<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>In this scenario, some would say the “rigging” is what makes the ORM, ORM in the first place. Some (not me! I am not a “I know what to do!” type… more of an interested observer…) would say get rid of THAT rigging, and maybe the “chips will fall where they may”.</p>
<p>My brother now gets stopped just for riding his BIKE in LA. He is a pretty successful guy (grammy nom, director) and they ask him… is that YOUR bike?</p>
<p>I haven’t read this entire thread, so please forgive me if this question has been answered. </p>
<p>What is the acceptance rate for Asians at the top schools?
What is the acceptance rate for whites at the top schools?
What is the acceptance rate for Jews, Hispanics, blacks, etc. at the top schools?</p>
<p>I’ve seen lots of anecdotal evidence of high-scoring Asians being denied at the Ivies, but does anyone have these stats?</p>
<p>I have an experience similar to the one of Shrinkrap’s brother:</p>
<p>A 180 lbs male student rode a bike on the college campus and bumped into a 100 lbs student (me). We both fell on ground and felt extremely hurt. A tall female student was walking by. She stopped and asked the big student “Are you OK?”. Then she turned to me and asked with an accusating tone: “Why did you bump your bike into him?”.</p>
<p>This thread is very informative, but read the quote again and one may realize that the discussion so far missed an important piece.</p>
<p>If one is under that kind of pressure all his life, has to go to an inner-city public school, works 20 hours a week to help the family, and gets only 1950 on the SAT, is he a less qualified candidate for an Ivy than a guy who goes to a BS with $40K tuition, $70K tutoring cost, and a 2330 on the SAT? I’d say No, with or without the URM label.</p>
<p>First, only a part of that ^ scenario is true in my brothers case. Inner city public school, because he got ina lot of trouble in Catholic school, and worked, but because he was that driven, not to help the family. I’m not sure if he even took the SAT. </p>
<p>And rest assured, he didn’t “take anyone’s spot.”</p>
<p>Second, I think coolweather is saying, all things being equal, folks avoid blaming the “obvious” suspects.</p>
<p>We apparently live in different neighborhoods.</p>
<p>Aren’t you mixing admission and enrollment data to support your allegations of racial manipulation by Richard Shaw? From the above post, one might conclude that there are more Hispanics than Asians in the October 2010 student body … something that is not the case, unless one would pretend that all the “race unknown” student happen to be Hispanics. </p>
<p>Anyone who is remotely familiar with admissions and enrollment statistics should understand the danger to draw drastic conclusions of changes in ANNUAL admissions statistics, as there are differences between percentage of admissions and percentage of enrollment. In plain English, in an era of serial applications’ explosion, the impact of multiple applications is especially important among the students who … apply to a great number of schools. </p>
<p>Thus, should someone cling to the fact that in 2010 “only” 273 Asian students enrolled at Stanforf while in 2009, this number was 397? Since the same numbers are 306 versus 247 for Hispanics, could one conclude that Shaw’s office extended more admissions to Hispanics and that this represents a sea change in admissions? The answer is a resounding NO, ceptfor the people who are detemined to spew the same non-sense of organized and abject discrimination. </p>
<p>The same non-sense that is based on erroneous and incomplete “analysis” of research and the large reliance of anecdotal evidence. To date, all efforts to uncover a discriminatory smoking gun have amounted to a much ado about nothing. </p>
<p>One reality is that the academic loopholes and gamesmanship that so favored special minority groups have ceased to deliver the same benefits, as they moved from URM to ORM. As it stands, the current efforts to eliminate AA is nothing that an attempt to remove the ladder for the ones that follow despite having used to reach the next platform. </p>
<p>The current “dialogue” is nothing else than an expression of misplaced entitlements and obnoxious selfishness that sugarcoat a very narror agenda based on misinterpreted statistics and misunderstood or misrepresented policies. </p>
<p>Repeating the same arguments ad nauseam will not change the reality that there is no basis to support the allegations of RACiSM and DISCRIMINATION. Rather than being pilloried, the schools that practice holistic admissions should be applauded for their courage (and expenses) to seek to build the best classes of undergraduates, as well as they should recognized for increasing their outreach efforts to attract less “obvious” candidates.</p>
<p>For starters, the biggest impact and effect of affirmative action has been based on gender differences. Then, in the context of this forum, namely college admissions, one needs to establish that discrimination does exist in the current environment. </p>
<p>The absence of preferences does not intimate the presence of … discrimination. Considering racial, economic, and social differences in a system of selection does not mean that the selection process is discriminatory. </p>
<p>As this thread, just as the ridiculously high number of similar threads on CC that are fueled by the same individuals, demonstrates clearly, the allegations of discrimination rely on extremely self-serving and narrow definitions of qualifications and on the lack of understanding of the holistic process. In a nutshell, (faulty) assumptions are made about the universal (and superior) qualifications of Asian candidates and simplistic comparisons between racial groups of mere parts of the puzzle. </p>
<p>A repetition that has long crossed the fine line of intellectual integrity.</p>
<p>Interesting. I have been accused of sounding like Ayn Rand, but never Karl Marx. Maybe because these institutions tend to admit students on the basis of their group affiliation? I never torture data to match my opinion, but simply allow them to tell their story.</p>
<p>I think the ruling elite has learned a long time ago that change is inevitable, and that it is in their own interest to try to manage this change instead of resisting it. A revolution not of their own making is the last thing they want, and passing on privilege to the next generation is best achieved by sharing a bit of it to keep discontent at bay. Yes, some of these lucky sperms have gone far indeed. Once in power, they do have a tendency to turn away from their own because it is in their best interest to do so.</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>So? None of that still entitled you to multiple spots at top schools like you seem to think you were due. Regardless of whether you were white, black, purple or polka dotted. You all continue to think that admittance to an elite school is some kind of reward for pushing certain buttons, that you are “due” it, and that if you don’t, that the school made a head to head comparison between you and a URM and “gave” your spot to the URM while acknowledging that said URM wasn’t as qualified in the first place. </p>
<p>Your high school is simply too small to draw any conclusions from. Elite schools have a broader pocket of considerations.</p>
<p>And so many people who are allegedly good at math seem not to understand the implications of single digit admission rates. You can be qualified, not get in, and it’s got nothing to do with discrimination.</p>
<p>I think this is true. And I think we will see it happen. But I really doubt that Asians will simply demand there own AA. I think they will demand a system that is like what is happening in the state universities. I think it’s inevitable.</p>
<p>There’s just one teeny tiny problem with this, as I said many pages back: the "URM"s who get into the Ivies are more likely to be those who went to a “BS with $40K tuition, $70K tutoring cost, and a 2330 on the SAT” than those who went to an “inner-city public school, works 20 hours a week to help the family, and gets only 1950 on the SAT.”</p>
<p>I know it makes many of you feel better to think that the "URM"s who get in are “from the 'Hood,” but that is simply not the case. A few lucky ones do, but the others are from YOUR socioeconomic classes.</p>
<p>xiggi, where’s your working paper on SSRN refuting Espenshade et al.'s studies?</p>
<p><em>crickets</em></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem with our “dialogue” is that many of the vocal pro-racial preference users like to create straw men and argue against them instead of us.</p>
<p>The worst example by far in this thread was “I know for some of you it’s not possible to wrap your head around the indisputable fact that any non-Asian student could ever score 2400, but that’s your problem.”</p>
<p>Milder examples include some users’ refusing to grant that “we” are not calling for SAT-only admissions as well as insisting that Asians are only about a narrow range of schools, their being “overrepresented” almost everywhere notwithstanding.</p>
<p>Then you’re not being intellectually honest. Affirmative action is racial discrimination; it’s just positive racial discrimination. If we have a disagreement about this, then it’s “your side,” xiggi, that’s being intellectually dishonest, not “ours.”</p>
<p>No, I am not under that impression. Pizzagirl wrote that post to 20more, who is Asian. I asked that question to see if she realized that when applied to "URM"s, her sentence doesn’t support racial preferences.</p>
<p>In this thread, some users have warned that if we abandon racial preferences, "URM"s will be “shut out”–which implies discrimination. And on the previous page, some users have re-emphasized that *discrimination<a href=“against%20%22URM%22s”>/i</a> still exists.</p>
<p>But if “you” can be qualified, not get in, and it’s got nothing to do with discrimination, uh…then why do we have racial preferences? What’s the big deal that a qualified “URM” doesn’t get in and where discrimination played no role?</p>