<p>I know, I know. We’ve been through this before. You enjoy maintaining six different conversations with different posters at the same time. This thread already has enough strawmen to pose a fire hazard.</p>
<p>Ok. This is my last post on this thread. We are just going around in circles. </p>
<p>I do not have a set opinion on whether or not Asians are being discriminated against in elite admissions. Maybe…maybe not.</p>
<p>If it is true that they are not being discriminated against then lets just GET RID of the whole Asian classification (keep names hidden if necessary) and things will work out just as they are now…right? Seems simple to me. </p>
<p>Yes there is racial preference given to URMs. That is a fact. I’m OK with this although many on this thread are not. I do think we could do a better job in determining who qualifies as a Latino though.</p>
<p>That’s it for me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>NO! You are willfully misrepresenting the conversation. We are not saying “if we abandon racial preferences, adcoms will never admit URM’s because they are prejudiced against them and don’t want to see them set foot on campus.” We are saying “If we don’t take into account and put a feather on the scale for URM’s, given the small size of the current applicant pool, we may not have enough critical mass of URM’s to be consistent with our position as a national, diverse body, and to be comfortable enough for URM’s to feel supported on campus. Therefore, it is understandable and worthwhile to take race into account when evaluating all aspects of a candidate.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s no big deal at the <em>individual</em> level that a given qualified URM doesn’t get in. No one is saying that it’s a crisis if our hypothetical 2400 SAT URM doesn’t get in. He wasn’t guaranteed a spot any more than the 2400 SAT Asian or 2400 SAT white.</p>
<p>Was someone arguing that any qualified URM “must” get in? No. So don’t go straw-manning us.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My apologies for defining “shut out” in a way that you (and others) did not intend.</p>
<p>But let’s focus on this “…given the small size of the current applicant pool…”</p>
<p>Aren’t you agreeing with epiphany that the only reason why there’s a “UR” in “URM” is because not enough apply? Then why use racial preferences? The “problem” would be solved simply by encouraging more to be considered (i.e. apply). No “feather on the scale” is necessary.</p>
<p>Here’s what epiphany doesn’t understand: her much-repeated “oversupply” line can be used against her. Since it is true that there are more qualified candidates than openings, what’s the big deal that there might not be a “critical mass” of "URM"s? All that means is that there were…wait for it…more qualified candidates than openings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, but it becomes a big deal when you don’t get that “critical mass,” even though you might not have gotten it because…there are more qualified candidates than openings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I answered this already on 6/11, when I said: “It’s possible that it’s a combination of both. Not enough URM’s who <em>could</em> handle the work at HYPSM (et al) even apply (because it’s not on their radar screen as something for their future) AND there may (or may not be) a qualification gap.” Then later on, I added: “At this point in time, it’s rather irrelevant as far as I’m concerned. I’m willing to “allow” a few potentially less-qualified people into the system, because the intent of the system is to create the rich and diverse soup, not only or merely to single out qualifications.”</p>
<p>Given how small of a pool URM’s are at the most elite colleges anyway – I don’t believe blacks and Hispanics are even represented anywhere near their % in the population – it would seem to me that the racist ones are the ones who simply cannot tolerate any effort to increase their presence and cry “URM! URM! Not fair!”, as though they’d be dirtied or sullied. </p>
<p>Let me put it another way. I posted upthread that my kids’ schools are 22% and 26% Asian respectively, which is obviously well above Asian representation in both the general populace and in these schools’ back yards (neither school is in California). My reaction to those numbers is – well, nothing. Good for them! It’s not “unfair” that Asians have one-fifth to one-fourth of these spots. If they worked hard and earned it fairly, more power to them! Couldn’t. Care. Less.</p>
<p>But now here are groups who are doing well, who are looking on at other groups who aren’t anywhere near as represented compared to their share in the population, and the <em>slightest</em> hand-up is resented and you want to yank away the ladder. It’s ugly. And it’s not consistent with the values that elite schools wish to portray, whether it’s altruistic or a business decision or both.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, it does become a big deal when there isn’t sufficient critical mass of any one group. Because in your typical way, you are defining “learning” as “what occurs from books” as opposed to understanding that learning comes from being exposed to all different types of people. Tell me, how come Asians don’t apply to a bunch of midwest rural LAC’s that offer excellent education? Because they perceive (rightly or wrongly) that there won’t be enough students “like them” - that they might not have a sufficient dating pool (if they desire to date only within their race), that their foods and customs will be “out of place.” Well, why would a smart STEM-oriented Afr Am want to apply to Caltech when it’s 2% Afr Am? Same difference. Is Caltech better off when smart Afr Ams feel “Caltech’s not for me”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know that. As I mentioned, there are three things inapplicable about that statement, relative to this discussion:
(1) not a representative sample (as PG also said)
(2) the word “seems”
(3) the lack of complete access to those students’ confidential records, including the extremely important letters of recommendation (vis-a-vis private colleges, which is the discussion here).</p>
<p>Even if you knew for a fact that there were zero national recognitions, you would not know (a) what teachers said about the quality of their intellectual inquisitiveness (b) the content of their personal statements in those applications (c) the content and quality of the essays and how admissions officers viewed those individual essays, relative to the entire application.</p>
<p>So again, it’s a failure to have even the full information from one school, and secondly to understand how admissions works comprehensively, and the various non-quantitative elements which students do not see about each other, nor parents see about students other than their own.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But [UC</a> Riverside<a href=“17%%20white,%2040%%20Asian,%2029%%20Latino”>/url</a> seemed to be unappealing to you in a [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12763855-post701.html]previous”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12763855-post701.html]previous</a> post](<a href=“http://www.ucr.edu/about/facts.html]UC”>Rankings and Facts | University of California, Riverside). You claim it is because it is a “regional school”, but most students attend schools that draw more heavily from their region (state universities, community colleges, even private colleges other than the few well known ones).</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Maybe because it wouldn’t give their parents bragging rights in a peer group where no one ever heard of the school?</p>
<p>Just for grins I decided to take a look and compare C9 and C10 on the common data set for Caltech and MIT.</p>
<p><a href=“http://finance.caltech.edu/budget/cds2011%20FINAL%204_28_11.pdf[/url]”>http://finance.caltech.edu/budget/cds2011%20FINAL%204_28_11.pdf</a></p>
<p>[MIT</a> Office of the Provost, Institutional Research](<a href=“MIT Institutional Research”>MIT Institutional Research)</p>
<ul>
<li>Pretty inconclusive about class rank since it appears at both schools less than half of the frosh submitted rank.</li>
</ul>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I had any impression of UC Riverside beyond “Oh, it must be a UC based in some city called Riverside, California” I’d be better able to answer that question. It’s unknown to me and it’s irrelevant to me. So please, don’t take my lack of interest in it as something against Asians. It’s just my lack of interest in the vast majority of (for me) OOS public schools for my kids.</p>
<p>Deborah T, instead of making us wade through it, what is the point / data you wanted us to discuss?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I said that you can’t have it both ways. Either there is a gap, and it makes sense to have racial preferences; or there isn’t one, in which case, racial preferences are unnecessary. I understand your reluctance to take a stand, as it is basically a “Heads I win, tails you lose” situation; a stand either way has you making a statement that you disagree with.</p>
<p>But that’s the way it is. If there is a gap and not enough "URM"s apply, then I accept that under race-blind admissions, “URM” admissions would decrease. The applicant pool size wouldn’t matter.</p>
<p>If there isn’t a gap and not enough "URM"s apply, then “URM” admissions might decrease under race-blind admissions, but ONLY because there are more qualified candidates than slots (epiphany’s line). Whether you increase the “URM” applicant pool makes no difference, as it’s still an OVERSUPPLY problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This probably ties epiphany’s line as the worst straw man on this thread.</p>
<p>Opposing racial preferences does not mean I oppose efforts to increase “URM” presence. I had NOTHING against trying to encourage more "URM"s to apply, thank you very much.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>fireandrain: Acceptance rate relative to application numbers of each group is not known. I’m sure some will see this, also, as an orchestrated conspiracy, but when colleges get 12,000+ applications for a single year, they are not going to spend the precious time needed to review the best of those, cataloguing personal origin data of 12K students. It’s not going to happen.</p>
<p>Acceptance rates relative to offers of admission for the entire set of offers, for non-religious categories, are published in the Common Data Sets each year. I posted those earlier on this thread for Princeton, I believe.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Critical mass.” “Diversity.” Fine.</p>
<p>What makes you think that “cleans[ing] the palate with a student who has a different set of interests” is not enough to create the fabled “critical mass” with its ensuing “diversity”?</p>
<p>Why do we need to consider racial classification? That is, why is it the only way we can get our “diversity”?</p>
<p>It’s not hard to wade through, and I like to let people determine for themselves what it says to them. To me it says Caltech places very heavy weight on high test scores.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My point exactly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who said it’s the only way we can get our “diversity”? It’s one component of it, though. You might not have noticed, but all lily-white WASP establishments aren’t cool anymore like they were in the 1950’s. Isn’t that a good thing, not a bad thing? </p>
<p>The colleges are trying to get diversity in a whole host of areas. Region of the country. Interests (classics majors, engineering majors). Religious beliefs. Socioeconomic status. College “relevance” (first-gens, legacies). Private schools, public schools. Hobbies / interests / extracurriculars. Why are you assuming that they think race is “the” way? Again with the straw.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So if I said: “On average, blacks are not as qualified as Hispanics and Asians to compete at high academic levels. Therefore, it makes sense to have racial preferences so they are still present on elite campuses” – you’d say, “Yes, agreed” and we’d shake hands and be done?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are some self-reports on CC, by Asian-Americans so rejected. But again, very little else is actually known about these students (and naturally I’m taking their word for their high scores). I will tell you what I have often read, though, from high-scoring students self-identifying as Asian and students self-identifying as white:
(paraphrasing}
“my essay wasn’t that good”
“I didn’t put much work into the essay”
“I don’t know how good my letters of rec were; one was probably GREAT, I’m almost sure; the other could have been so-and-so.”
“I know that one of my ‘recommenders’ doesn’t like me.”
“My EC’s kind of sucked.” [excuse my French]
“I had lots of involvement in e.c.'s; lots of clubs; I was leader of one of them” [on-campus e.c.'s; nothing stand-out, as described by the poster]
“I could have done a better job on my app”
“I didn’t work that hard on my app; kind of blew it off”</p>
<p>These are just comments I remember over the years, and only self-reports (anecdotal!). It by no means represents all the self-reports of white and Asian high-scoring rejects, even on this board.</p>
<p>As to the Ivies’ reports of denials, there have been statements published by some of these in the past, on CC, and linked sometimes to articles, about ____number of high-scorers (not by personal origin) being rejected this year, and commentary about why such Ivies are underwhelmed by score results in themselves.</p>