<p>OK ..you got in because you are a leader with very good stats considering your origins. Your stats are worth 30% more considering that. It's not the same comparing you to an asian-american from an upper middle class background. You had to fight the culture of your surroundings. Imagine how great you would be if you were the same you, with your same energy, but having gone to a private massachussetts school and going to top level summer academies. That's why you got in. You're "better" than a fully privileged kid with a below-than-expected 2200. Well deserved!!!! Show 'em all you can do given the opportunity. Muy bien, sigue adelante!!!</p>
<p>Ummm...Nelsoneas' comment is the feel-good myth that is propagated by AA proponents. The reality is not that.</p>
<p>OK ..he got in because he had better grades, ECs, legacy, etc than all those valedictorians with 2400 ... happy now?</p>
<p>There certainly is some truth to the matter that one cannot be strictly a bookworm, get your 2400, and do nothing else. That potentially creates too many unidimensional candidates that may not be good "people". In an ideal world, students would not be allowed to prep for the SATs, do a limited number of EC that truly interested them, scrap these AP classes that are nothing but another layer of head banging nonsense, and have their racial background completely hidden from the adcom. Kids would be judged on their natural abilities and interests. We do not live in an ideal world, do we?</p>
<p>Nelsoneas' comment is fallacious in that it assumes the OP had a lower score with tremendous EC etc while the 2400s didn't do squat. That is not the case either, is it? What then is this magical difference? Rhetorical.</p>
<p>murgo, you have yet to make one fresh point during your trivial time attempting to belittle the OPs achievements on this thread.</p>
<p>Well, please excuse me, Tyler09!! I had no idea that I stumbled across a forum that knew everything about everything. Except that, judging by the naive and unfounded responses, it knows absolutely nothing about this extremely biased policy that has been pushed on society for apparent altruistic reasons. Even with that, I have yet to hear of successful historic examples of "altruism" that involved discrimination of one group of people for the benefit of another. </p>
<p>Let me guess, you're "OK" with discrimination because of institutional racism, making up for previous indiscretions and blah, blah, blah. Correct?</p>
<p>I am not belittling the OPs achievements. I am pointing out facts, as I know them to be. I am old enough to remember the days when hurt feelings do not trump facts. Is that OK with you?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let me guess, you're "OK" with discrimination because of institutional racism, making up for previous indiscretions and blah, blah, blah. Correct?
[/quote]
<em>sigh</em> that's not really how AA is used nowadays. so if that's what he thinks then he's wrong. it's just used to allow schools to legally create racially diverse student bodies.</p>
<p>The OP and many of the more rational posters (on both sides) have left the thread. I will join them.</p>
<p>Murgo simply seems to enjoy bumping the thread with ignorant and overzealous statements meant to stir up posters so he/she can feel validated in his defending his wild misconceptions.</p>
<p>I'm glad he has no hand in any admissions decision and I pity his child for being raised with that kind of view Hopefully he'll rise about that surrounding.</p>
<p>^^^ Please no personal attacks. This thread may encourage more people with low SAT scores to apply for Stanford, which may be a good thing.
As I mentioned before, some form of AA is necessary and healthy for the society, but the beneficiaries of AA should not wear it as a badge of honor.</p>
<p>^^^ Agreed. Diversity is indispensable.</p>
<p>Undisclosed cannot bring herself past the emotional and personal argument. Relegated to regurgitating myths on the extreme ends of the bell curve, such as "dumb people getting 2300", she is left with her religious fervor over the topic and will not be swayed. No siree! That is what's pitiful. She would have made a great witch hunter back in Salem, circa 1600s.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Diversity is indispensable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please explain why it is "indispensable" and what diversity you are speaking of.</p>
<p>
[quote]
<em>sigh</em> that's not really how AA is used nowadays. so if that's what he thinks then he's wrong. it's just used to allow schools to legally create racially diverse student bodies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, thank you for explaining it to me. However, in this search for "racially diverse student bodies", schools are not accepting students that have all the credentials to be accepted into them except one...race. Any way you want to dress it up, that is certainly discrimination. Or am I "wrong"? </p>
<p>Also, if one was to accept the notion that schools are allowed to use race to "tip the balance" amongst two equal students, are not doing that as well.</p>
<p>I hate to use specific people examples, however they have put their names on the net for this purpose so, here are a few...looking specifically at the schools applied, accepted, rejected list.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, in this search for "racially diverse student bodies", schools are not accepting students that have all the credentials to be accepted into them except one...race.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>wrong. All students admitted have the credentials to be admitted. Yale estimates that 75% of its applicants would be qualified to handle to the workload at Yale. So that argument goes out the window. And the whole idea of "more qualified" was invented by you, not the college. </p>
<p>If a school sought to limit white or asian enrollment, that would be wrong. If they sought to represent whites and asians if they were underrepresented that would be noble. The twisted logic that "since you want more of group X you MUST want less of group Y" is bogus.</p>
<p>^^With respect to the last paragraph, that is correct in theory. However, there is evidence from an internal study done by Harvard that they discriminated against Asians, and not just because they decided not to admit some of them to boost numbers of underrepresented minorities, legacies, etc. There was evidence that Asian's EC's were viewed in a more negative light than their white counterparts--the bar was higher for them to break away from the stereotype. You could never get away with the rhetoric from MIT's former Dean of admissions about Henry Park as "yet another Asian with exactly the same interests..." if you were talking about another racial group. I am roughly paraphrasing that quote--the real quote was actually much worse.</p>
<p>"Undisclosed cannot bring herself past the emotional and personal argument. Relegated to regurgitating myths on the extreme ends of the bell curve, such as "dumb people getting 2300", she is left with her religious fervor over the topic and will not be swayed. No siree! That is what's pitiful. She would have made a great witch hunter back in Salem, circa 1600s."</p>
<p>Like I said, just glad I'm not your kid.</p>
<p>^^^
[quote]
However, there is evidence from an internal study done by Harvard that they discriminated against Asians, and not just because they decided not to admit some of them to boost numbers of underrepresented minorities, legacies, etc. There was evidence that Asian's EC's were viewed in a more negative light than their white counterparts--the bar was higher for them to break away from the stereotype. You could never get away with the rhetoric from MIT's former Dean of admissions about Henry Park as "yet another Asian with exactly the same interests..." if you were talking about another racial group. I am roughly paraphrasing that quote--the real quote was actually much worse.
[/quote]
just looking at CC though, some of that stuff is true. it seems as though many of the Asians on here have the same exact ECs as other Asians; thus, it makes it harder for them to stand out from other Asians.</p>
<p>if these kids thought more multidimensionally and did not think that near perfect test scores, perfect grades, and academic related ECs, were the only ways to distinguish themselves from other Asians, i'm pretty sure that this situation would resolve itself. the biggest pluses would be that it'd be easier to distinguish the REALLY smart Asians kids from the stereotypical hard working ones and that there wouldn't be huge overlaps in ECs. </p>
<p>if all Asian kids did this, they would be giving colleges more ways to distinguish between Asian applicants. when there are too many similarities the selection process becomes somewhat arbitrary. if they're all relatively similar then picking one candidate over another really does not have an impact.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You could never get away with the rhetoric from MIT's former Dean of admissions about Henry Park as "yet another Asian with exactly the same interests..."
[/quote]
well you couldn't get away with saying that because it's not really all that true for other races. i can't even think of an EC that's considered a "black/hispanic/white kid EC."</p>
<p>
[quote]
All students admitted have the credentials to be admitted.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A tad circumferential, that. Wouldn't you say? In the end, by itself, it means nothing as we are comparing here. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Yale estimates that 75% of its applicants would be qualified to handle to the workload at Yale. So that argument goes out the window.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is not my argument.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If a school sought to limit white or asian enrollment, that would be wrong. If they sought to represent whites and asians if they were underrepresented that would be noble. The twisted logic that "since you want more of group X you MUST want less of group Y" is bogus.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It would be bogus if the enrollment was unlimited. Since enrollment in all elite schools is certainly limited, wanting more X means less Y. Anything else, Tyler?</p>
<p>
[quote]
well you couldn't get away with saying that because it's not really all that true for other races.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh my! You mean you cannot think of any racial "stereotypes", Newjack? Only Asian ones? LOL</p>
<p>BTW, I'm not Asian. White.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh my! You mean you cannot think of any racial "stereotypes", Newjack? Only Asian ones? LOL</p>
<p>BTW, I'm not Asian. White.
[/quote]
you conviently didn't quote the rest of my statement... i said, "i can't even think of an EC that's considered a "black/hispanic/white kid EC." what ECs are stereotypical of a black/hispanic/white student applying to a top school to do? </p>
<p>also, quit being so dramatic and just have a normal discussion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It would be bogus if the enrollment was unlimited. Since enrollment in all elite schools is certainly limited, wanting more X means less Y. Anything else, Tyler?
[/quote]
this isn't worth debating because college admissions don't work like that. colleges already know what they're looking for among the X's and the Y's before the application process even starts. it's more likely that an X "gets in over" an X and that a Y "gets in over" a Y...this isn't even worth debating because there is no way for any of us to know the answer to this.</p>
<p>Newjack, your argument seems to be that the stereotype is true. This is an argument that would not be tolerated if used with another group. That is my point.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Newjack, your argument seems to be that the stereotype is true. This is an argument that would not be tolerated if used with another group. That is my point.
[/quote]
the admissions officer's statement wouldn't make sense for any other race. there isn't a stereotypical African American/Hispanic/White applicant. however, there definitely is a stereotypical Asian one. though this is a bit unfair, it is largely the fault of Asian high school students/their parents/who ever is discouraging them from being multidimensional. if you look through some of the threads in the "What are My Chances" section, it becomes rather apparent that too many Asians have the exact same ECs, same/similar test scores, same rank, etc.</p>