<p>^ I’m black and I’m self teaching myself Japanese, AM I A HOOK FOR TOP SCHOOLS!!!one!!!eleven!!!onehundredeleven!!</p>
<p>
I, for one, am not going to roast you too much about this, since at least you’re not complaining that a URM took your spot. It could be true that you were discriminated against, and it certainly looks that way from your perspective. You’d have to be a fly on the wall in those admissions committees to know what really happened, of course.</p>
<p>This points up the problem with this–how are you going to ever prove that this kind of white vs. Asian discrimination is going on, if it is? Studies are of limited value, because all of these selective schools claim to use a whole panoply of holistic criteria. They also recruit athletes, give legacies an advantage, look for geographical diversity, look for kids with a variety of intended majors, look for kids with a variety of ECs, etc. All those things could have the impact of reducing admissions of Asian applicants without any specific intent to discriminate against Asians.</p>
<p>And even if admissions committees really do want to make sure there aren’t “too many Asians,” they may not have to say anything about it, even to each other, to make it happen. There may not be any smoking gun at all, and especially not anything in writing.</p>
<p>So what are you going to do? And, as I noted above, how are you going to decide which schools to be suspicious of? Are you more suspicious of Brown (12% Asian) than Columbia (19% Asian)? Is the fact that percentages are lower at top LACs than at Ivies evidence that this kind of discrimination is not happening there, or is it evidence that it’s worse?</p>
<p>i think asians who have amazing stats can boost their chances by doing “nonasian things”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you’re getting at what I think you’re getting at, there’s a reason why Larry Summers isn’t Larry Samuelson.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then racial preferences should be more targeted, and you should not justify preferences for blacks whose parents are from Jamaica or Nigeria.</p>
<p>
Sure. I’ve pointed out elsewhere that if your last name is Lee, they’re going to assume that you’re Asian (unless maybe your name is Robert E. Lee). If you’re on the dragon boat team and study at Kumon, even more so. Also, the top schools have interviews. And an adcom might visit your high school.</p>
<p>Let me just say that if the percentage of Asians at Ivy League schools was close to 4.6%, then I, too, would have no doubt that discrimination was going on. The fact that the percentages are actually so much higher creates, in my mind, a higher burden of proof. Yeah, I know the same thing was true with Jews, but the fact that it happened to them isn’t proof that it’s happening to somebody else–it’s just proof that it can happen.</p>
<p>
</p>
<ol>
<li>Yes, Lees are lucky because it is unclear whether you’re a Lee as in Robert E. Lee or LEE Teng-hui. In fact, I know TWO Asian Robert Lees. (No middle initial E. for either, though.)</li>
</ol>
<p>I guess these “lucky Asians” better get their Civil War groove on! As for “unlucky” Asians, well, another user in this thread mentioned Gary Locke, former Governor of Washington. A few tweaks here and there, and an Asian name can soon be very un-Asian. This problem can be solved easily.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I was under the impression that these interviews were voluntary and had very little impact on admissions chances. Am I wrong?</p></li>
<li><p>Ooh!</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The defense arguments for the policies are convoluted to say the least. Sorry guys, but they are. I’m reminded of Dr. Seuss’ “The Sneetches”. It’s like which type of Sneetch gets the star . . . the Hispanics, the Cubans, Nigerians, the African Americans who can document that their forebears were here prior to 1865? Seriously ridiculous. Once you start handing out “stars” based on a characteristic like race (that is seriously ambiguous to begin with) you just go in a very messy direction.</p>
<p>And the whole diversity argument is getting very stale. There are many forms of diversity besides race - religion, politics, wealth, sexual orientation just to name a few.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe they were more interesting candidates than you were. You keep getting stuck on this belief that if your stats were similar or greater than someone else’s, you were more deserving than they were for a spot, and so therefore if you see someone with similar or lower stats to you getting in where you didn’t, that some kind of injustice was done. That isn’t how colleges see it. There is no “injustice” done if the 2400 is denied and the 2300 is admitted. They tell you this OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Why don’t you believe it? </p>
<p>Why do you keep applying Asian norms to American colleges? Why do you keep pretending that American colleges are “supposed to” admit like Asian colleges do (by the numbers) and therefore if you see 2300’s getting in and 2400’s not, that something isn’t right and some unfair injustice has been done?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just a question - since these are private instutions, how do you propose to monitor them for compliance with your “race-blind” regulations without pulling out your own racial measuring stick? Merely not allowing them to ask the question will not guarantee the result you crave - some shifty ne’er-do-well might find a way around that. You would have to check them for any chicanery.</p>
<p>Or would you merely have the government dictate all of their admissions standards to them?</p>
<p>
No, you’re right, but if schools are secretly working to limit the number of Asians, the interviewer will see you and will be able to tell (usually) that you’re Asian, even if your last name is Potrzebie.</p>
<p>One additional point, which has nothing to do with this thread, but is relevant to people applying to colleges: just because something is voluntary, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t matter at all. I would never advise an applicant to a selective school to turn down an interview just because it’s voluntary. You should also write all the “optional” essays.</p>
<p>“Why do you keep applying Asian norms to American colleges?”</p>
<p>What are Asian norms?
I was born in America and I was outside of US just once when I was a toddler.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then you need to grow up, because you weren’t “owed” a spot at any of the top schools you applied to. Nothing was guaranteed to be yours that was “stolen” from you.</p>
<p>
I think what Pizzagirl means by this is the idea that stats should primarily govern who gets into to top colleges. You many not entirely be saying that, but you do start by citing your stats and those of your friend.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, since the interview was designed to weed out “undesirables” (read: Jews in the 1930s) how can I disagree with you?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. You base your belief of unfairness / feeling cheated based on having similar / better stats than other people – which means that you believe that the primary determining factor of who gets offered admission should be their stats. You also cited your own and your friend’s (certainly very good) stats as “proof” that you should have been shoo-ins for multiple top schools. </p>
<p>Tell me, if you are a 2400 / 4.0 Asian, and you hear of a 2200 / 3.7 Asian getting into a school that you were denied admission to, do you believe that is right / not right, fair / not fair? Do you believe you were more worthy of the spot that went to him?</p>
<p>It’s only “unfair” that you, the 2400 / 4.0 Asian, were denied and the (fill in the blank race) 2200 / 3.7 kid was accepted if you believe that the primary criterion should have been your stats in the first place. It’s a simple question - do you or don’t you believe that?</p>
<p>^But data show that more 2400 4.0s get accepted than 2200 3.7s. Are you saying that the 2400s are all just more interesting candidates so that’s why they have a higher acceptance rate? That doesn’t make sense to me. I really don’t think that colleges see them as equal. It’s just that they both meet some minimum standard and can do the work.</p>
<p>
I think she’s just saying you can’t use overall statistics to verify the fairness of a single admissions decision.</p>
<p>To pre-empt the fabrizio post- yes the preferences are unfair. I get where you’re coming from. It is certainly a valid legal and ethical debate. If this is your raison-d’etre, well, there’s room for everyone I guess.</p>
<p>But from my personal perspective - sometimes dealing with these vagaries and a little gratitude for what you do receive shows character. You know, there’s a kid, Silverturtle I think is his alias, with perfect everything numerically - 2400, 36, 800 everything, #1 rank. He’s also a URM, although I’m not sure he put it down on his aps. He got accepted to a couple Ivy League schools (not the Holy Trinity if that matters), but rejected to many more, including what I think were his top choices. He sure seems to be taking it a lot better than many kids. He’s not complaining about all the white and Asian kids with lower stats who got in. He seems to me to be grateful for his admissions to these wonderful schools and looking forward to attending. </p>
<p>I’ll take the liberty of quoting him from a recent post to some other kid despondent over rejection -
</p>
<p>I’m not certain I would be quite so charitable in his shoes. If I was in a postion to, I’d offer him a job right now. And we just turned away a Caltech grad last week. Even if his test scores were several hundred points lower. But he probably wouldn’t want it anyway.</p>
<p>In the end it came down to KFC vs Chicken McNuggets…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Clearly their loss is all I can say.</p>
<p>With stats and character like his, why need racial preferences at all? Because there aren’t enough Silverturtles in the U.S.? Then that’s a separate problem that, as sewhappy has repeatedly said, isn’t solved by racial preferences or at least is better solved by other methods.</p>