<p>
[quote]
Of course, and one of the 4 main criterias considered by Questbridge is ethnicity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Absolutely not. Here are QuestBridge’s criteria:</p>
<p>National</a> College Match - Selection Criteria</p>
<p>Do you see ethnicity anywhere? I don’t.</p>
<p>QuestBridge is expressly NOT necessarily for minorities, but for high-achieving, low-income students, who may or may not be minorities. They have even stated this explicitly:</p>
<p>National</a> College Match Program: FAQ</p>
<p>
[quote]
It struck me that so few asians were accepted at the match process, compared to the regular decision process.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>QuestBridge has said that one of the main reasons for students being deferred from the Match round to the RD round is that their income is too high (notice that nearly all finalists have incomes under $60,000; financial aid policies vary). In 2007, roughly 15% of the Match recipients were Asian, and about a third in the RD were Asian; so roughly half of the students who were finalists and who were accepted to a QB-affiliated college were Asian.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe that only 1 out of the 12 matched to Stanford was asian this yr.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you’re assuming too much.</p>
<p>
[quote]
asians tend to be advantaged on the socioeconomic level (probably not because they actually were selected for finalist standing, which takes in account your income range etc...)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As I said, that’s actually most likely the reason. Also, finalist standing does not necessarily mean your income is sufficiently low to warrant a full, four-year scholarship at all of QB’s partners.</p>
<p>(Really, I know more than a little about QB.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, if Stanford truly downplayed ethnicity for admission, I don't see the use for the race/ethnicity question for the application anymore.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Take that up with the Common App--Stanford doesn’t use its own application.</p>
<p>Furthermore, simply because it doesn’t emphasize it doesn’t mean that it isn’t a factor in admission. (I don’t think anyone--even I--has attempted to claim that.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now if your assertion that race is minor in admission decisions, then great, I have nothing to really complain about. Note that by minor, I mean that it's less important than GPA, SAT, talents, leadership, background of parents or family income, intellectual vitality and promise (in no particular order)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My claim--as the dean of admissions has emphasized as well--is that an applicant’s context is more likely to play an important role in admissions. That includes income, disadvantages overcome, opportunities offered, and so on, as well as how the student took advantage of those opportunities. Thus, Stanford would reject a qualified Hispanic student who has all the advantages in life as any white student, in favor of a high-achieving, equally qualified white or Asian who overcame disadvantages (such as low income, first generation status, single parent household, etc.). In fact, this happens much more often than you seem to think.</p>
<p>However, demographics will even show you that Hispanic, black, and Native American students are most typically the lowest-income group. Those groups are considered "underrepresented" (hence, underrepresented minority). What's more, the most underrepresented group in colleges is low-income students (at the 146 most selective colleges in the U.S., just 3% of the students came from families that ranked in the bottom 25% in income, while 74% came from the top 25%). There is, if you can believe it, a reason that both groups are underrepresented. (There's a high, but not perfect, correlation.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think they only match those who are at very low income levels.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now why in the world would they do that, Olive_Tree?</p>