<p>
</p>
<p>And this comes at a sacrifice to applicants whose interests and attributes are deemed too “common”. Should this be phrased as “discrimination”? What’s wrong with students of any race who are disadvantaged complaining about its unfairness? </p>
<p>Bay- Though I’m not sure that kind of explanation in essays can make any difference, thank you for your reply back in post 773.</p>
<p>Stanford’s SAT scores are lower than HYPC’s. By lowering the SAT scores, Stanford reduced the chances of Asians since they as a group tend to have higher scores.</p>
<p>Middle 50% SAT Scores for HYPCS:
Sources: College Board</p>
<p>Stanford:</p>
<p>SAT Critical Reading: 660 - 760 92%
SAT Math: 680 - 780 92%
SAT Writing: 670 - 760 92% </p>
<p>Harvard:
SAT Critical Reading: 690 - 800 91%
SAT Math: 700 - 790 91%
SAT Writing: 710 - 800 91 </p>
<p>Yale:
SAT Critical Reading: 700 - 800 89%
SAT Math: 710 - 790 89%
SAT Writing: 710 - 800 89% </p>
<p>Princeton:
SAT Critical Reading: 690 - 790 91%
SAT Math: 710 - 790 91%
SAT Writing: 700 - 790 91% </p>
<p>Columbia:
SAT Critical Reading: 690 - 780 92%
SAT Math: 700 - 790 92%
SAT Writing: 690 - 780 92%</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t support gender preferences OR gender discrimination, and if anyone would support gender preferences (for women), it would be me, seeing as how I graduated from a school with a skewed gender ratio.</p>
<p>If women are outperforming men, men should not receive a preference. I don’t believe that colleges will be all-women in the absence of gender preferences (for men), just as I don’t believe that colleges will be all-Asian in the absence of racial preferences. Women shouldn’t be punished if we guys are underperforming relative to them.</p>
<p>You bring up a point that I would like to emphasize. I have repeatedly stated in this thread that many comments wouldn’t have been made had the “group” in question been Jews and not Asians. I think that is because it is absolutely “outdated and offensive” to be anti-Semitic; people know this. But the same doesn’t seem to apply as strongly for Asians. When The Daily Princetonian mocked Jian Li back in 2006-2007, outrage was far from unanimous. By contrast, Alexandra Wallace was ripped to pieces after her rant was leaked on Youtube. The two employed similar taunts against Asians, so what explains the differing responses? Was it because Jian Li is polarizing while it “too soon” for Wallace to make light of the 2011 Japanese Tsunami? Or was it because Wallace’s rant was on Youtube, which isn’t the best venue to diss Asians?</p>
<p>“The Daily Princetonian mocked Jian Li back in 2006-2007, outrage was far from unanimous.”</p>
<p>Almost unanimous, perhaps not totally unanimous due to the mocking was in their yearly “joke” issue? Those not outrage probably just thought it was not funny and/or poor taste. Not sure if you made your victimization point with those two examples.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmm, OK. Why don’t you give me an example of a college newspaper that ran a “joke” on Jews at a sustained level like the DP did for Jian Li and didn’t have to apologize to the ADL for it? I’ll even be generous and let you go all the way back to 1990 if need be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>None of your questions employ racial classification as a factor. So it baffles me that you intended for them to justify racial preferences.</p>
<p>Eh. This used to bother (that colleges are “racist” that is) but i don’t really care at this point. 1, i love what i do enough (math and physics) that i know i’ll be able to make great progress regardless of where i go. Also, i actually believe i have a decent shot at MIT (my dream school), and so i’ll probably have an exceptional chance at many other Universities. Plus, there is always Berkeley 
Great school and hell, it’s Cali, what’s not to love?</p>
<p>
Since you conceded a point, I’ll concede this point.</p>
<p>I will concede, or agree with another couple things. As I stated earlier, if such a policy exists, I believe they should do away with any policy that makes it tougher for Asian applicants to be admitted than white students. And I also wonder if they couldn’t try your method with respect to URM applicants - just give everyone a number, and really evaluate students by thoroughly holistic methods, without particular regard to SAT or ethnicity. It might just turn out that the universities would still build a class with the attributes it wants, including a critical mass of of diverse applicants. I think that’s everyone’s goal, and that would be ideal.</p>
<p>But here is my main beef with some of the comments in this thread, and not necessarily your comments. I believe there is a difference between racial discrimination which is cruel, and racial discrimination which is not. There is a certain type of racial discrimination which says “I don’t care how well you perform on any measure. Merely because of the hue of your skin, or your religion, I believe you are inferior to me, and I do not want you to contaminate my environs.” At one time, this type of discrimination was leveled against Asians. But I just don’t see this type of hatred as the rationale for current admissions policies. But, I’m white, I’ve always been in the majority, so maybe I’m wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There certainly is a difference: the former is “negative” discrimination while the latter is “positive.” I just feel that fundamentally, there’s no difference. But this is a fundamental disagreement on principles; I cannot say you are “wrong” to feel that way.</p>
<p>“baffles me that you intended for them to justify racial preferences.”
Not my intention as you noted. More an analogy (admissions)to the sports situation presented.<br>
“joke” on Jews at a sustained level"… The mocking article was in a parody issue of the paper that comes out once a year. Can’t say I have ever read the paper so not sure how (sustained) often the mocking was done. A Google search may help you find more Jewish “joke” articles that no apology was given to the ADL. Saw Reed College listed first so just scanned the article and did not see the ADL mentioned. Hope this helps</p>
<p>[Reed</a> College Under Fire for Anti-Jewish Article](<a href=“http://www.huliq.com/8684/87773/reed-college-under-fire-anti-jewish-article]Reed”>http://www.huliq.com/8684/87773/reed-college-under-fire-anti-jewish-article)
[Reply</a> by the ADL](<a href=“http://www.adl.org/media_watch/newspapers/20091020-The+Quest+.htm]Reply”>http://www.adl.org/media_watch/newspapers/20091020-The+Quest+.htm)</p>
<p>“Now the paper’s staff owes the community a written apology and a thorough examination of its approach to humor.”</p>
<p>To be fair, I am not sure if the apology was given. Having said that, I don’t think your example countered anything I said.</p>
<p>“joke” on Jews at a sustained level like the DP did for Jian Li and didn’t have to apologize to the ADL for it?"… “Having said that, I don’t think your example countered anything I said.”</p>
<p>It has been posted here that people will believe what they want to believe. Well I’ll say were both right.</p>
<p>“The reality is that society is uncomfortable with a large percentage of Asians in elite universities.” - xrcal</p>
<p>That doesn’t excuse college admissions committees’ conduct.</p>
<p>The Reed apology was given (googled, two years ago):</p>
<p>[LiveLeak.com</a> - College president, editors apologize for ?gassing Jews? spoof in Oregon](<a href=“ItemFix - Social Video Factory”>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2f4_1255963469)</p>
<p>“And this comes at a sacrifice to applicants whose interests and attributes are deemed too “common”. Should this be phrased as “discrimination”? What’s wrong with students of any race who are disadvantaged complaining about its unfairness?”</p>
<p>Oh come on now. If a school gets thousands of applicants – of ANY race – who want to be math majors, play tennis and the violin, is it “discrimination” if they only admit some of them and they want to cleanse the palate with a student who has a different set of interests? That’s hardly “discrimination.”</p>
<p>“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.”</p>
<p>You’re deliberately not reading what’s been written. as epiphany said, the elite schools don’t want to be 50% ANYTHING. White, black, Asian, Protestant, Jewish, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not true really. There are many characteristics that schools do not care about. I think that the fact that racial classification is still one they do care about is what is bothering fabrizio…and really…race IS an artificial construct. The only reason universities care is because society still cares.</p>
<p>Maybe universities are not keeping the number of Asians down. However they are very race obsessed in the way they count other applicants (urms) so it would seem they are at least very aware of how many Asians they admit. Even this is questionable when you think about it.</p>
<p>It’s hardly race-obsessed to ask the question and accept “no answer” as a valid response from a good part of the applicants.</p>
<p>The “race-obsessed” are those who believe that they “deserved” to get in (backed up with a recitation of stats as proof) and point to a URM as the reason they didn’t. The “race-obsessed” are the ones who believe that an adcom looks at a kid’s record and says either “he’s fully qualified, but he’s Asian and we have too many already” or “he’s under qualified, but he’s black and we need a few more so let him in.” The “race-obsessed” are the ones who meet a URM on their campus and automatically assume he got in via race and not via merit. </p>
<p>It’s more than a little projection on your part to say adcoms are “race obsessed.”</p>
<p>
…
</p>
<p>Well, shame on me for not Googling more. Thanks, vonlost.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not racial discrimination, and racial discrimination is what we’re talking about. Moreover, under a race-blind system, a college could still “cleanse the palate with a student who has a different set of interests.”</p>