<p>
[quote]
Zero bias is a pipe dream. All efforts to correct the problem result in other biases. Like I have said before, life is not fair people should learn to live with that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're from a red state. People from blue states still believe that society can be improved for everyone. White people in California score 30 points higher on the SAT Math than whites in other states because they too, believe in the dream.</p>
<p>If iI'm black and I graduated from an IVY League school, I don't give a damn whether or not someone believes I earned it on merit or through AA. People are going to believe whatever they want to believe anyway and the old "it dampens minority accomplishments" is a hackneyed cop out.</p>
<p>A 1600 SAT I score applicant has a 50% chance of admission to Harvard </p>
<hr>
<p>For Brown U.'s chances of admission based on stats alone, i.e., SAT I Verbal, SAT I Math scores, and class rank when taken alone, irrespective of all other factors used for admission, click on:</p>
<p>As an example, for the group of applicants who score 750 to 800 SAT I Verbal, the chance of admission to Brown is 26%. The chances of admission to Brown for a Verbal score in increments of 750, 760, 770, 780, 790, and 800 are obviously increasing from the baseline 750, but the chances for admission are not listed. Obviously, for a score of 800, on either the Verbal or Math, when considered separately, the chance of admission is more than 26%. </p>
<p>There are thousands of scorers of 800 on either the Math or the Verbal separately, out of 1.5 million SAT I test takers this year, but there are only about 950 scorers of 1600 on the SAT I composite score this year. There are only about 700 scorers of 1600, just two years ago. Therefore, for the 1600 scorer, the chance of admission is much higher than 26%. By extrapolation, using the Brown admissions data and Harvard's admission fact that it admits 50% of the applicants who score 1600 on the SAT I, the 1600 scorer has a much better than 50% chance of admission to Brown. Brown's mean SAT I score is 1390 and Harvard's mean is 1490.</p>
<p>We know that at Harvard, the chance of admission for the group who scored 1600 (800 Math and 800 Verbal together or composite score, on the SAT I) is about 50%, irrespective of all the other criteria used for admissions. That is to say, if you are an applicant in the group who scored 1600, you had a 50% chance of admission to Harvard. A couple of years ago, there were only about 700 scores of 1600 in the nation out 1.2 million SAT I test takers. About 400 out of the 700 SAT I 1600 scorers applied to Harvard, and Harvard admitted over 200 of them or 50%. Therefore, by just considering the SAT I score ALONE, the 1600 scorer had a 50% of admission to Harvard, which is 5 times the admission rate for the whole applicant group, which had an average SAT I score of over 1430. You can obviously see that, the applicant who scored 1600 had a TREMENDOUS ADVANTAGE in admissions to Harvard over the average applicant to Harvard, who scored 1430. Harvard's SAT I average is approaching 1500. The top 25 percentile of Harvard's freshman class (400 out of 1600) scored from 1590 to 1600 last year. This year, out of 1.5 million SAT I test takers, only about 950 in the nation scored 1600. Assuming that over 500 of these 1600 SAT I scorers applied to Harvard this year, and that over 50% of them are admitted, there are probably about 300 SAT I scorers of 1600 in Harvard's incoming class of 1600 freshman.</p>
<p>Therefore, for the perfect 1600 SAT I scorer, irrespective of all other criteria used in admissions to Harvard, the chance of admission is 50%. That's darn good when compared to the 10% chance for the entire applicant group.</p>
<p>By extrapolation, the chance for admission to Princeton for a 1600 SAT I score is higher than 50%, based on Princeton's average 1470 SAT I score vs. Harvard's average of 1500 this year.</p>
<p>Don't trivialize a perfect 1600 SAT I. It is a distinction and very few achieve this score, no matter how much test prep one takes. Obviously, not everyone can acheive a 1600, no matter what they do to prepare. Only .0006 (900 divided by 1.5 million) of all test takers achieve this score. Translated, only 6 one-hundreths of 1% achieve a score of 1600. This would make the applicant STANDOUT and this score is quite a distinction and that's why Harvard admits 50% of its applicants with a 1600 score. Princeton even admits more than 50% of its applicants with perfect scores and Brown even admits a higher % than Harvard and Princeton of its applicants with 1600 scores..</p>
<p>For Brown U.'s chances of admission based on stats alone, i.e., SAT I Verbal, SAT I Math scores, and class rank when taken alone, irrespective of all other factors used for admission, click on:</p>
<p>I am quite familar with the admissions process in the Ivies. I am an observer of this process for several decades. I personaly know the admissions director of an Ivy and several members of the adcom. I also know many alumni interviewers, all of whom were my former schoolmates. My wife and I, collectively hold 4 degrees from 2 Ivy schools. Many other members of our family (neices, nephews and cousins, and grandparents) are graduates of the Ivies and the elite colleges such as MIT and Stanford. In addition to being a life-long friend of two of the Trustees of an Ivy, since they were my former schoolmates, I follow the admission process at these schools from an insider's perspective. I have knowledge of the stats of admitted applicants compared to the rejected applicants, disaagregated by racial and etnic groups, from reliable sources. These stats are never released to the public.</p>
<p>Again, the answer to your question, "What are my chances for Princeton ED with a 1600 SAT I score?" The probability or "chance" of your admission to Princeton is greater than 50%. Your odds for acceptance is MUCH BETTER than the rest of the ED applicant pool. The only factor that may lower these odds is that you are Asian American, subjected to diversity goals or defacto racial quotas of Princeton, limiting the Asian American percentage to about 12%, simply because they are overrepresented for their 4% of the population. The percentage of Asian American applicants in the total ED applicant pool is MORE THAN 12%. That's why Asian Americans are admitted at lower rates than any other racial and ethnic group, despite being more stellar in every sense than the average admitted applicants. Asian American are required to meet a higher standard of achievement than whites, blacks and latinos, in order to be admitted. This may be the overriding factor, if you were to be rejected, because there are too many stellar Asian American applicants, at a much higher proportion than the other applicant groups. Asian Americans, on average are a more stellar applicant group than the other applicant groups. Asian American applicants are accepted at a much lower rate than the white applicants despite having the same stellar records, characteristics, moral character, interview ratings, work ethic, community service, and special talents. That is to say, the rejected Asian American applicant has even more stellar characteristics than the admitted whites, because of BIASES AND STEREOTYPICAL IMAGES of the adcoms against the Asian American applicants. Studies at Brown and Stanford have proven this.</p>
<p>Just considering the SAT I score ALONE, the 1600 scorer had a 50% of admission to Harvard, which is 5 times the admission rate for the whole applicant group at 10%, which had an average SAT I score of 1430. You can obviously see that, the applicant who scored 1600 had a TREMENDOUS ADVANTAGE in admissions to Harvard over the average applicant to Harvard, who scored 1430. Harvard's SAT I average is approaching 1500. The top 25 percentile of Harvard's freshman class (400 out of 1600) scored from 1590 to 1600 last year. This year, out of 1.5 million SAT I test takers, only about 950 in the nation scored 1600. Assuming that over 500 of these 1600 SAT I scorers applied to Harvard this year, and that over 50% of them are admitted, there are probably about 300 SAT I scorers of 1600 in Harvard's incoming class of 1600 freshman. Your chances are Princeton are even higher at Princeton and Brown, because they are a little less selective than Harvard in the pecking order of selectivity.</p>
<p>Your may also ask, "Why does Harvard (or Princeton) admit over 50% of 1600 SAT I scorers?" Well, because 1600 scorers, on the average as a group, also possess the other characteristics that Harvard is looking for, such as higher GPAs with more difficult courses, special talents, character, creativity, hard work ethic, etc. than the the 1400 scorers, on the average. That is to say, the 1600 scorers meet and exceed the holistic standards for admission more than the 1400 scorers, at a much higher rate. The 1600 scorer is simply MORE STELLAR in every sense, both statistically and holistically, with more talent, creativity and even communication and personal skills, on the average. That is why the 1600 score is admitted at over a 50% rate at Harvard and Princeton and even at higher rates at the lesser competitive Ivies and elite colleges. Some elite colleges admit 1600 scorers at an 80% to over a 90% rate and even at a 100% rate.</p>
<p>As far as the the importance of the interview in the admissions process, it is less important than you may think. Alumni interviews serve to complement the application, not as the determining factor for admission. In many cases, it simply serves as just another piece of info. In many instances, the applicant did not have an interview, because the interview is OPTIONAL. Also, the alumni interviewer, is not privy to the applicant's file or the adcoms ratings of the applicant and is not involved in the direct decisions of the adcom.</p>
<p>Stanford's adcom does not even recommend an alumni interview and places little importance with it. The vast majority of Stanford's applicants don't have an interview. Some students may be interviewed by members of the adcoms themselves or with special on-campus interviews, and the relative importance of the adcom interview varies with the different schools and even the desirability of the applicant, i.e. an athlete, a URM, a legacy or a rich and famous VIP applicant. These special categories of applicants, may warrant special considerations and preferential treatment, and that is why they are granted special interviews.</p>
<p>I am sure your Cali friends scored 30 higher than my 790 math and my friends 800 math since we are from Alabama and all and we don't "believe in the dream." Saying "red" and "blue" states are just politics. They are the majority. They don't tell you anything about me or you or what we believe. </p>
<p>vicks, saying it is a "hackneyed cop out," what do you mean? Its minorities saying dampens, not me. Should we not listen to them? Should we make these choices for them? It sounds more biased to do that than leaving the system how it is.</p>
<p>"You're from a red state. People from blue states still believe that society can be improved for everyone. White people in California score 30 points higher on the SAT Math than whites in other states because they too, believe in the dream."</p>
<p>How can you even make BS generalizations like this? You're smart enough to realize the logical shortcomings of an argument like that.</p>
<p>By the way, the guy you're arguing against is moving to NY specifically to get away from the generalizations you mention (and because he likes NYC).</p>
<p>And he's right, anyway, and will continue to be right until the psuedo-science of psychology catches up to the hard sciences. (Then the amateur psycho-analyses by adcoms will have to catch up to that.)</p>
<p>Show me a successful minority on record saying that AA has dampened their accomplishments. Colin Powell is an example of a minority who has benefitted from AA, advocates AA, and is indifferent to those that say his accomplishments should have an asterisk by them. Now, do you dare say that former Secretary of State and General Colin Powell's accomplishments are neutralized because he was a recipient of AA?</p>
<p>I am talking about keeping the system the same. My argument was against changing AA to an even higher (and unreasonable) level.</p>
<p>god you idiots! stop using a portion of peoples paragraphs and then ask us to CITE or ask us where we get these numbers. if all you other asians think ur so superior, stay in ur own country, dont come to this "non-superior" white/black infested country.</p>
<p>and you guys should stop arguing, because ur b*Tching doenst do crap or change anything.</p>
<p>Last year, during my senior year of high school, I thought it was unfair that a hispanic kid who had SAT scores that were 350 points lower than mine, much lower SAT II test scores, fewer AP courses, less extra curricular activities, and what-not got accepted to Princeton, University of Chicago, M.I.T., Stanford, Columbia, Dartmouth, UPenn, UC Berkeley, and UCLA. In the past few years my high school had three students go to Stanford, one go to M.I.T., and two go to Princeton, out of those four were hispanic and two were african-america. Naturally the Asian students were bitter when they received their rejection letters to the same schools, since they had much better test scores, rankings, and extracurricular activities. Although it seems unfair during the admissions process, no matter which university you attend, I think you'll be thankful for the diversity, since you have the opportunity to hear everyone's aspect on current issues.</p>
<p>
[quote]
if all you other asians think ur so superior, stay in ur own country, dont come to this "non-superior" white/black infested country.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...? Exactly who here ever asserted that asians are innately superior to others? Seems like a pretty random response to me.</p>
<p>Class of 08, I am not so sure about your post. If your SAT score was 1600, than your hispanic peer would have gotten into Princeton, U of Ch, MIT, Stanford, Columbia, Dartmouth, Upenn UC Berkeley and UCLA with a 1250 SAT. Unless this was some special kid, I don't see this happening. Being URM is definitely a hook, but a hispanic from California is generally not so hot as to get into those schools. I have seen hispanic kids according to my son's school's college book get turned down with a 1400 SAT by Stanford and this is from an East coast prep school. Those stats, by the way, are put together by the college counselors at the school and are reliable. I see a lot of exaggeration when it comes to who is being accepted and rejected when URM status is introduced, particularly in a comparison with Asian Americans.</p>
<p>Hey, some of you need to stop complaining. I mean, college isn't everything. What the college wants to do is to establish a balance, which they hope will help society and not just a certain group of people. I'm Asian and I have high stats and extracurriculars and awards but I don't think I should get accepted over someone who has a disadvantaged background and who didn't have all the opportunities I had to succeed. Moreover, even if a URM did not have a disadvantaged background, I think that there should be a more a more diverse college population with more representation from such groups; it's ultimately better for society because diversity is able to acheive parity and efficiency.</p>
<p>3/27/03 Detroit News: Op Ed: How affirmative action affects minorities:
Experience shows racial preferences take seats from Asian-Americans,
echoing past discrimination against Jewish students</p>
<p>by George Bornstein / Special to The Detroit News</p>
<p>The looming Supreme Court decision on the University of Michigan
Admission cases, with oral arguments on Monday, offers a crucial opportunity
to clarify how colleges and universities practice affirmative action toward
racial and ethnic groups. An important issue is who is harmed by the policy,
if failing to enter an elite university constitutes harm.
As everyone knows, African-Americans and to a lesser extent Latinos
benefit. But as the statistics from California , Texas and other states
that have banned affirmative action in admissions pile up, the answer
to who loses is becoming clear. It is not whites, but Asian-Americans.
A Feb. 2 New York Times article found that in the well-documented cases
of UCLA, University of California Berkeley and the University of Texas at
Austin , abolishing affirmative action caused the number of African-
Americans to decline most and that of Hispanics next-most.
The real surprise is that the percentage of whites hardly budged. At
The University of Texas at Austin , for example, the percentage of white
freshman admitted declined from 67 percent in the class before a
federal court order to 66 percent. Similarly, at Berkeley, whites as a
percentage of the latest freshman class fell a percentage point from the last
year before affirmative action was abolished in California . Indeed, non-
Hispanic whites are actually an "under-represented group" at Berkeley :
They comprise 49 percent of the state's population but only 29 percent of
the freshman class.
The places vacated by African-Americans, Latinos and whites went to
Asian-Americans. At Austin , for example, the percentage of Asians
admitted rose to 71 percent from 68 percent, so they now comprise 18
percent of the first-year students there in a state with an Asian population
of 3 percent.
The Berkeley numbers are more startling. The percentage of Asians-
Americans there jumped six percentage points between the end of
affirmative action and the fall of 2001; Asians now comprise 45 percent
of the freshman class at Berkeley but 12 percent of California 's population.
The lesson is clear. Affirmative action transfers places from Asian-
Americans to African-Americans and Latinos. Yet both supporters and
detractors cast the debate as black vs. white. The true issue is whether
we want or need a policy that systematically restricts the places for
Asian-Americans in our elite universities.
We will never resolve this contentious issue if we continue to frame
the debate in simplistic and misleading terms of white versus black.
Recasting the debate can also help us see why so much of the current
rhetoric supporting affirmative action to include minority groups as
defined today sounds so much like the rhetoric used earlier in the 20th
century to exclude a minority group as defined then -- Jews. Then as
now, university administrators wished to control the racial mix (Jews were
considered and called a "race" then). Otherwise, they feared their
campuses would be "overrun" with members of a small but academically
very high-achieving group.
Until the early 20th century, even the most elite American universities,
such as Harvard, Yale and Princeton , were largely regional campuses.
But faced with a high influx of academically talented Jewish students,
they sought to reduce the numbers of that group. Aware that Jews (and to a
lesser extent Roman Catholics) were concentrated in Northeast cities,
they devised a system of national recruitment to restrict numbers of Jews
while avoiding charges of overt discrimination.
Then as now, a key concept was diversity, only then it meant (in public)
geographic diversity. Then as now, quotas were publicly denied even
while an elaborate system to maintain de facto quotas evolved. Then as now,
administrators argued that other things besides grades and examinations
mattered as much or more -- character, for example, or obstacles overcome.
Then as now, the result was to transfer places that would have gone
disproportionately to members of an academically talented minority
group to members of other groups.
And then as now, the ends were felt to justify the means. Readers can
trace part of this history in Marcia Synnott's wonderful and neglected
book "The Half-Opened Door," which traces discrimination and admissions
at Harvard, Yale, Princeton and other elite schools from 1900-1970.
There is a final "then as now" worth noting: In both cases, administrators
sought to hide their practices. Deans of the Ivy League universities and
related colleges held numerous confidential meetings (fortunately, they
kept meticulous minutes which researchers can now use). Similarly, the
University of Michigan sought to suppress public knowledge of its
practices, and not until forced by Freedom of Information Act requests
from Professor Carl Cohen and others did word seep out of what it was
doing.
At that point, the college of liberal arts changed from its blatantly
illegal chart system of classification to a more subtle one on whose
legality the Supreme Court will shortly rule and the law school devised
somewhat different policies to achieve the same end.
Faced with this situation, what should we do? Some say that if affirmative
action survives it should be in a class-based form. To the extent that
members of minority groups disproportionately cluster at the bottom of
the socioeconomic order, they would benefit disproportionately. But that
would strike most people as fairer than the current racial preferences.
Others might feel that we should get rid of such factors and return to
a system blind not just to race but to all factors other than academic
performance.
Both positions have flaws. But to paraphrase Winston Churchill's
acerbic defense of democracy, either might turn out to be the worst system
we could devise except for all those other systems.
George Bornstein is C.A. Patrides Professor of Literature at the
University of Michigan . Write letters to The Detroit News, 615 W.
Lafayette , Detroit , MI 48226 , or fax to (313) 222-6417 or e-mail to
<a href="mailto:letters@detnews.com">letters@detnews.com</a>.</p>
<p>ahah if u took the time to READ the other posts instead of pasting somethign from mine, you might see where a whole bunch of other asians think they're superior, and stop asking me EXACTLY where everything is. you guys need to chill and quit b*tchin bout this whole asian thing. if you dont get into your college, its your fault, not cause ur asian, not cause of AA, not cause ur black or white or native american. dont use AA and being asian as an excuse for your lame high school records that couldnt get you into harvard.</p>
<p>this post is lame</p>
<p>You moron, can't you see that all they want is color-blind admissions. Damnit, when will this be about MERIT??? </p>
<p>Race should play NO factor. The blacks and the hispanics just don't want to give it up. Can't you see that AA is DETRIMENTAL for your communities? It creates an attitude of sympathy which will cause major problems in the future. Most educated black leaders are opposed to AA.</p>
<p>And california, *** is "1/3 of those in Pearl Harbor were Japanese" supposed to mean. They were the enemy lol... What a wacked out argument.</p>
<p>DIVERSITY is no excuse for DISCRIMINATION.</p>