "It is not the end of the world if a black student
ends up going to the University of Virginia instead of Princeton, or to
Virginia Tech instead of U.Va.," he said.