> Comparing total college-age population with final enrollment assumes that all groups apply to these universities in equal proportion, and that all races/cultures hold the same assumptions about the value of a university education for prosperity/success/happiness.
No, it doesn't. It simply measures underrepresentation. Variations on those axes aren't assumed away, because while those may explain some or all of the underrepresentation (at least, intermediate mechanisms, if not root causes), they do not negate it's existence.
> Maybe I am cynical, but I think white over-representation has more to do with economic disparity, which results in cultural disparity between rungs of the economic ladder
In terms of race issues, that's exactly the polar opposite of cynicism, and well into pollyannaism.
Sorry, I think in editing I deleted my intermediate sentence. You are right, it measures under-representation, but the narrative and assumption is that under-representation in university is problematic, worrisome, an issue. I think that assumption is false, and assuming that under-representation is an issue that can be fixed, or should be fixed, relies on assuming that there is some cause that does not originate with the individual. If individuals simply do not choose to attend university, then that is not a problem that should be forcefully fixed. If instead individuals from each race equally desire and apply to university, and still under-representation exists, then measuring it is useful. But in that case measuring application to acceptance is more accurate.
> but the narrative and assumption is that under-representation in university is problematic, worrisome, an issue
Sure, but even if the mechanisms you suggest are assumed away (they aren't) are part of the mechanism of underrepresentation, it would still be all those things. In fact, I would see increasing racial divergence in either the perceived value of college or the rate of application independent of the perceived value of college and extremely worrying signs.
But, really, before people accept the value of explaining the trend toward increasing black/hispanic underrepresentation, they need to understand that the exists; in case you haven't noticed, there is a very powerful (if entirely non-factual) narrative exact opposite is the case, driven by an increasingly powerful political faction, including the leadership of the executive branch of the US government.
No, it doesn't. It simply measures underrepresentation. Variations on those axes aren't assumed away, because while those may explain some or all of the underrepresentation (at least, intermediate mechanisms, if not root causes), they do not negate it's existence.
> Maybe I am cynical, but I think white over-representation has more to do with economic disparity, which results in cultural disparity between rungs of the economic ladder
In terms of race issues, that's exactly the polar opposite of cynicism, and well into pollyannaism.