<p>
No it doesn’t. There are many other plausible explanations. </p>
<p>
The only thing I see in the numbers are black computer pixels. </p>
<p>
Great logic here.</p>
<p>of course it’s sound logic. personal anecdotes=absolute fact</p>
<p>Evidence is evidence, whether ad hoc, personal or otherwise. Just saying . . .</p>
<p>For this topic, I recommend a paper by Malcolm Gladwell published on the New Yorker.
[Getting</a> In : The New Yorker](<a href=“http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/10/10/051010crat_atlarge]Getting”>Getting In | The New Yorker)</p>
<p>A couple of comments/Questions:
- @kellybkk, would you please provide references or data on your claim that Asians are less likely to contribute back to colleges? It would be a very interesting data point.
- Reading the New Yorker paper listed above, you will notice how the Jews were discriminated against back in the good-old-days. The only way to change that is the participation of politics and success in the society. The firing of Helen Thomas and Rick Sanchez, selection of Elana Kagan on the Supreme Court are prime examples of how much have changed for the Jewish people in this country.
- As for the Chinese, (or Asians) in this country, a lot has to be done since the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. It is up to this group to change the standing and status in the society.
- Eventually, the differences between race and ethnic groups are going to disappear and there will be no need for discussion like this.</p>
<p>Cheers!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Op’s data are for the matriculates, not the admitted students. So, we don’t know exactly what Stanford did when they accepted the students. The results could be a reflection of many things happened in between – like lost more Asian HYPSM cross-admits to other HYPSM schools. The OP’s daughter was a perfect example. Don’t forget that Harvard and Princeton removed their EA programs two years ago, a lot of things could have changed since then.</p>
<p>HYPS usually do similar things. Check what HYP did in the past four years, the answer may be clear.</p>
<p>BTW, to the OP, the reason that your daughter was rejected by Princeton simply could be that Princeton tried to avoid the cross-admit problems with other schools.</p>
<p>Just to calibrate this thread:</p>
<ul>
<li>Stanford is a private school and can do whatever the H**L they want with their admissions; if they want to let in 100% percent white students that’s their prerogative.</li>
<li>Basing admissions solely on test statistics can lead to a non-diverse, non-representative student body, case in point UC Berkeley</li>
<li>As other’s have pointed out, the best approach is probably mirroring the proportion of races/ethnicities in the general population and use tests and grades to select the best students to each represent group.</li>
</ul>
<p>Yes, universities are, for the most part a business. It has to make decisions based on the best interest of the business. Getting diverse student will certainly be beneficial from the perspective of enlarging customer base.
If NBA wants to hire players based on ethnic composition of America, the games may not be as entertaining. As a result, revenue is not going to be as high.</p>
<p>“4. Eventually, the differences between race and ethnic groups are going to disappear and there will be no need for discussion like this.”</p>
<p>Never gonna happen… The human animal will always look for a way to segregate, distinguish, categorize, identify, and yes, discriminate among his/her fellow animals. A hundred years from now we’ll be using DNA to figure out who gets in.</p>
<p>People need to cite more current material in these threads; one article is from research done in the 80’s and the New Yorker info is old too. Stanford admissions, like all the others, has undergone lots of changes over the years and I’m sure they realize that they will invariably pi** somebody off in the process.</p>