“A student’s primary race/ethnicity is determined by the left-most column in the table above of all the categories selected. For most UC current reporting (such as the Accountability Report and the UC Information Center), the italicized heading at the top of the column is considered the primary race/ethnicity.”
The columns in the preceding table are shown in this order:
African American / Black
Hispanic / Latino(a)
American Indian / Alaska Native
Asian / Asian American
White
various specific ethnic groups in table below each heading
So for UC reporting, anyone who checks more than one will be included in the numbers for the leftmost category that they checked (so Black > Hispanic > Native American > Asian > White in terms of precedence of what UC will include a multiracial person as). Note that the usual URM groups are on the left side of the table, so any multiracial person with any of the usual URM groups will be listed as part of a URM group (however, Pacific Islanders are considered a subset of Asian in the table).
Examples of what UC reporting will say:
Black + Asian → Black
Asian + White → Asian
Hispanic + Native American → Hispanic
UC also reports it in the more standard form (with multiracial people listed as “Two or More Races”) to NCES, so you can find those numbers in places like College Navigator. These numbers will be more reliably comparable to those for other colleges found in College Navigator.
I believe what they’ve argued is that admissions standards are not purely academic, and that a diverse student body is a key component of their educational mission, so they have tried to create a diverse student body by targeting and admitting qualified URM students. IMO that’s not the same as admitting that “‘Asian’ kids have a tougher time.”
My question, which relates to the “chance me” threads, is . . .
Does an unhooked “Asian” applicant really have a “tougher time” in admissions as compared to an otherwise identically qualified unhooked “white” applicant?
From the chance me and other threads, many here seem to think that the answer is yes, but I don’t understand the reasoning or the evidence supporting that assumption. Perhaps you or someone could explain?
Probably more like a key part of their marketing mission. A college generally wants to make itself seem welcoming to all possible potential students*, so that it can get a larger number and higher quality of applicants to choose from. Having some students from each racial or ethnic group is a way to avoid having potential applicants self-exclude because they do not feel that their racial or ethnic group is welcome there (however, the threshold percentage for “enough” can vary by racial or ethnic group).
The argument is that admissions standards are not purely academic. And yet if an URM had a 4.0 GPA, 1570 SAT score, and won several math and science awards, their chances of getting into an elite university is much higher than if an Asian American had the exact same results. A candidate’s admission could primarily be determined based on academics - if they were an URM and not Asian.
This is why Asian Americans believe there is an “Asian penalty”. It could or could not be based on academics based on who it is. If they’re Asian, it’s not. If they are an URM, high academic results probably gets them in.
Am I the only one who finds this algorithm ridiculous? It’s like a “one drop of blood” approach to racial identity. If the school insists on not showing respect for the important demographic of 2-or-more, and wants to define each student by a “primary”, they should allow the student to pick which one. For students who are literally 50/50, there is no mathematical “primary.”
If so, then it is likely because admissions standards are not purely academic. For example, if that URM is a Hispanic student from an underrepresented rural area of Texas, one can easily understand why UTexas might want to prioritize admitting the student over a similarly academically qualified students from an overrepresented area of Texas.
If a white student had a 4.0 GPA, 1570 SAT score, and won several math and science awards, would their chances of getting into an elite university be higher than if an Asian American had the exact same results?
Thank you. So they are put into the category that best fulfills the university’s diversity goals.
When my kids started elementary school, they were listed as the first race selected in the list of options. Through the years, the school district started including multiracial as an option. Unfortunately, they would not change the race of a student who had previously been assigned an identity based on the first check box.
Im not sure why you’re comparing white students and Asian students? I think post pandemic, it’s generally accepted that Asians have faced discrimination that white people do not.
There are numerous articles about workplace discrimination (bamboo ceiling), negative stereotyping (lack of leadership), and outright discrimination (hate crimes). And of course the perpetual foreigner syndrome.
Asians and whites are probably treated the same in college admissions.
Not sure I follow. I agree that Asians face outright discrimination, negative stereotyping, and other abhorrent prejudices. But how does that relate to our discussion?
Yes, it is ridiculous… but it actually does somewhat approximate informal social definitions of multiple race and ethnicity (e.g. in informal social definitions, Black + any is usually seen as Black, and White + any is usually seen as whatever the non-White race or ethnicity is, although it becomes somewhat less clear when groups other than Black and White are included). Of course, you could say that the “one drop” rule used in informal social definitions is ridiculous, and you would be correct, but it is still commonly used.
Are you suggesting that there should be affirmative action for Asian students because of the unique challenges they face? If so, what would that look like?
I’m not much of a fan of legacy or dean’s list preferences either, but such preferences do not boost the chances of unhooked “white” students. If some sort of a loose quota system is in place (I doubt it is at most schools, but I could be wrong) then legacy preferences may be most detrimental to unhooked white students, because so many of the “white” spots would go to hooked “white” students.)
But let’s try to return to the topic of the thread, which (as I understand it) involves discussion of how we advise students who identify as “Asian” and are applying to top schools.
From what I can tell, there is little reason to believe that unhooked “Asian” students face tougher admissions prospects than similarly situated “white” students, so it is misleading to suggest to them that they do.
Again, I don’t know this for certain, and am willing to listen to those who believe this, but I haven’t seen it beyond anecdotes.
Personally, I dont believe there is a difference in admissions standard of white vs Asian kids.
However, the reason it may appear so on the Chance Me threads is because so many Asian students want to study STEM. There may be a perception that schools dont want want a majority Asian STEM student body and that the Asian kids are just competing against themselves. Many people believe schools stereotype Asian STEM kids.
There are stories of STEM kids who try to hide their intended majors. Someone told me an Asian kid applied as a Classics major. The school didnt believe him and quizzed him in Greek. And he got admitted as a Classics major and studied STEM.
This type of subterfuge not only happens but is actually encouraged by some professional college counselors to avoid negative Asian stereotypes.
One of my daughter’s friends who is Chinese and a Classics nerd used this technique but the subterfuge was used against his parents! He’s in college now, as happy as can be, studying classics. The compromise with the parents was law school. But I don’t think he’ll end up in law. The love of the dead languages is too strong. We’ll see.
However, legacy preference probably helps college prop up the White enrollment and keep it from falling too far too quickly to the point that college becomes less attractive to White potential applicants. I.e. that may be part of the marketing motivation mentioned in post #144, even though it may reduce the chance of admission for a typical (unhooked) White applicant.
However, it can backfire if the actual desired major has capacity-limited enrollment (as is often the case with CS or engineering majors). In that case, enrolling as a classics major or undeclared means having to go through another admission process to get into the actual desired major, and that admission process may be highly competitive (e.g. CS at CMU, UIUC, Washington, UCSD, etc.).
Considering this type of subterfuge with intended major on college application is not limited to Asian applicants. But if selectivity differs by intended major, one should expect there to be a secondary admission process to change into the more difficult-for-admission major after enrolling.
There is an entire subculture of wealthy Asians who hire professional college counselors who openly tell them that being Asian hurts their chances at T10 schools.
These counselors (former Ivy League admissions officers) charge $500/hr to guide them through the process. Dont play Tennis or Fencing, play team sports instead. Do these ECs and not others. Pretend to study liberal arts, not STEM.
We had never even heard of the Iowa Young Writer’s Studio until my sister told me because that is a highly selective English activity. That’s literally how we found out about it so our daughter applied and attended the program (she also loves writing which is why she was accepted).
Of course then this information gets passed down to other people within the community.