What is your definition of handicapped? To me, the issue is anyone who is a hooked candidate, gets an advantage.
So who are the hooked candidates?
URM - Asians are disqualified
Legacy - mostly wealthy white
Recruited athlete - mostly non Asian
That’s literally half the candidate pool at Ivy league schools.
In a zero sum scenario, any advantage given to one group decreases the chances of another and since none of those apply to many Asian students, they are disadvantaged in the process.
On the one hand, you acknowledge that Asians have suffered some form of discrimination either through stereotyping, harassment or direct racism, and yet you ask if they receive the same standards as white applicants. Do Asians receive White privilege? As I stated in the beginning, there’s only one demographic group who believes this.
Explain why an upper middle class Latino student is a hooked candidate but an upper middle class Asian student is not.
As a percentage of admits, the athletes vary based on the size of the school. Within a sports conference (e.g. Ivy League, NESCAC, etc.) where all schools have similar sports teams and similar numbers of athletes, a smaller school will have a higher percentage of athletes. Dartmouth, with a bit less than a third of the number of undergraduates as Cornell, probably consumes a significantly larger percentage of its class with athletes.
Can you define “mostly?” Let’s be sure to count the legacy and recruited athletes who are Asian. Our family knows of quite a few in this category from T10 and T20 schools.
Not everyone on the continent of Asia is “Asian” in the way the US uses “Asian”, which follows the guidelines laid down by the US Census. Asian in those terms is East Asian, South Asian, and Southeast Asia. Kazakhs, Uzbeks, and pretty much any Siberian indigenous ethnicity do not fit into any of the races recognized by the US. Mongolians are probably considered East Asian by the US, even though culturally and historically unrelated to Chinese, Japanese, or Koreans.
I often leave the race fields blank if there is no race for me there.
Keep in mind that the total Asian population at most Ivy League schools are 15-25% so any recruited athlete or legacy would still fall into this category.
In other words, if you were truly an unhooked Asian applicant, your chances are even less.
Maybe the Asians you know no longer have a sport to play at Dartmouth.
This is what I am trying to drill into. Do we know the percentages of hooked Asian students at the elite schools? Sorry, I am not a follower of previous threads on this topic.
(And no, none of my anecdotal examples are Dartmouth athletes. )
Well first of all, as I mentioned in my previous post, I’m against asking someone their “subtype”. The way I see it - either an applicant is hooked at a college or is not. Our chance-me template’s list of hooks could ask if the applicant is from an underrepresented ethnic group or geographic region instead of asking their ethnicity. Thus, a Hmong-American or an FGLI Chinese-American will be hooked, or an Indian-American from North Dakota might be hooked - at the colleges where such students are underrepresented. This would shift the focus from a broad ethnic category (“Asian”) to the applicant’s specific hook or lack thereof, without sounding like we are stereotyping.
Now, if an applicant is an unhooked Asian, I consider their chances to be the same as that of an unhooked White applicant. I know many unhooked Asian applicants may perceive their chances to be less, not same, but that’s likely because they look at the % of Asians at the elite schools and see (for example) “20% Asian” - but there’s no breakdown of how many are unhooked White so it’s hard to compare.
“Handicapped” wasn’t my term, but in the context it was used I took it to mean handicapped in terms of admission compared to similarly situated non Asian students. (The poster I was quoting went much further than that, but I’ll stop there.)
Yep. But this doesn’t just adversely impact unhooked Asian students, it impacts all unhooked students. That’s why, in the context of “chance me threads” (the topic at hand), I wonder if it may be misleading to suggest to an unhooked “Asian” student that they are necessarily disadvantaged as compared to other unhooked student. I’m glad to consider evidence to the contrary.
As for the rest of your post, my understanding is that thread is supposed to be about how to better advise Asian students seeking advice in “chance me” and similar threads, so I’ll stick to that.
By definition, from an ethnicity standpoint, there are only 2 broad categories of unhooked students - Asian and white. You literally cannot be an unhooked Latino or Black applicant because URM is a hooked category.
So in other words, comparing unhooked candidates means you are only comparing unhooked Asians and whites.
Thanks for citing this. This is what I was referring to, where you can see that people of Central Asia or Northern Asia have no race whatsover. It is also somewhat unclear how far the “Middle East” extends into Asia. Arab=white, Persian=white-probably, Afghan=white-maybe?, Uzbek=not white…
Using your terms, it seems like it may be misleading to suggest to an unhooked “Asian” student that they are necessarily disadvantaged as compared to a similarly situated unhooked white students.
I agree, but not sure how this helps us better advise students? It’s probably too late to tell them to choose new parents or became a 5 Star athletic recruits.
The bottom line is you tell these Asian CC posters that your chances are the same as white students.
You will be at a disadvantage compared to hooked candidates unless you fall into another hooked category that is race neutral.
As an unhooked Asian candidate, you will be competing against other unhooked Asians and whites, many of whom have almost identical (or better) academic achievements as you.
But that’s the whole point of this thread; ethnicity alone is an easily confounded factor. The very colleges and universities unhooked Asian families are trying to gain increased entry to are the very colleges and universities that have the means - and probably the desire - to just increase their recruiting efforts to include more people of all ethnicities from FGLI backgrounds. More Asians; more FGLI students. Everybody wins.
)