<p>^Exactly. What changed?
Also I haven’t got answer from any AA supporters. Should a 5’8’’ Asian basketball player takes the place of a 6’5’’ black player because Asians are URM in college basketball?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This argument is getting old. Your poor URM kids in low quality schools are not the ones making it to top schools in large numbers under the current AA admission system as others have already pointed out. Contrary to popular belief, the URMs I know attending top colleges attended quality high schools, have parents who are well educated professionals, “lived in affluent urban Massachusetts”. They are smart, hard-working, and fully deserve their acceptance, but why pretend that they were admitted because of some disadvantage? Furthermore, what happens to the white and Asian kids facing “uneven schooling opportunity”?</p>
<p>And no one here is only talking in terms of test scores and grade point average. Please provide the evidence that a less qualified Asian student with a 2200 from a potato farm in Idaho will be admitted over an URM student with 2400 SAT from top prep school in Massachusetts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When you present facts you can be persuasive. When you throw this sh** out there you undermine your case severely.</p>
<p>^ No.</p>
<p>Now you have an answer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When I continue to read posts that would not have made if “Jews” were written instead of “Asians,” and when I continue to read posts about Asians that are based on straw men or inconsistent with reality, I can’t help but feel otherwise.</p>
<p>
What do you mean by “visible?” Do you mean with a different skin color? If you think it’s impossible for people with a different color to assimilate, then this whole conversation is a waste of time.</p>
<p>But there have been lots of immigrant groups that assimilated. Poles. Italians. Irish. Jews. But you see, they came here as immigrant waves, which was just a little bit different from how blacks came here.</p>
<p>Again, I’m confused about why, exactly, folks here think that Asians are being discriminated against at the most selective schools. As fabrizio just noted, they’re overrepresented at most selective schools–what is your reason, exactly, for thinking that they’d be even more overrepresented if admissions was more fair? Is it just that they have higher stats? In not, what else is there?
I notice that everybody wants to skirt the obvious fact that many Asian families are limiting their ability to compete for seats in the most selective schools by shooting primarily for STEM majors and by congregating in a limited number of ECs. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with this–but it will be a lot easier to get into the orchestra if you aren’t only competing with the violin players. This seems fairly elementary to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I mean with a different skin color. I never said I think it’s impossible for people with a different skin color to assimilate. I’m asking you whether you think any minority with a different skin color has successfully assimilated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I wrote “visible” to preclude you from using those examples. Yes, Poles, Italians, and Irish all used to be discriminated against. I’m sure most of us remember from U.S. History “No Irish Need Apply.” But the thing is, at the end of the day, Poles, Italians, and Irish aren’t “visible” minorities because they’re white. A name change and even in person, you’re unlikely to tell that George Stone used to be Giuseppe Petri. I reiterate that the experiences of these groups provides powerful evidence that racial classifications are largely meaningless and arbitrary. (In other words, we should stop using them.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t say Asians were overrepresented. I said they are “overrepresented.” I don’t believe the phrases ‘overrepresented’ and ‘underrepresented’ are appropriate, as both suggest that there is something amiss, that there is a “correct” level of representation. (Which of course isn’t a quota.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t skirt this. When you first said this, I replied that an implication of your argument is that if enough Asians “wise up,” then Asians will be even more “overrepresented” than they already are. I then stated, “Call me cynical, but I’m sure some of the parents here would prefer if Asians continued to follow this “erroneous” strategy, as I doubt they’re keen to see elite schools’ Asian percentages come close to the Jewish percentages in their lifetimes.”</p>
<p>Mind you, I am not saying that you are one of these parents.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If college coaches thought that recruiting less accomplished athletes of different races would benefit the team and student body in some way, then I don’t see why they wouldn’t, as using race as a factor in admissions is permissible.</p>
<p>Remember that the purpose of race preferences in college admissions is not to benefit the individual student admitted, but to benefit the entire student body by providing a racially diverse learning environment. Neither the Court nor the colleges argued that every single campus activity and department must be racially diverse.</p>
<p>The Asian-American population in the region ‘next door’ to Stanford ranges from about 30% to about 46%. Perhaps there are posters here who believe that only a 46% figure of Asian-American admits would be ‘non-racist.’ But the only people who would believe that are those who privately believe that, by category, Asian-Americans are “more qualified” than other categories applying to elite universities – in which case, you folks are the most racist of all, but can’t see your own offensive racism. It is an assumption which privately believes that “only” or “mostly” Asians are rejected from admissions, first of all, and second of all, believes irrationally that such rejections are specifically for “racial” reasons – despite the huge variety of features that are listed on Columbia’s admissions page (similar to the literature provided by all the other elite u’s). Thirdly, it assumes that there are no (let alone many, let alone, hundreds and thousands) of non-Asian rejected applicants as qualified in the eyes of that college as the Asians who were rejected. (Because of course Asians are the “most” qualified.) Fourthly, some of the posters on this thread obviously believe that some applicants are looked at “more” holistically than other applicants. (Wrong.) Re-read Columbia’s statement which I posted, on holistic admissions, because it applies to all other similar universities as well. Every single applicant is looked at comprehensively, in terms of all the academic features, all the features of income, origin and geography, all the features of extracurriculars previously pursued and likely to be in the future, and the likely academic field of study. There is no such thing in college admissions (except for the Early hooked categories) as a predictable or an indicated standard of admission, and this has been true for easily 10 years. You are as likely to be accepted as your competitors are unlikely to be accepted this particular year, based on the equally long college list of factors being considered for them, as for you. It is all comparative on a multitude of measures. All of it is context.</p>
<p>Back to percentages and the earlier chart I posted (post 818):
The local range of Asian-American population is ~30% to ~46%. The State range is close to 11%. **Although Stanford is not a regional university but a national one<a href=“seeks%20maximum%20qualified%20geographical%20representation,%20just%20like%20the%20other%20elite%20universities%20do”>/b</a>, it does concede higher numbers because of the State demographics in general. So the fact that the Asian-Admit rate at Stanford is currently at about 23% is really about in the middle (between the local and the State range of representation).</p>
<p>“Also I haven’t got answer from any AA supporters. Should a 5’8’’ Asian basketball player takes the place of a 6’5’’ black player because Asians are URM in college basketball?”</p>
<p>What position on the team is being filled? How many other 6’5 and over players are on the team? Are they both already accepted at the college? Is the 6’5 player first string or bench warmer? Which is the strongest leader (is a leader needed), what b-teams have they played on, which had stronger recommendations from coaches, does one have more heart, which one is quicker, etc. What does the coaching staff think?</p>
<p>Guess this question is a little bit like admissions in that would need to know what each player brings to the team and what does the team need. Which player will make it more likely to meet the team’s mission and be a good fit. </p>
<p>Not sure why you wanted this answered?</p>
<p>
Well, a number or at least some sort of idea of a number is what I need to accept a statement someone keeps repeating as if it were a fact. Obviously, the number of applicants and the relevant acceptance rates is of some relevance to this discussion.
And sorry, i still don’t see how this quote gives me any idea of the number of West Coast Jews applying to the Ivy League. It could very well just mean that almost no kids from the West Cosast, Jew or not, were interested in traveling to Harvard in that era. </p>
<p>
Seriously. What changed in this country between 1920 and now? I wouldn’t think I would actually have to answer a question like this on CC. So I’m not. Do a little reading. Try starting with the Cvil Rigths Act of 1964 and the Voting Rightrs Act of 1965. </p>
<p>Now, if you don’t know what changed at admissions since then, that is only almost as ridiculous. This is the 1920s people, not the 1970s or even the 1950s.</p>
<p>Here’s a few things -
- Those schools were still almost entirely made up of rich prep school types.
- There was virtually no geographic diversity. People mainly applied in their geopgraphic region, and the number of schools was limited. Certainly the knowledge about school options was limited.
- Far fewer students went to college period.
- The SAT exam was brand new, almost nobody required it for admissions.
- You didn’t just fill out your common ap electronically with 18 college choices, all of which were logistically feasible and provided a great education , and probably the most relevant difference for this discussion:
- THese Ivy schools were probably among the **LEAST BIGOTED ** schools in those days. A lot of the alternative schools were still segregated. Other alternative schools simply did not exist. Or were just not on people’s radar screens back when you had to travel by train.</p>
<p>So let’s take this example that you continually bring up. Comparing Jews who continued to apply to HYP despite the attitudes towards them. IMO, if a Jew or anybody else actually believed there was vile, pernicious, evil racism going on against them some place, and they still wanted to contribute to that organization that is a little weird. But it is at least explainable in the 1920s. First, I’ll assume that they actually knew these practices were going on, although in most cases I actually doubt they did. If you were some kid from New York or New England looking for a decent education, you did not have the choices you have today, as I keep repeating and you keep ignoring. So I don’t want to go to Harvard because it is bigoted. Okay, I’ll just head on off to UCSD. Except for the fact that there was no UCSD, and there was barely a UCLA. People just didn’t go to schools all over the place like they do now. </p>
<p>That’s okay, I’ll fly on out to Washington University in St Louis. Oh wait, I’ve probably never even heard of Washington University in St. Louis, and there is no plane flight for me out there. Oh, and oops. It’s still segregated, so it probably doesn’t meet my criteria for racial equality. Ditto UVA.</p>
<p>So I guess my choice is to just not go to college at all,or choose one of the lesser of evils.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but they’re technically not a minority.</p>
<p>I am referring, of course, to women.</p>
<p>Until the 1960s or 1970s, most of the top private colleges were men-only. Yes, there were women’s colleges, and some of the men’s schools had affiliated women’s colleges, but they were small. And even at co-ed universities, the number of women was often strictly limited to something like one-quarter to one-third of the total population. The results was that a woman had to be MUCH more qualified than a man to be admitted to a college of similar caliber. </p>
<p>In those days, the college profile books used to list SAT averages for men and women separately. Sometimes the differences between the two sexes at a co-ed college or at two affiliated single-sex colleges (e.g., Harvard and Radcliffe) were as much as 100 points – with the higher averages for women. </p>
<p>Women are still discriminated against in college admissions today, though to a lesser extent. Admissions people talk about how admitting too many women will ruin the character of a campus. Funny how we find that to be outdated and offensive thinking when applied to Jews in past decades (and possibly to Asians today), but many of us accept it when it comes to women.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where does 46% come from?</p>
<p>According to [Berkeley’s</a> CDS](<a href=“http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2010-11.pdf]Berkeley’s”>http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2010-11.pdf), the school is 39.62% Asian, and 7.08% of the student body declined to self-identify. Similarly, [Caltech’s</a> CDS](<a href=“http://finance.caltech.edu/budget/cds2011%20FINAL%204_28_11.pdf]Caltech’s”>http://finance.caltech.edu/budget/cds2011%20FINAL%204_28_11.pdf) shows that it is 39% Asian (2% declined to self-identify). Just for good measure, [UCLA’s</a> CDS](<a href=“http://www.aim.ucla.edu/cds/cdsForm.asp]UCLA’s”>http://www.aim.ucla.edu/cds/cdsForm.asp) shows that it is 35.69% Asian (4.32% declined to self-identify).</p>
<p>Your entire paragraph is a straw man.</p>
<p>I have no idea if “HYPSM et al.” would be 46% Asian or anywhere close in the absence of racial preferences. But I would expect the percentages to increase based on the research of Espenshade and Chung. (And yes, I am well aware that to you, they are right-wing hacks with agendas.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all, your number is wrong and 16% of Stanford’s undergraduates are Asian:
[College</a> Search - Stanford University - The Farm - At a Glance](<a href=“College Search - BigFuture | College Board”>College Search - BigFuture | College Board)</p>
<p>The 16% is the same or lower than the Ivys, MIT, Chicago, Johns Hopkins, Duke, etc where the regional Asian populations are ~5%. Since the Asian population in California is 12% (30-40% in SF Bay area), Stanford should have ~30% Asians for a non-discrimination level, less than Caltech and Berkely’s ~40%, which is reasonable considering Caltech is a science and engineering school and Berkeley is a state school. Before Shaw (Dean of Admission) took over a few years ago, it was happenning, and the Asian number was approaching 26-27%. Under Shaw’s rein, it’s reduced to the currently level. Based on these numbers, you can determine yourself to see what’s going on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with you. I don’t have that information. If you won’t accept the premise without it, fine.</p>
<p>Perhaps I should explain my reasoning to you instead of being petty. By 1922, Jews made up over a fifth of Harvard’s freshman class. How can you make up over a fifth of a class, even if the class is small, if your “group” isn’t sending a lot of applications?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Point taken. Perhaps Lowell failed because despite his best efforts, few students in the West Coast were interested in attending Harvard. I accept.</p>
<p>“What changed in this country between 1920 and now? I wouldn’t think I would actually have to answer a question like this on CC.”
This is not my question. My question is what has changed in elite colleges’ admission practice towards Jews in the 30s and towards Asians now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fair enough. At least you recognize that if you make a substitution of “groups,” it is a “little weird.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But if you were “some kid from New York or New England” in the 1920s, there in fact was an excellent public school that did not discriminate against Jews: The City College of New York. Wikipedia shows that between 1933 and 1954, CCNY trained ten future Nobel laureates; ALL of them were Jewish.</p>
<p>So again, given that the Jews knew of the existence and quality of CCNY, why did they continue to apply to Harvard? Now that you’ve reminded me of how good CCNY was before it was ruined by liberal ideology, it makes some of the users’ comments here even more nonsensical than they were before.</p>
<p>
affirmative action =/= open admissions</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even though I always argued for affirmative action and holistic admissions elsewhere, I can’t pretend that Asians are not disadvantaged in the process by the fact that they as a whole perform better on standardized tests and have interests that congregate in certain areas. I have problems with some of the arguments people frequently use to reason for AA. There is no evidence that they are accurate and no reason to pretend that they are.</p>
<p>Is “discrimination” the appropriate word? How do you quantify the kind of ceiling women face in male dominant fields? The reality is that society is uncomfortable with a large percentage of Asians in elite universities. The unfortunate impression I got from reading Pizzagirl’s and others’ posts is that something like 50% Asian (not saying that that can actually happen) contradicts with the image of prestige and “American higher education” that people think their Harvard should embody. Just as some hesitate to live in a neighborhood that has a predominant Hispanic or black or immigrant population because they perceive that as “un-American”, less than idyllic, many don’t like the idea of having top, desirable universities filled with Asian students whom they perhaps associate as being “cliquish”, foreign, introverted, spending too much time spending something other than English as Hunt phrased, regardless of whether that is the case with the specific group of Asians in question.</p>