<p>^Wow. I wonder how many Southern Baptist applicants Harvard gets. Diversity really does mean different things to different people. </p>
<p>Ok. At the risk of sounding like Pizzagirl :)…I’m gonna say that solution to this problem is just to elevate more schools to the level of Harvard. Of course, as we all know, there are many many schools just as good. We just need to convince the rest of the country of this fact. Then we will have enough spots for everyone!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re asking me this question? Why do you think I always place quotation marks around the term ‘overrepresented’? I do so to express my disagreement with the term’s existence! I think by its very nature, “overrepresented” (and “underrepresented,” which I also always encase in quotation marks) imply that there is some “correct” level of representation, which of course cannot be a quota.</p>
<p>To me, there’s no such thing as “overrepresented” or “underrepresented.” Again, that’s why I always enclose them in quotation marks. I didn’t expect you to appear to agree with me, seeing as how you and company often use the terms with no indication that there’s anything “wrong” with them.</p>
<p>The rest of the country already knows that, soomoo. The Ivy League adulation is concentrated among a very small set of people in this country.</p>
<p>If there is no such thing as overrepresented or underrepresented, then what’s your beef? How do you know Asians “could be greater”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who certainly are not all or, I would argue, even mostly Asian. You cannot reconcile your view with the facts that Asians are “overrepresented” almost everywhere. The top three LACs as ranked by USNWR have Asians in their student bodies at twice to thrice the proportions of the U.S. population at large. Top schools beyond “HYPSM” such as Duke, Northwestern, Emory, and Rice all have rather substantial Asian enrollments. I have been fair and have recognized that your exact phrase was “HYPSM et al,” but to date, you have not expressed any willingness to be loose with the “et al” part, which would make your position even more incorrect than it already is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Take a look at the example of the top UCs following Proposition 209: Asian enrollment increased afterward. Now, to be fair, it could be that something else caused the increase, not necessarily Proposition 209 itself. But the level of Asian enrollment has never decreased to pre-209 levels percentage-wise.</p>
<p>Truly, I’m amazed that you of all people are raising questions as to what “overrepresented” means, seeing as how you have frequently used both “overrepresented” and “underrepresented” in this thread without ever expressing any doubt as to what they meant. In fact, it was only after your “group” was brought up as “overrepresented” that you began to question what the terms meant; you never asked what they meant when Asians were described as “overrepresented.”</p>
<p>But, hey, why should I criticize you for this if you agree with me that the terms are problematic?</p>
<p>We could say that Asians are “underrepresented” at top schools if, taking racial information out of the admission equation would cause their admit numbers to increase.</p>
<p>Also, I have been thinking about the argument put forth on this thread that the fact that Asians tend to concentrate in STEM majors and have similar extracurriculars (piano, tennis, math team) is working against them. If this were true then we should find the non piano, tennis, math team kids doing much better in admissions.</p>
<p>Based on the anecdotal evidence at my sons’ private high school, I have not seen this. Even the artsy, theater, humanities loving Asians seem to do worse.</p>
<p>I wonder if those who want URMs to be given a boost so that there is adequate diversity in colleges feel the same way in a host of other situations. eg organizations within the school - such as different academic disciplines, student organizations, frats, sports teams, etc - should the URMs and ORMs in these entities be given boosts and hurdles to balance the final mix? </p>
<p>In society in general, even in undesirable situations should this be done? eg. if an ethnic group is an ORM in say the prison population and another is underrepresented, to ensure the proper diversity should the system be rigged with shorter/longer sentences to ensure lower number of ORMs and higher number of URMs there?</p>
<p>Dad of 3</p>
<p>This point was brought up previously and the answer that made the most sense to me was yes…if it benefited the team or the frat or the student organizations then they might be. Diversity initiatives exist for the benefit of the school…not for the benefit of the students who do or do not benefit from them.</p>
<p>Quote:
The Ivy League adulation is concentrated among a very small set of people in this country.
Who certainly are not all or, I would argue, even mostly Asian. You cannot reconcile your view with the facts that Asians are “overrepresented” almost everywhere. The top three LACs as ranked by USNWR have Asians in their student bodies at twice to thrice the proportions of the U.S. population at large. Top schools beyond “HYPSM” such as Duke, Northwestern, Emory, and Rice all have rather substantial Asian enrollments. I have been fair and have recognized that your exact phrase was “HYPSM et al,” but to date, you have not expressed any willingness to be loose with the “et al” part, which would make your position even more incorrect than it already is."</p>
<p>Yes, I’m aware. My own kids never looked at any Ivies and will be going to a top 10 LAC and top 20 uni (one of which you mentioned above) and both are schools with Asian populations far exceeding their % in the population.</p>
<p>“In fact, it was only after your “group” was brought up as “overrepresented” that you began to question what the terms meant; you never asked what they meant when Asians were described as “overrepresented.””</p>
<p>My “group”? I’m German, Irish and Polish. Half Catholic half Jewish.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How can that be if Asians are only about “HYPSM et al”? Even if the Asians at the schools your children will be attending all applied to “HYPSM et al,” that they will be with your kids and at not “HYPSM et al” meant that they considered (top) schools other than “HYPSM et al.” That’s a tautology.</p>
<p>Well, I suppose my kids’ schools fall into the et al.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You finally made use of the “et al.” So now it’s HYPSM + Duke/Northwestern/Emory + “top 10 LAC.” Are you going to draw the line there, or does “et al” keep going?</p>
<p>Whatever. </p>
<p>Edit: I just looked up the % on the schools’ websites. </p>
<p>Turns out that one school is 22% Asian and the other is 26% Asian. Not really sure what I’m supposed to do with this info – it doesn’t change the wonderful experiences I expect both of my kids to have.</p>
<p>Oh - and the school that is 26% Asian is only about 10% Jewish! It must be a conspiracy.</p>
<p>I did not say that college admission is all about SAT, ACT, GPA and SAT subject tests.
Essays are important and ECs are important and intended majors are important.
My biggest complaint is that white students WITHOUT great ECs or national recognitions seem to do better than Asian students.</p>
<p>Best summary by soomoo:
Also, I have been thinking about the argument put forth on this thread that the fact that Asians tend to concentrate in STEM majors and have similar extracurricular (piano, tennis, math team) is working against them. If this were true then we should find the non piano, tennis, math team kids doing much better in admissions.</p>
<p>Based on the anecdotal evidence at my sons’ private high school, I have not seen this. Even the artsy, theater, humanities loving Asians seem to do worse.</p>
<p>BTW, I was a math Asian kid but I did not play piano, violin, tennis. My ECs were very unique and non-Asian according to my GC. And, my intended major was a social science.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your inaccurate impression shows how little you have really read. Had I just limited my comparative knowledge to CC results threads since the time of my membership (I was actually lurking a year before that), it would not at all seem that way. It would not only seem, but be, quite the opposite. Whatever the racial/ethnic make-up, it is those who rise considerably above even the typically high-achieving student, who gain admission to the most selective elites. That includes Asian-American students. Just an example out of the blue, from a memory of 2-3 years ago on CC: the very first student who posted on the Princeton Results thread (I forget which Round it was; I think it was Regular, but I’m not sure). This was an Asian male (typically at something of a disadvantage applying to Princeton, in numbers alone, as Princeton gets so many Asian male applications). He was also a STEM major. However, his accomplishments (and I don’t remember all the details) were head and shoulders above even those of other Asian males who posted their profiles during applications and during results. I think he had some advanced non-Asian language proficiiency and/or something else exceptional in the humanities, as well as being stand-out in the STEM area, with Intel, etc. awards. And most transparently, the way he expressed himself on that Results thread spoke volumes. He was self-aware, articulate, and confident: something that benefits an applicant. I think I had been following him somewhat during app season, and when I saw his post as #1 on the Results thread, I was so not surprised.</p>
<p>But in addition to self-reporting on CC, my various jobs in education (teaching, administration, and consulting) give me access to records and accomplishments, and it is so not true that whites who are accepted have “no (or fewer) national recognitions.” (There’s also a lot of racism in that assumption.) Overwhelmingly, they do. But the whites who are somewhat advantaged in the admissions process are those who have achieved that against odds – such as being from a non- upper-middle-class terrific suburban high school, but rather financially struggling, or going to a rural school, or with some other challenge. Not every such student will get in, either; only some will, depending on that achievement and that area of achievement, and again depending on the originality, sincerity, etc. of the application, the geography of the applicant, and much else.</p>
<p>From soomoo:
</p>
<p>Then I will say the same to you as to 20more: You don’t get out enough. Nor read enough. Just another example that pops out at me immediately, even from CC: a definitely artsy Asian female who got into Columbia (2-3 years ago). Not that great SAT score. I believe she’s Korean. She posted on the Results thread. I don’t remember what her gpa was. But she had done a ton in the arts, was self-motivated (independent) in those efforts. As with the above Princeton example, this student expressed her uniqueness effectively. It was a very different expression than the above guy; she was not a polished type such as he was, but an enthusiastic, vivacious type. </p>
<p>I could give other examples because I read off-CC so much as well, and while I don’t divulge what I can’t divulge in records, it’s just so apparent to me how many different elements go into acceptances.</p>
<p>Editing to add, because a phone call interrupted this, you can count on students who are so self-aware as these above two, managing without much effort to get effectively descriptive letters of recommendation, letters which stand out among the thousands of letters which ad officers read. Those letters personalize students in ways that very few on CC seem to understand and which no “anecdotal knowledge” of students at X high school will ever reveal to you.</p>
<p>epiphany</p>
<p>“My biggest complaint is that white students WITHOUT great ECs or national recognitions (seem to) do better than Asian students.”</p>
<p>I was referring to my high school.</p>