<p>After arriving at CC, I've been brainwashed that Asians are a overepresented minority because everyone is saying that they are. Could anyone please back that claim up with proof?</p>
<p>That depends on the context. Are we talking about top-tier college admissions, or something else?</p>
<p>go to the website of any top college and look at the percentage of asians. then take that number and compare it to the percent of asians in the overall population of the USA.</p>
<p>o_0, what? you don't believe it?</p>
<p>% of Asians at Cal = 41.4%
% of Asians in California = 12.4%</p>
<p>Just one example, but many other high ranking schools also have a far greater percentage of Asians than the percent of Asians in that area/state/the country.</p>
<p>top-tier schools.
Things are not necessarily right when many people state that it is.</p>
<p>look at post number 4...there's all the evidence you need.</p>
<p>The percentage of the U.S. population that is Asian: 3.6%</p>
<p>18% of Harvard's student body is Asian-American
14% of Yale's student body is Asian American
13% of Princeton's student body is Asian American
24% of Stanford's student body is Asian American</p>
<p>A Wall Street Journal reporter has a book out that details the Asian disadvantage. He claims Asians need 50 points higher on the SAT to be competitive with a white candidate.</p>
<p>But what about after college admissions? Would Asians still be considered an ORM for vocational placement in the business, legal, political or medical field?</p>
<p>What people in business, etc. will care about is how well potential employees can do the job.</p>
<p>same thing goes with some other minorites</p>
<p>When users claim that Asians are a so-called “over-represented” minority, they have in mind proportional representation. Asians would be “correctly represented” if and only if their student body percentage mirrored some Census statistic.</p>
<p>As Justice Lewis Franklin Powell wrote in Bakke, “If petitioner's purpose is to assure within its student body some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin, such a preferential purpose must be rejected not as insubstantial, but as facially invalid.”</p>
<p>Proportional representation is illegal. No matter what racial preference advocates call it, it is a quota.</p>
<p>If we discard the flawed premises of proportional representation, then there is really no such thing as “over-representation.” If an admissions system, “holistic” or not, results in more Asians than “there should be,” then so be it. That’s the equilibrium. Let it be.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As Justice Lewis Franklin Powell wrote in Bakke, “If petitioner's purpose is to assure within its student body some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin, such a preferential purpose must be rejected not as insubstantial, but as facially invalid.”</p>
<p>Proportional representation is illegal. No matter what racial preference advocates call it, it is a quota.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yup, and that's why so few people support it.</p>
<p>Holistic admissions is the latest fad.</p>
<p>Silly of you to cite Bakke, you must be forgetting that Bakke upholds affirmative-action as a practice to ensure diversity in schools across the country.</p>
<p>Even though NSM's data is a little misleading (you have to norm for stuff like income, residency, etc.) her analysis is correct...that is Asians are Over represented than the other races.</p>
<p>Just to contrast:</p>
<p>Underrepresented minorities are just that: African Americans make up about 12% of the US population but only about 7/8% at most top schools (Columbia being the notable exception with 11%), and Hispanics are 14.1% of the nation population and represented in top colleges in roughly the same numbers as blacks.</p>
<p>Native Americans are actually more or less represented proprotionally, but only because only 0.8% of the population identifies as solely Native American. But every college rounds their population of Native American students up to 1% when it is probably lower.</p>
<p>Just_Browsing,</p>
<p>You’re right. A minority of Americans support proportional representation. I’m glad it’s that way.</p>
<p>“Holistic” admissions is no fad. It’s been around for decades. It’s a historical irony that a policy that was once used to exclude is now touted as the vehicle for “diversity.”</p>
<p>Contrary to your last paragraph, it is not silly of me to cite Bakke. Moreover, the sentence I quoted from Justice Powell does not contradict the case’s holding that it is legal to use affirmative action “to ensure diversity in schools across the country.” Rather, it states that the Court has never viewed proportional representation as acceptable. If you had my post more carefully, I believe that you would not have chosen to introduce another aspect of Bakke that I did not mention in my post.</p>
<p>PK –
[quote]
go to the website of any top college and look at the percentage of asians. then take that number and compare it to the percent of asians in the overall population of the USA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, Jews are overrepresented significantly more so than Asian students at the elite universities – should universities cap their enrollment as well?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The percentage of the U.S. population that is Asian: 3.6%</p>
<p>18% of Harvard's student body is Asian-American
14% of Yale's student body is Asian American
13% of Princeton's student body is Asian American
24% of Stanford's student body is Asian American
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Asians presently make up 4.7% of the US pop.</p>
<p>Here are the % of Jewish students at Harvard and Yale (Jews make up 1.5% of the college-age pop.) –</p>
<p>Harvard – 26%
Yale – 29%</p>
<p>
[quote]
Would Asians still be considered an ORM for vocational placement in the business, legal, political or medical field?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not any more than Jews in law, medicine, wall street, politics, Hollywood, the fine arts (Jews have made up 1/3 of the musical directors in the US – and yet, all we hear here is how Asians and classical music - btw, what is wrong with that? most people can’t even play an instrument).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Princeton is a private university. The Supreme Court decision ruling that quotas were illegal only applies to public universities. Princeton, as a private university, can do whatever it wants. If it decided to, it could only admit monkeys. However you may feel about Princeton's admission's practices, you have no reason to say they are illegal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not exactly true since Princeton gets Federal $$.</p>
<p>Not exactly true since Princeton gets Federal $$. </p>
<p>That's true! If they take federal moneys, the U's have to abide by certain federal laws.As far as I know, only Hillsdale, and maybe Wabash and perhaps Grove City refuse all federal (and in the case of Hillsdale, state) money. They are exempted from many of the federal regulations.</p>
<p>Fabrizio, I was noting the fact that you are strongly opposed to affirmative action (I've seen your other posts).</p>
<p>Proportional representation isn't even something supported by proponents of affirmative action (like myself). Its just not something on the table.</p>