<p>"chance would have been better"</p>
<p>what does that MEAN...think about it...if he could have been higher on thenot accepted list?</p>
<p>he didn't get in, and he expected or thought he deserved to because he tested well, why else would he try and sue?</p>
<p>
[quote]
does the plaintent want to attend a school that accepts all its students on grades and scores alone? to me that would make for a very dull school, and would make the Ivys not as good as they are now</p>
<p>If that is his goal, he is ignoring the fact the people are more than just #s- there is personallity, passions, goals, interests, drives, likes and dislikes
[/quote]
What if that was not his goal? What if he applied with both excellent scores and ECs? The two are not mutually exclusive.</p>
<p>And lets be frank, would a you be satisfied if you were rejected from Harvard, Stanford, Penn, and MIT with those scores and good ECs? I wouldn't call it arrogance if you weren't satisfied.</p>
<p>How does he feel about other Asians who get into Princeton with lower SATs. If ECs do not matter then why is their such emphasis on doing as many as you can. I don't know if this is naturally me, or if I developed this "lifes hard" mentality from being a first responder and doing social work in Africa, but I believe that this kid needs to grow up. It just ****es me off when I see some baby complaining, and unrightfully complaining. I wish I could have a debate with him so I could see the look in his eyes WHEN he knows that his argument is garbage. I seriously want to know how he feels about Asians who got in with lower SATs. But does he seriosuly think he is more deserving at an Ivy spot over someone like me whose SATs are not as high, but who has helped build computer centers in Africa, played varsity football, goes to poor areas like CAMDEN to tutor, who volunteers his time as First responder (damn EMT school), and Lead Attorney in Mock Trial.</p>
<p>Did you guys notice how the articles said nothing about his ECs, maybe to cover up the fact that he is lacking in that area.</p>
<p>I know 1 asian who got into Princeton with a 2100, so I think this guys main argument is out the window.</p>
<p>you just "don't think that [our system] is terribly unjust?" you just dont like the wording "terribly unjust"? then whats your point uclari? to me, thats a rather pointless assertion to make. it serves no purpose in this discussion. youre voicing no opinion over affirmative action.</p>
<p>UCLari, you said "I don't think that the problem is that his achievements aren't high. It's that they're not that exceptional considering who he's competing against."
later, you said
"I'm assuming nothing, really, as I don't know all of his stats."</p>
<p>How can you judge whether his achievements are exceptional or not without making any assumption? youre assuming that his stats are not exceptional compared to the overall applicant pool. i smell a hypocrit.</p>
<p>Master,</p>
<p>For one, I believe that we can deal with less-than-superlative language like adults and understand that there are situations where opinion can be nuanced and complicated.</p>
<p>I do believe that there are injustices in the system. As I stated earlier, there can be an argument made that Asians are suffering from being an overperforming group as Jews did in the early 20th century-- but only to a degree. The discrimination toward Asians, if it exists, is not nearly as heinous as what was committed against Jews. Furthermore, it may actually, based on what schools are looking for in applicants, be somewhat justified.</p>
<p>Yes, I just justified discrimination.</p>
<p>But we all are. By saying that you would prefer applicants to be admitted based on scores or GPA, you are de facto discriminating against people without those scores or GPAs. And it's perfectly okay.</p>
<p>I think that while the plaintiff may have a legitimate case, it should not be seen as a general trend. Furthermore, it should not be used as an argument for more meritocratic admissions.</p>
<p>Oh, and what can be fixed? For one, get rid of legacy. That's a huge problem with the American system.</p>
<p>In reply to your second post...</p>
<p>
[quote]
How can you judge whether his achievements are exceptional or not without making any assumption? youre assuming that his stats are not exceptional compared to the overall applicant pool. i smell a hypocrit.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because I know the general applicant pool to HPYMS, and there's VERY LITTLE that one can do to be that exceptional compared to them. If he were turned down by, oh I dunno, Cornell, I think he'd have a significant case. But when we're talking about the best of the best of the best, then it's hard to say that anyone's exceptional.</p>
<p>I think, that as far as the greater college applicant pool goes, he's more than exceptional. He's mindbogglingly good. But of those admitted to schools like HYPMS, with few exceptions, who isn't?</p>
<p>"Furthermore, it may actually, based on what schools are looking for in applicants, be somewhat justified."</p>
<p>That statement is dry and unsubstantiated. What exactly are schools looking for in applicants that justifies affirimative action? African American ancestry?</p>
<p>Citygirlsmom, he's not suing. He's filing an official complaint, which is something different. He did not expect to get into every Ivy League school he applied to, and he only stated the schools he didn't get into in the ABC News and WSJ interviews. What's arrogant about saying I didn't get into Xx school? </p>
<p>Another thing I would like to point out is that we send 20-30 kids off to the Ivy Leagues every year. For some reason, Yale, had not accepted Livingston High School students in more than 5 years, before they accepted Jian Li. Yet we had a strong number of accepted students in all other Ivy League schools.</p>
<p>What did Yale see that other Ivy Leagues failed to see?</p>
<p>Master,</p>
<p>I'm NOT justifying AA. Please please please don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying that if a school values people who have a lot of work experience, and they tend to admit those people, then they are discriminating, but that it's justified.</p>
<p>If Princeton values something that this guy didn't produce, outside of something that's uncontrollable, then he probably doesn't deserve admission.</p>
<p>If, however, that's NOT the case, then he's right. </p>
<p>Look, Master, I'm not ruling out the possibility that he's in the right. But based on stats alone, it's hard to say that he automatically has a case.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What did Yale see that other Ivy Leagues failed to see?
[/quote]
Yale is the college who admitted Aleksey Vayner and a former member of the Taliban, after all.</p>
<p>Speaking of arrogance, I only see that from Citygirlmom and Epiphany. </p>
<p>They try to protect their ‘Berlin Wall’ in admission, but the effort will be fruitless in the end. Using excuses like “American principles”, ‘Misinformed” and etc as a base to protect legacy status, how silly can that be? Li’s IQ is much higher than that!</p>
<p>America values competition, who says 2400 is “so what”. Try to take a test for yourself, even if you have the money to take 1000 prep courses and study 25 hours a day, you won’t get that because of lack of genes.</p>
<p>Most people don’t realize that this generation of Chinese boys are the most genetically blessed group of kids. Their parents are elite scholars selected from a billion people in China! Their parents are the parents of current legacies’ grand or great grand parents. Somebody has to work hard to get to the legacy status.</p>
<p>America is great is because it is blessed with top genes from all over the world. And Li is one of them. Nobody wants to have a dumb legacy kid to operate on them if they could get Mr. Li. </p>
<p>Don’t forget that America culture changes. Jews have the money, nobody discriminates them anymore. The new Jews (Chinese) will soon have that. Money and knowledge together make superior power. Whoever has it who will win. Li’s parents have some, but Li’s kids will have much more. They’ll re-establish the rules of the game, and make the new “American Principles” through the effort like Mr. Li’s.</p>
<p>Ultimately, if you work hard, have the smarts, accumulate wealth and be ethical, you will win. I applaud Mr. Li for his effort. Unlike Citymomgirl, Li will be successful. Li’s action will not have any negative impact on his future career. Please remember, top medical schools only accept students with best MCAT scores. And money can’t buy that.</p>
<p>Mr. Li, way to go!!! Keep the good work, work hard and be honest, you’ll be successful in any corner of the world.</p>
<p>I'm baffled at how to respond, but will give it a try while ignoring what I consider the most bigoted parts of Shortcut's post.</p>
<p>Top U.S. colleges want to do more than produce the next generation of doctors. The top colleges also want to produce leaders in all fields, including fields in which people will not produce wealth. Top colleges also want to produce creative thinkers and people who care about the world as a whole. Such attributes aren't measured by the test scores.</p>
<p>As for top medical schools and who they accept: Medical schools select students based on more than just MCAT scores. Service and leadership also count.</p>
<p>"America is great is because it is blessed with top genes from all over the world. And Li is one of them. Nobody wants to have a dumb legacy kid to operate on them if they could get Mr. Li. "</p>
<p>"Most people don’t realize that this generation of Chinese boys are the most genetically blessed group of kids. Their parents are elite scholars selected from a billion people in China! Their parents are the parents of current legacies’ grand or great grand parents."</p>
<p>? A bit jingoistic here, eh?</p>
<p>"Dumb legacy kid"? Where'd that come from?</p>
<p>As for Mr. Li, what does he have going for him beside excellent scores and grades? Can he make excellent decisions? Can he handle emergencies thoughtfully? Does he have the kind of excellent hand eye coordination, depth perception and other attributes that excellent surgeons need?</p>
<p>maybe he does have those attributes</p>
<p>For NSM,
1) "Can he make excellent decisions? Can he handle emergencies thoughtfully? "
Have you look at the SAT? If you don' know how to make decisions, there's no way to get 2400. It requires superior decision making capability!
2) Li's ECs are as long as all of the Ivy applicants.
3) A legacy's kid can be dumb if the other 50% of the parents' gene is not from a legacy. I've seen plenty.
4) Don't fool yourself, most parents invest $160,000 in their kids do expect return on investment, regardless what profession a kid chooses. Don'y forget, all creative thinkers also need roof on their heads.
5)Capitalism emphasize ROI (return on investment). Current admission 'Berlin wall' fits that well.</p>
<p>I read that WSJ article, and it said he got a 2390 (which is basically a 2400) and was in the top 1% of his class. 2 years ago, the val. at my school got a 1600 SAT, and made USAMO. He was also asian, and got in everywhere he applied except Stanford and Harvard, and is currently at Princeton. This kid isn't suing b/c he didn't get into princeton, p'ton and the other top schools arent bound to accepting every top applicants to their school, and there are better applicants than him. He is suing b/c of that Princeton article citing Asians get a 50 pt disadvantage, and he feels that is discriminatory, i see nothing wrong with that.</p>
<p>Right. It's probably not because he thinks he should get accepted everywhere (that -would- be arrogance), but that, if he were a different race, he probably would have been.</p>
<p>"I read that WSJ article, and it said he got a 2390 (which is basically a 2400) and was in the top 1% of his class"</p>
<p>Actually, his performance was better than that, he got a combo 2400 on the regular SAT and a 2390 combined total on the three SAT 2 tests he took</p>
<p>per the article:</p>
<p>"Despite racking up the maximum 2400 score on the SAT and 2390 -- 10 points below the ceiling -- on SAT2 subject tests in physics, chemistry and calculus",</p>
<p>Any reasonable person has to concede had he been either black or hispanic (i.e. URM qualified) there is virtually no chance any one of these schools would have turned him down</p>
<p>Now as for the issue had he been caucasian (and non legacy) - his odds would probably have been slightly higher - but not by a huge margin</p>
<p>Here's the thing, though: it IS true that the Asian-Americans in this country are genetically better endowed. For Chinese Americans especially, it was nearly impossible to leave China, and the first to leave (such as my parents) in 1989 were the "Future of China" -type exchange students. So, yeah, they should have been 1) smart as in the 99.99 percentile, and 2) extremely motivated.</p>
<p>They transferred those genes (to an extent) and those principles (to a greater extent) to their children. And now we have a plethora of overeducated East Asian immigrant children. (I can't speak for South Asians, but I'm told it's a similar idea at work.)</p>
<p>What am I trying to argue here? That it is possible for Asians to have been discriminated against without their percent representation at elite colleges suffering. And, in addition to that, that the fact that they are immigrants has detracted from their ability to achieve "interesting" ECs and that it has been an adjustment they've had to make from a more numbers-based admissions process in their native countries.</p>
<p>But I strongly object to the idea that kids with 2400 and 4.0 have "only" 2400 and 4.0... that's simply not true. And that assumption is insulting to all Asian Americans, who to a large degree balance schoolwork with many ECs - especially music, science, math, debate, journalism, volunteering... oh wait, I guess that's all of them.</p>