<p>I think for some of us there is simply a visceral dislike of judging people by their race, even if it is being done to right past societal wrongs. I know for me there is the sense that to go on judging people, selecting people, sorting thru people with race as a factor is to promulgate the greater wrong and to introduce new hatreds, new bitterness, new headaches for future generations to deal with. It’s sort of the the “buck stops here” feeling and I understand that this offends many because they don’t see a perfect world out there yet and they think that the injustices and atrocities of slavery in America can never be fully atoned for. Perhaps they are right. I know they fervently believe this. I just don’t accept that a system of racial preferences in any aspect of our society is defensible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you can be sarcastic in claiming to “understand” me, and that’s totally not “play[ing] games”? Whatever floats your boat xiggi. (Say, you found those sources corroborating your SAT Verbal claims yet?) As for not being able to formulate a defensible position, that’s true only if you think anyone who doesn’t see a difference, fundamentally, between “positive” and “negative” discrimination is “wrong.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I repeat what I wrote in #1150: “I again reiterate that if racial preferences were the minor thing its supporters claim it is, then the enrollment of Asians at the “top” UCs should not have changed, percentage-wise, following Proposition 209. But they did change; they increased.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your point is well taken that really, neither image is good. The officer shouldn’t have felt it was OK to “bully” two Asians, but nor should he have “feared” four blacks. Clearly, race mattered to him, but it shouldn’t have.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Trust me, my brain is much more…shall we say…simple. I’m far more likely to think, “Hmm, she looks good. Go ask her out. (3 second pause.) Now.”</p>
<p>I think reptilian is the word, fabrizio :-)</p>
<p>"How are you defining qualified? Psst … if you try to do it using SAT scores, that isn’t going to work, because the colleges themselves tell you they don’t much care if you’re a 2400 or a 2300. You may wish they cared, because doing so might (might) increase Asian representation, but point of fact is right now it’s not dispositive. " – Pizzagirl</p>
<p>To Pizzagirl: I’ve read your comments on Asian-related comments, and I know your opinions on Asians that unfortunately is often a steoreotype of this group of students.</p>
<p>You seem to assume that Asian-American students are only good at taking tests and they don’t do anything else. The fact is, many top Asian-American students who got 2300-2400 on SAT also have impressive records on other extracurricular activities! </p>
<p>Please don’t forget that they are also Americans who go to schools in U.S. and many of them are as active as other racial/ethnic group students. At my daughter’s high school, my daughter’s friend, a Chinese girl who got 2340 on SAT (December test in her junior year, her first try) who is also a class president, school magazine editor, swimmer, excellent actor in school plays, chair of the planning committee for senior class prom (many other committee work), and she has already had over 250 hours of volunteer work abroad and in local communities! She is smart but humble, she has wonderful sense of humor, great taste in clothes, and many other qualities that don’t fit into your steoreotype of Asian-American students. Yes, she plays piano and wants to be a doctor or a chemist, but she also plays two Chinese musical instruments, is fluent in Chinese while has won several writing awards at regional writing competitions (of course in English). What’s wrong with this? Don’t we want more doctors, scientists and engineers? We should feel lucky that some kids are willing to go into these hard fields. </p>
<p>On the other hand, you seem to assume that a student who does not do well on tests must have better extracurricular records, interesting,. “How are you defining qualified? Psst …”</p>
<p>Most people know it is harder for Asian-American students to get into top universities in U.S. even with strong all-around records.</p>
<p>We are asking for proof of what “most people know.” everyone has it rough in elite admissions. What tangible evidence is there that Asians have it harder than whites? Newsflash, qualified whites are turned down too in high numbers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no problem with this. The problem is with your failure to understand how many such outstanding students there are, with strong and varied backgrounds like hers, who also want to be doctors, scientists and engineers.</p>
<p>I don’t read Pizzgirl’s posts in the way that you do at all. I read her as responding to posters who say or imply that qualification = a score, or that qualification should be weighted in favor of scores overwhelmingly (versus all the other 7-11 elements that are “Very Important” in the elite colleges’ Common Data Sets). Not all posters on this thread have said this (nor have you), but several have certainly implied this. I don’t think she has asserted that any race or group is monolithic. When posters assert that it is ‘unfair” that so-and-so non-Asians were accepted to the same universities which Asian applicants were rejected from, the argument tends to be a quantitative one, with the non-quantitative elements blown away with generalities. (“Seems” to be better in the non-quantitative areas, too.) Or, the argument is ‘local’ or ‘absolute’ vs. relative. It’s that this fine student deserves a seat at a top university, not understanding how many such fine students there are nationally – from her background and from other backgorunds.</p>
<p>There is more than one poster on this thread implying that it should be assumed that Asians are “more qualifed” than others. On what basis is such a claim made? And on what comparative measures? One would need to see all the files of all the 12,000+ students applying to each of the particular universities, first of all. Second, one would have to know what the university values in students. Not what students value in incoming students to that college. Not what parents value about incoming students to that college or U. Not what posters value. Not what any one particular ethnic group (white, black, Asian, hispanic) values or does not value. And comparisons cannot be made anecdotally and superficially, because a file that a committee will see is far more than anyone here will see about each student. </p>
<p>In-high-school competition is very important. There is rarely more than a tiny contingent accepted to an elite national university from any one high school, and there’s no question that a student needs to be viewed on academic quality measures and academic interest measures, together, as apart from similar high-achievers at that school. Exceptions in total admitted numbers (from that high school) are sometimes in the very neighborhoods of those colleges, but only if the college can absorb a higher percentage of those students and only if those students can compete with the national base of students being reviewed. However, the local school competition also does not tell the story. Because whoever has been accepted from that school has also had to compete nationally. There may very well have been several students from that high school who were strongly considered or tentatively accepted by that national university, but when compared with the entire national student base, there was not justification, the committee felt, for adding more than 1 or 2 of these students (vs. even more strikingly exceptional students from other high schools, other regions). That configuration could mean that 3 Asians and 4 whites were originally being considered, but ultimately either 1 Asian and 1 white were accepted, 1 Asian and no whites, 2 whites and no Asians, etc. (Leaving out URM’s for the moment.)</p>
<p>Again, look at the numbers for Yale’s Early Round I posted. Those were realistic, proportionally, for the national representation which Yale seeks every year. It may also have meant that not even all 9 Bay Area counties were represented in acceptances, but that possibly there were on average 2 admits for 6 of the counties, or 3 admits each for 4 counties. Then think about how many high schools are in the most densely populated of the 9 counties, and of those how many excellent publics and privates in the wealthiest counties. Those are very long odds for acceptance, for any student of any personal origins. Projecting this pattern to other similar metro areas (Seattle, Minneapolis, Boston, etc.) means that thousands, nationally, of very, very well-qualified students of many personal origins are rejected every year from the 10 favorite colleges. Do you assume that all or most of those thousands of rejections are the qualified Asian students, or that Asians make up some extreme percentage of the rejections? Given the total Asian high school student population, that is not mathematically possible. To assume that would be to assume that the minority of applications were from white Anglo students, and that is also not mathematically credible.</p>
<p>^ This is hardly a gotcha. There is not enough transparency to assemble the “proof” you keep demanding. You know that very well. How can there be proof? There can be no end of perfect stat and “interesting” Asian candidates produced who have been rejected and clearly less qualified members of target racial groups accepted but if the process is called “holistic” and the objective stats are not disclosed for who applies and who is accepted then there can never be proof.</p>
<p>You have certainly proved nothing here. And, in fact, the burden of proof in this issue is not necessarily on those claiming the bias against Asians exists. The real burden proof should be on the institutions in question.</p>
<p>You seem to have a “line” and you’re going to stick with it. That’s fine. But know that you are not prevailing in this debate.</p>
<p>Edit: And I would add that it starts to be kind of silly to go on reminding over and over that elite admissions are . . . really tough for everyone. I think all of us – white, Asian, etc – get that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, and that is why the discussion at the beginning of this thread revolved around “whining” about the problem without taking any action. If it is so obvious that Asians are being discriminated against by HYP et al, where is the action to change the law so that these colleges may no longer engage in it? It needs to be resolved once and for all.</p>
<p>Yes, Jian Li filed a claim that led no where thus far, but he is just one applicant who complained about one college. Apparently, there are thousands and thousands of Asian applicants who were wrongfully denied admission to at least 8 colleges. Every person is entitled to seek their own redress, so why don’t they do it? Certainly there are Asian-American legal societies who would be happy to help if the allegations are righteous.</p>
<p>Don’t say it can’t be done due to holistic admissions, because according to Fab, there is plenty of solid evidence based on post-Prop 209 CA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>sewhappy,
Unless by “target racial groups” you mean White (in which case, you should say White), this is where you appear to be missing a step in the admissions process. Using race as a factor in admissions is a lawful practice (upheld by the US Supreme Ct) and is not a secret. There is nothing wrong under the law with URMs theoretically “displacing” non-URMs in the admissions process. This is the “positive” discrimination that people refer to. It is lawful discrimination.</p>
<p>The unresolved issue is whether the applicant “displaced” by AA is Asian, and if so, whether there is evidence that Asians are being unlawfully discriminated against in favor of Whites. This is the “negative” discrimination being talked about.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It most certainly is. The burden is there legally, the burden is there morally, the burden is there intellectually.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And where is your “proof” of that as well?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can’t get it. Because if you did, you would get why several students with 2400 scores (including whites) are rejected from top universities each year. And the argument continues to be based on single students (so-and-so is terrific). It was just made on the previous page. There were absolutely no comparative statements made about that female student whatsoever (and I’m not even accounting for the fact that this is a naturally biased friend of a friend; I’m taking this poster respectfully at her word, without seeing that student’s file). The poster does not understand that someone else with a 2300 or 2340 who was both well-rounded and highly accomplished, but possibly from a different region or with more economic challengei n her background was accepted, and that other student could also have been Asian.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this attitude is the reason why epiphany and company keep repeating the same lines over and over again even though no one here disputes them. That’s why sewhappy and I are equally exasperated at our continuing to read the “oversupply” and “SAT isn’t everything” lines. We get it. We don’t dispute either. Stop assuming that we do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s as silly as saying that because my smart kid from Illinois didn’t get into X school and I’m aware of a kid from Montana who did, that the burden of proof is on the school that they don’t discriminate against kids from Illinois.</p>
<p>There is a tendency to jump from “this smart, qualified-by-any-measure Asian kid didn’t get in” to " … and therefore there is discrimination against Asians." High rejection rates of qualified Asians don’t “prove” discrimination, because there are high rejection rates of qualified whites, and people from NYC, and people from California, and violin players, and dancers, and school newspaper editors, and valedictorians, and Eagle Scouts … because there are high rejection rates of EVERYONE in these systems!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nothing’s wrong with this; she sounds like a delightful young lady. If she takes a run at all the Ivies and doesn’t make it, however, that doesn’t “prove discrimination against Asians.” It just means that a well-qualified person didn’t get in to low-admittance rate schools. Well, that happens to a lot of equally as qualified white people too. Unless you can provide systematic, factual evidence that the rates of rejection are far, far different for comparably-qualified people, and / or a smoking gun that someone at an elite school has said “let’s limit the number of Asians to x%” or “on my watch, I want fewer Asians this year than last” or says something biased / inappropriate during the review process … you just don’t have a case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know a young lady who is both URM (black father, white mother) AND a legacy (father) to a top 20 university. She applied ED and got in. The people who are the racist ones are the ones who ascribe her getting in to her URM status - and the jealous ones are the ones who ascribe her getting in to her legacy status. They make no account for the fact that she was fully deserving / meritorious of being there. As were, of course, tons of students who were declined by such university.</p>
<p>So this thread is about there being not enough asians in college? Really? Never noticed that in my engineer program… asians everywhere.</p>
<p>If anything Asians are now on the same level as whites. Si hi, wassup. Watch with me as less qualified Hispanics, african americans, etc. Get our spots in colleges bummer huh?</p>
<p>But that’s why Affirmative Action is there. To get in the way and have no purpose anymore.</p>
<p>Admissions should be based solely on qualifications NOT including race</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Misrepresentation and total straw man.</p>
<p>Originally posted by epiphany:
</p>
<p>I will also note that the poster I was responding to brought up – along with many other fine elements of the student’s profile – the 2340 test score. My response to that followed, earlier. There is no such thing as even an entire student profile (test scores included but not weighted or exclusively referred to) that is reviewed in a vacuum. It is meaningless to call a person qualified, exceptional, etc. without comparative data, let alone comprehensive comparative data. Thus, no assumption of discrimination (or prediction of it) can be alleged.</p>
<p>I understand that you get that the system is holistic for every student as an individual. But there still remains that deep skepticism that it is holistic for the entire country and even globe, relative to every single university.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s one of the most ridiculous things I’ve read in a while. The burden of proof is now not on the person making the unsupported charge, but on the organization. </p>
<p>You’re a bigot! I have no proof, but prove you aren’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Young Asian women like this get into elite universities all the time. Young Asian women like this get turned away from elite universities all the time (but typically still make it into an excellent school, it just might not be tippy-top).</p>
<p>Young white women with similar qualifications / profiles get into elite universities all the time. Young white women like this get turned away from elite universities all the time (but typically still make it into excellent schools, just might not be tippy-top).</p>
<p>Personally, I think it’s “racist” - if we want to throw that word around - to assume that an Asian person’s failure to be admitted to an elite school (and I use the word “failure” for lack of a better one - it’s not a failure per se) is systematically due to someone, somewhere saying “that person’s Asian, I don’t want them, I don’t want too many Asians hanging around here, and I’d want you otherwise but the fact that you’re Asian puts it in the no column.” Really? I think most adcoms DO operate in good faith in evaluating students, and don’t at all think like that. </p>
<p>If adcoms “really didn’t like Asians,” they are doing a very poor job of showing it, LOL. And they wouldn’t have to “only pick the top ones.”</p>