<p>I never said that “the admitted pool…represent[s] the only qualified students.” To the contrary, I said in #597, “Of course you can be highly qualified and still rejected. It happens to thousands of high schoolers every Spring.”</p>
<p>So I don’t think you addressed my question because I don’t think you acknowledge that I agree that “the admitted pool does not represent the only qualified students.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This makes no sense. If the pool of qualified applicants is so huge and moreover, spans all racial classifications, then there is NO need to consider racial proportion. And the very term “proportion” implies a quota of some sort, which we all know is not Constitutional.</p>
<p>fab, when there’s an equality of qualification, which you acknowledge there to be, with that pool vastly exceeding the spaces available, then the issue becomes selecting some sort of a class of such highly capable students based on some spread of the various categories I suggested, of which race/ethnicity/national origin is only one. There is no reason for that category to be completely excluded among the many that are included, because the entire idea is to provide a widely representative class of highly accomplished students who will stimulate each other intellectually, contribute to the campus by their intellectual products, and be interested in sharing with each other socially, both by reason of similarities and by reason of differences.</p>
<p>And no, there is not a quota. The pool somewhat varies in its representation each year, including variations in fields of study, geography, and other non-racial categories.</p>
<p>abinclane #563
"Two concepts may even follow, if universities accept too many Asians, how would American students feel? If Asian students are just limited to a few, Asians would feel that it is racist. So how should they really address the issue? "</p>
<p>Many if not most of these “Asians” you are talking about ARE Americans. It really sounds racist to not count Asian Americans as Americans. Like the NBC announcer talking about Michelle Kwan in a Olympic as if she was not American.</p>
<p>It’s a given that, in the scenario that non-Asians were to become under-represented, they would nevertheless be qualified, as I said. A 2200, I will repeat, is not in itself, less qualified than a 2300. So yes, they would be looked at just like the non-Asians, in all the various categories of elements that colleges read as qualified (the ones “considered” for admission). The lowest number of elements to consider is 7; the highest I’ve seen – I believe – is 11.</p>
<p>^ " 2200, I will repeat, is not in itself, less qualified than a 2300. "
This may be true but if keep using the same argument " 2100, I will repeat, is not in itself, less qualified than a 2200. " … you will get some conclusion like “” 1200, I will repeat, is not in itself, less qualified than a 2300. "</p>
<p>No. The slippery slope theory doesn’t cut it here. Not for an elite U with a challenging core. These colleges will never twist themselves into such pretzels that they will seriously endanger retention and graduation rate. Look at the yields: they are often about half of the admits. They invest hugely in those yields, and expect a return on their investment. The biggest return they want is to be able to brag about their graduates. And they won’t be bragging about academic losers and failures. The fact that you don’t seem to understand that reveals how little you seem to understand about elite college admissions in this country. They’re looking out for their own self-interest, major.</p>
<p>While holistic admissions was created from an unsavory intent, I agree that it pretty much has to be used at selective schools. I disagree that racial classification has to be considered in a holistic process. It seems entirely pointless to have racial preferences if “there’s an equality of qualification.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No reason? You’ve been discussing this issue for how long and you honestly think there is “no reason” to not consider racial classification? Let me give you a reason from Justice Kennedy (Parents Involved):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Chief Justice Roberts said much the same more succinctly: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”</p>
<p>I repeat what I said. If Asians are underperforming in the X categories, then they certainly should not be “preferred” over other candidates who outperform them in the X categories merely because they are “underrepresented.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>tigerdad14 is referring to the phenomenon of “just perceptible differences.” He is not mistaken. Under your logic, there is no reason why we cannot conclude that “1200, I will repeat, is not in itself, less qualified than a 2300.”</p>
<p>“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
I can’t say it any better than this. I truly believe this is MLK’s dream and it is my dream.</p>
<h1>615 "I think both(Urm/Athlete Preference) are morally wrong so both should be eliminated "</h1>
<p>I agree, plus legacy. What makes race based preference and legacy preference even worse IMO is that the student was born to it and cannot do anything to change it.</p>
<p>Students are born into and cannot do anything to change: whether their parents are first generation, their family’s socio-economic status, where they live, their gender, what high school they attend, whether their parents will allow them to be tutored, take a test-prep course, get a job, play a sport, learn to play an instrument, take art classes, do community service… Shouldn’t we then eliminate consideration of all of those factors for admission, too?</p>
<p>^ Bay, are you suggesting ALL Asians hire tutor, take prep class, live in nice neighborhood, etc and all URM lives in bad neighborhood and have no chance to get a tutor, prep class or don’t play instrument?
If you are you have some real issues. If you are not, why race based discrimination should be used to correct these issues?</p>
<p>xrCalico23, low income kids don’t often have transportation to do many EC/s, and often might have an after school job. So no,they may not be able to participate in certain EC/s.</p>
<h1>633 Exactly. I don’t agree that all these cannot be changed by the child.</h1>
<p>Please remember many of these Asian kids’ parents came to this country with 2 suitcases, a few dollars in their pocket, speak very little English, had huge cultural barrier, need to send much of their little income back home to pay the debt incurred for coming here. They live in not so nice neighborhood. I would say they overcame a lot of difficulties to achieve what they did.
Guess what, they don’t get preferential treatment but get discriminated in admission.</p>
<p>No, tigerdad, I was not intimating that those things apply to Asians or URMs only, my list was neutral with respect to all applicants.</p>
<p>xrCalico,
At my childrens’ high school, the parents must approve, with a signature, their student’s selected course schedule. So yes, they cannot take art if I do not approve of it. And all community service in our area is done after school. If I do not allow my under-18 children to participate, then no, they cannot participate, unless they do so surrepticiously and dishonestly.</p>
<p>No, Tigerdad, many activities/EC’s cannot be done by low income kids. They have no transportation to and from them, often the $ for them, or the time. Don’t assume that kids can just “do” ECs for school. </p>
<p>The fact is that an elite school will look at an applicant that has worked a job, many times for family financial reasons, as a huge plus.</p>
<p>And your children have no influence whatsoever over your decision? That they can never persuade you to let them take art if they had the extreme desire to do so :)? </p>
<p>GA2012MOM- </p>
<p>As woeishe aptly points out, low-income kids come from every single race. What’s more, while the guardians’ value system and the family circumstances play a role in what activities the student chooses pursue or how much he values academics, it’s ultimately the student who makes the choice. Not all the kids who love playing instruments have parents who do so as well, or every kid who does community service does so while being highly supported by the parents.</p>