<p>WOW THATS WHATS UP! CONGRATS!!!!! If you dont mind me askin um how many times did you take the test before you got that score?</p>
<h1>1 It was Harvard's own finding that Asian candidates were viewed more negatively than white candidates with the same profile of tests/grades/ECs. So apparently the stereotype is at least somewhat unjustified.</h1>
<h1>2 What test scores/class rank are typical of Asian candidates? High ones? And that's bad? Should they be lower?</h1>
<h1>3 You say it's the fault of the students/parents? Yet on this thread people have argued that the OP fought against their own culture and therefore the 1700 SAT score is worth more. So, by analogy, if it is true that a certain group has less EC's because of their culture (and I'm not conceding that), maybe we should spot them a few ECs. If they say that they have dabbled in the guitar for fun, then that should be worth more than a white candidate that wins a Battle of the Bands competition.</h1>
<h1>4 Bottom line is that people have justified rejecting minorities for stupid reasons for ages by saying they have certain undesirable characteristics--that is, stereotypes. For instance, Jews were outscoring WASP candidates in the early 20th century but the ivies justified rejecting them because they supposedly had undesirable characteristics. (Read "The Chosen" by UC-Berkeley Professor Karabel for more on this.) Today, the only group that it is ok to do this with is Asians.</h1>
<p>"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>
<p>this is the tradgedy of the affirmative action mode of thinking at its best.</p>
<p>consider the hypothetical applicant who has great scores, plays violin, does debate, maybe plays tennis, and is math team captain.
if he/she is asian, this is essentially worthless, and they're "one dimensional".
but if they're white or URM, this is perfectly fine and desirable.</p>
<p>does the asian version of the candidate, outside of race, bring some kind of inferior diversity or personal qualities than the same white/URM candidate would?</p>
<p>somesenior:
[quote]
consider the hypothetical applicant who has great scores, plays violin, does debate, maybe plays tennis, and is math team captain.
[/quote]
the problem is that there are too many Asians with this same exact resume applying, whereas there are few African Americans applying with this resume.</p>
<p>
[quote]
does the asian version of the candidate, outside of race, bring some kind of inferior diversity or personal qualities than the same white/URM candidate would?
[/quote]
no. again it's just because there are too many Asian kids with the too similar of resumes applying to the same school. if a majority of them are the same then there is no reason for the school to really care which ones admit.</p>
<p>collegealum314:
[quote]
What test scores/class rank are typical of Asian candidates? High ones? And that's bad? Should they be lower?
[/quote]
i think you are missing the point i'm making. it doesn't matter if there all high or all low; what the problem is is that they are too similar. to be honest, having similar test scores/class rank is not as bad as having similar ECs and interests. your ECs and interests (and essays) are supposed to be your opportunity to show how you are different from all of the other smart, qualified applicants. if a bunch of you try to distinguish yourself in the same way, you can't really distinguish yourself. then that forces colleges to look at who is more "qualified" i.e. best grades, test scores, etc. i think that is a pretty good explanation as to why it seems that test scores are more important for Asians than Whites/Blacks/Hispanics/everyone else.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You say it's the fault of the students/parents? Yet on this thread people have argued that the OP fought against their own culture and therefore the 1700 SAT score is worth more. So, by analogy, if it is true that a certain group has less EC's because of their culture (and I'm not conceding that), maybe we should spot them a few ECs. If they say that they have dabbled in the guitar for fun, then that should be worth more than a white candidate that wins a Battle of the Bands competition.
[/quote]
i'm not sure where you got that i was saying that Asian kids have fewer ECs... anyways, this example doesn't work because the OP's parents weren't saying, "no! you may not get above a 1700 on the SAT because that is what someone else's kid did and they got in..."</p>
<p>to be honest though this is really something that is exclusive to Asians. it's pretty common among first generation kids, since their parents don't really understand that getting into colleges here is about more than just grades, test scores, and academic awards.</p>
<p>
[quote]
4 Bottom line is that people have justified rejecting minorities for stupid reasons for ages by saying they have certain undesirable characteristics--that is, stereotypes. For instance, Jews were outscoring WASP candidates in the early 20th century but the ivies justified rejecting them because they supposedly had undesirable characteristics. (Read "The Chosen" by UC-Berkeley Professor Karabel for more on this.) Today, the only group that it is ok to do this with is Asians.
[/quote]
to be honest, part of the reason i don't care is because Asians take out their frustrations on African Americans and Hispanics, which is just ridiculous and a bit racist. (i'm pretty sure a lot of the anti-AA people on here are somewhat prejudiced against URMs.) the real problem is that colleges admit too many white kids. look it up. there is some Asian site that talks about how Asians are being duped into think that African Americans and Hispanics are "taking there spots" when in actuallity Caucasians are.</p>
<p>"the problem is that there are too many Asians with this same exact resume applying, whereas there are few African Americans applying with this resume."</p>
<p>Look, I've been around many competitive applicants for colleges, and most of us have variations of the same resume'. High test scores, grades, various academic competitions (of all kinds), community service, maybe some other things thrown in. There are very few people who want to become the next Jacque Cousteau or something unique like that. There are some immigrants that really don't understand the process, but most people are pretty savvy in knowing they need more than just grades and test scores. I have a problem with people blaming a group for being discriminated against. It's pretty much a numbers game, and there is nothing as a group that they can really do about boosting their numbers other than removing the discrimination. </p>
<p>And I'm not sure what point you are trying to make about whites taking Asians spots, because that is basically what I was saying anyway. If you don't understand that what the MIT admissions dean said was grossly inappropriate, then I don't know what to say. This is the quote:"Its possible that Henry Park looked like a thousand other Korean kids with the exact same profile of grades and activities and temperament yet another textureless math grind. </p>
<p>If she said that about any other group, i.e. said that they aren't admitted because they all have a certain characteristic (and even personality!), then she would have been fired immediately. Look what happened when Larry Summers tried to merely pose the question about women and ability in math and science. The Jones comment is even more ridiculous because it was MIT--the resume' of applicants should have a preponderance of math and science activities. So I guess the problem was their temperament, then? </p>
<p>And you still haven't addressed the fact that Harvard itself admitted that their view of Asian applicants was systematically skewed with respect to whites with the same EC's. Were they wrong?</p>
<p>"the problem is that there are too many Asians with this same exact resume applying, whereas there are few African Americans applying with this resume."</p>
<p>you're clearly missing my point. if this hypothetical candidate is Asian, they're "one dimensional". however, if they are white/URM, then no one seems to care, and they may even been deemed to have clearly demonstrated passion. that's clearly an irrational bias right there. how can two candidates with the same ECs be labeled with two polar opposite descriptions?</p>
<p>why does it matter if there are a lot of these types of candidates that happen to be asian? will a white/URM child be penalized nearly as much since he/she has a the stereotypically Asian set of activities, and hence has the same ECs as many others candidates(regardless of race)? how do you know that the same white/URM candidate is not practicing "resume building", like you seem to be stereotyping that all Asian candidates with these resumes are?</p>
<p>somesenior:
what you're saying doesn't make sense if you are for colleges creating a diverse student body. you can't admit similar individuals and expect to achieve diversity. on the surface colleges want to achieve racial, gender, and geographic diversity; on a deeper level they want to achieve diversity of interests, class, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
why does it matter if there are a lot of these types of candidates that happen to be asian? will a white/URM child be penalized nearly as much since he/she has a the stereotypically Asian set of activities, and hence has the same ECs as many others candidates(regardless of race)? how do you know that the same white/URM candidate is not practicing "resume building", like you seem to be stereotyping that all Asian candidates with these resumes are?
[/quote]
how would it be stereotypical of an African American applicant to have a set of stereotypical/common Asian activities?</p>
<p>also, i am not accusing Asians or any particular ethnicties of resume building... but i think you are...?</p>
<p>collegealum 314:
[quote]
I have a problem with people blaming a group for being discriminated against.
[/quote]
happy to hear that. i also disapprove of this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And I'm not sure what point you are trying to make about whites taking Asians spots, because that is basically what I was saying anyway.
[/quote]
well because your "solution" to the problem would take away African American's and Hispanic's spots; it'd still be neutral to Caucasians. you wouldn't even be addressing the main problem which is that the whole college admissions process benefits Caucasians.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And I'm not sure what point you are trying to make about whites taking Asians spots, because that is basically what I was saying anyway. If you don't understand that what the MIT admissions dean said was grossly inappropriate, then I don't know what to say. This is the quote:"It’s possible that Henry Park looked like a thousand other Korean kids with the exact same profile of grades and activities and temperament yet another textureless math grind.”
[/quote]
the way the guy said it was a bit harsh. he probably should have just said that Henry Park wasn't unique or something general like that. the "textureless math grind" part was definitely harsh.</p>
<p>but you and i both don't have access to all of the applications from that year. what if this kid's resume was similar to hundreds of other ones?</p>
<p>i think that what he said was inappropriate because it was way too harsh and insensitive. however, i don't think it was racist because it could very well be the case that his application was not unique among Asians.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If she said that about any other group, i.e. said that they aren't admitted because they all have a certain characteristic (and even personality!), then she would have been fired immediately.
[/quote]
again it simply does not make sense when applied to other groups. there are no stereotypical African American/Hispanic/White applicants.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Look what happened when Larry Summers tried to merely pose the question about women and ability in math and science. The Jones comment is even more ridiculous because it was MIT--the resume' of applicants should have a preponderance of math and science activities. So I guess the problem was their temperament, then?
[/quote]
this isn't even similar to what the other guy said. anyways, you grossly oversimplified what he was talking about. he was saying that there was "the possibility that many factors outside of socialization could explain why there were more men than women in high-end science and engineering positions." that's clearly sexist and not even comparable to what Park said...</p>
<p>
[quote]
And you still haven't addressed the fact that Harvard itself admitted that their view of Asian applicants was systematically skewed with respect to whites with the same EC's. Were they wrong?
[/quote]
this is irrelevant though. saying that something is "skewed" doesn't mean that it is inherently flawed though. if a lot of Whites had similar applications to other Whites then they'd be facing the same problem that Asians are facing. however, this is not the case, since applications from Caucasians are incredibly diverse.</p>
<p>What Newjack says about Asians is correct, though I certainly disagree with the premise behind it, which is discrimination. Are hard working students who usually get involved in a very difficult musical endeavor to be discriminated against because, culturally, they put high value in such things? I also find it appalling that we are allowed to verbalize THESE generalizations while we cannot voice others. I do not believe for one instant that Newjack does not know of other racial/cultural stereotypes, only Asian ones.</p>
<p>
[quote]
what you're saying doesn't make sense if you are for colleges creating a diverse student body.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Though the problem with your argument is that colleges create diverse LOOKING student bodies strictly based on race and hispanic sounding last names. Are they creating a diversity in religions? Political orientation? Even SES? They like to say they offer opportunities for the poor URM, though many applicants come from moderate to privileged backgrounds. They turn away thousands of poor white kids that apply. Why? They're white.</p>
<p>It's all a sham, really.</p>
<p>"this is irrelevant though. saying that something is "skewed" doesn't mean that it is inherently flawed though. "</p>
<p>Look, their conclusion was that the process was flawed, that there was something wrong with it. I don't remember the exact wording, but it was clear that Harvard's conclusion was that their was something wrong with it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are hard working students who usually get involved in a very difficult musical endeavor to be discriminated against because, culturally, they put high value in such things?
[/quote]
this is ridiculous. the concept is simple: if you want to be picked out of a pool of many, make yourself different from those around you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I also find it appalling that we are allowed to verbalize THESE generalizations while we cannot voice others. I do not believe for one instant that Newjack does not know of other racial/cultural stereotypes, only Asian ones.
[/quote]
i'm getting sick of this. i have a feeling that this discussion is over because many people on here are not even reading the entirety of what i've been posting.</p>
<p>i'm not saying that Asians are the only group with stereotypes. if you think that's what i've been saying then you are being incompetent. i have been saying that there isn't really a "stereotypical White/African American/Hispanic" applicant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Though the problem with your argument is that colleges create diverse LOOKING student bodies strictly based on race and hispanic sounding last names. Are they creating a diversity in religions? Political orientation? Even SES?
[/quote]
ok where are you getting this "hispanic sounding last names?" how about let's keep thing relevant so that we can have a mature discussions and not be all dramatic?</p>
<p>creating a racially diverse student body and any other type of diverse student body is not mutually exclusive. in fact, colleges consider all types of diversity when creating their student body, which is what i have been saying all along.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They like to say they offer opportunities for the poor URM, though many applicants come from moderate to privileged backgrounds. They turn away thousands of poor white kids that apply. Why? They're white.[/
[/quote]
colleges don't say that. only people who don't understand AA (on both sides) say things like that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Look, their conclusion was that the process was flawed, that there was something wrong with it. I don't remember the exact wording, but it was clear that Harvard's conclusion was that their was something wrong with it.
[/quote]
sorry but "something wrong with it" isn't very convincing. anyways, if there was a problem it'd be the lack of diverse applications within the Asian pool.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the whole idea of "more qualified" was invented by you, not the college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>just thought id quote what murgo seems to have missed in their selective reading. </p>
<p>And once again murgo, if you want to say that racial diversity is not a real type of diversity then you must argue that race does not have a real impact on someones life. </p>
<p>Are you willing to make that argument?</p>
<p>...<10characters></p>
<p>
[quote]
...<10characters>
[/quote]
agreed. i've done all that i can do to help people form more informed opinions about diversity and AA in regards to college admissions.</p>
<p>"what you're saying doesn't make sense if you are for colleges creating a diverse student body. you can't admit similar individuals and expect to achieve diversity. on the surface colleges want to achieve racial, gender, and geographic diversity; on a deeper level they want to achieve diversity of interests, class, etc."</p>
<p>what you're saying shows that you didn't really read what I said or that you completely misunderstood what I said.</p>
<p>I will make it simpler since you don't seem to understand it.</p>
<p>an Asian candidate has the "stereotypically Asian set of ECs" like math team and debate and violin.
say a white or URM candidate has the EXACT SAME ECS. </p>
<p>both candidates would have the exact same interests and contribute the exactly same "diversity of interest" to the class.</p>
<p>yet one will be given far more consideration than the other.</p>
<p>how do you justify this?</p>
<p>"this is ridiculous. the concept is simple: if you want to be picked out of a pool of many, make yourself different from those around you."</p>
<p>no, what you actually mean to say, as evidenced by your previous statments, is that you must differentiate yourself from primarily others of your race- NOT the general population of applicants.</p>
<p>so should Asian varsity football players get exponentially more consideration than African American varsity football players?
or does differentiating yourself from your race only work against certain groups.</p>
<p>"in fact, colleges consider all types of diversity when creating their student body, which is what i have been saying all along."</p>
<p>Are you going to try to claim that colleges try to achieve a diversity of political ideologies?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you going to try to claim that colleges try to achieve a diversity of political ideologies?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How would a school recruit 'politically diverse' students? Check a box on applications? Everyone can't claim to be from an underrepresented demographic or location. Anyone can claim to be a conservative or libertarian.</p>
<p>Political diversity doesn't happen often in college because: </p>
<p>Academia doesn't lend to conservative (especially close-minded, conservative or liberal) thinking, but inquisitiveness.</p>
<p>Most academics are liberals.</p>
<p>Younger people are far more likely to be liberal than anything else. As the saying go, "if you're not a liberal when you're young you have no soul..."</p>
<p>Think about it: Colleges want to recruit liberals. Suddenly everyone wants to be the political minority and checks the conservative box on the college application. Conservative is no longer "underrepresented" -- technically.</p>
<p>Somesenior gets it. Tyler and Newjack, do not.</p>
<p>In a nutshell, from somesenior...</p>
<p>
[quote]
no, what you actually mean to say, as evidenced by your previous statments, is that you must differentiate yourself from primarily others of your race- NOT the general population of applicants.</p>
<p>so should Asian varsity football players get exponentially more consideration than African American varsity football players?
or does differentiating yourself from your race only work against certain groups.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Tyler, I did not "selectively" read anything. Your quote above was not the argument I was making. It was a strawman. My argument is, as has always been, that AA is a sham based solely on race. I have provided concrete examples with links or references.</p>
<p>I appreciate Newjacks attempts, aside from his constant reference to being "dramatic", yet without concrete evidence, his versions simply do not correlate with what is seen in actual practice.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Academia doesn't lend to conservative (especially close-minded, conservative or liberal) thinking, but inquisitiveness.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Breathtaking. </p>
<p>BTW, I'm middle-left.</p>
<p>If conservative thinking could maintain a meaningful and well-represented existence in the academic sphere it would. But modern conservative thinking largely consists of holding onto preconceived notions. Academia is objective and reasonable. Sweeping generalizations aren't scientific; studies with particular results in mind could obscure results and mar knowledge -- especially for the social sciences.</p>
<p>Real conservative thinking, from an American stand-point, would be progressive and uphold the ideals that the nation was founded upon, which would necessitate many "liberal" rights such as gay marriage, abortion, legalization of prostitution, and some narcotics. Why? Because America was created a progressive nation. Social contractualism is a pillar of this country. So if you're an adult and it doesn't hurt anyone (except, for perhaps, yourself) you should be allowed to do it.</p>