<p>Shutcut, No. In America, most of us don't believe in eugenics. Thank goodness. We try not to believe in predetermination. Those are the "old world" biases that many present Americans left the old world for. Whether it was the British whom believed that the Irish were inferior; Japanese atrocities in Asia, Vietnamese oppression of ethnic Chinese, or the devastation brought upon Darfur by the Sudanese government. We have a different ideal to strive for here in the U.S.</p>
<p>Harvard2727, I have no such obsession. Nothing in my posts speaks or implies anything of the sort, & actually you know it.</p>
<p>What I see in this thread is an awful lot of people:
(1) assuming that you understand why a college might value a particular candidate over another (beyond test scores), when clearly you dont
(2) assuming that you know all of the strengths of the classmate who was admitted over Jian, when you dont
(3) demanding that U.S. colleges adopt a numerical meritocracy model of admissions, such as in Asia.
(4) adopting a very narrow definition of meritocracy, a model not accepted by HYP & other elites. Anyone who has not investigated this is revealing a degree of ignorance, as that information is actually available with a little research. Meritocracy is a two-pronged standard here, including both objective elements like scores & subjective elements like the QUALITY & uniqueness of the extracurriculars (not academic awards, not quanitities of years doing something everyone else can do such as sports, key club, community service, etc. but extracurriculars which are distinguishable from those of thousands of other applicants to those schools, and hundreds from NEW JERSEY.) </p>
<p>It is extremely arrogant to assume you have the right to be accepted to multiple peer schools. No student of any ethnicity has a right to be accepted to even one private school, published study or no study. Every student is accepted by the graces of the school doing the accepting.</p>
<p>The thing that you all understand the least is that Princeton made a choice about Jian based on factors other than his academic qualifications alone. They had plenty of other New Jersey applicants (& possibly plenty of Asian New Jerseyans) who were similar to him. (And notice that the gender is important, too.) Had he been female, he might have been accepted both to Pton & to Yale. Or, had he hailed from Montana or Alaska, he might have been accepted to both, based on academics alone. From NJ, you arent going to be judged on the list of qualities that Nishkid enumerated earlier. Theyll want something different, because otherwise Princeton could draw its entire student body from the NE, if it wanted to. It doesnt want to. It wants 50 states representation. That will limit the number of acceptees from NJ, right there, because the pool applying including all ethnicities is way overrepresented versus the rest of the 50 states. And Princeton doesnt want large numbers of students with very similar backgrounds & from the same region. Deal with it. This is not about race as an excluder. You are deceiving yourselves if you choose to believe that. </p>
<p>I agree with Northstarmom. Shortcuts comments are barely worth responding to; they are not based on fact or on the actual previous posts. </p>
<p>And once again, for all of you continuing to bring up the study. The study did not prove that an Asian needed a whatever-point advantage to be accepted. It determined that those Asians merely did have those scores. The study is unscientific at its core. One of the key unscientific aspects is that no contrasting statistics were presented, comparing Asians accepted (and their scores) with Asians not accepted (and their scores). Nor did it compare/contrast any high-scoring Asians accepted to Princeton with EQUALLY high-scoring non-Asians who were NOT accepted. Thats, of course, because no one outside the college would have access to such confidential records of submitted files & rejections. (Unless, of course, you assume that only a high-scoring Asian would be rejected which is racist, arrogant, & demonstrably false.)</p>
<p>When I said that the Pton's decision about Jian was based on other than academic factors alone, what I meant was the additional non-academic (& non-ethnic) factors by which they compare applicants. Also "rejection" can merely mean less desirable fit, sometimes. When they look at his file vs. other files from the same region, from students of the same socioeconomc (and ethnic) background, they make a determination as to whether there's a waitlist justification, or whether the decision will be rejection. While waitlisting is sometimes a "polite" rejection, it is at other times a way of saying, You're enough unusual & valuable that if Student X declines our offer of admission, we'd seriously reconsider you. A rejection can mean either (1) we were not prepared to accept you in any event, or -- and much more likely in recent cycles, including the next 2 years (2) you might be an acceptable candidate, but we don't see you, as you have presented yourself, as significantly different from those (including of your ethnic group) whose acceptances we have already prioritized; we do not see enough of those other students declining our offer of admission, so there's no practical incentive for us to keep you on a waitlist. Thus, rejections within the last 5 yrs. minimum, and the next 2 minimum, are often strictly about numbers of applicants, similarities within those applicants, & class size. And that is much more true in an impacted area like the NE than of some underrepresented areas of the country. It's not about "racism" or "discrimination."</p>
<p>epiphany you have many errors in the two above posts, like in your assumptions. However, instead of refuting them one by one, I will just speak to the heart of the message, which you have been misrepresenting. I, and others, do not want a system based solely on numbers. I DO want a system where applicants are individuals with passions and interests and mistakes. I just want our current system without race. That's it. Take race out, be race-neutral, end racism, whatever you wish to call it. That's it. We aren't proposing a radical change to a numbers-based system.</p>
<p>If you take race out, I'm going to contend that you must add a greater emphasis on economic standing of the applicant (not in the context of 'can they pay the tuition') so that those who aren't as priviledged as some of the asian/white/black/hispanic families still have a reasonable shot at the Ivies if they take advantage of the resources available to them and show academic and leadership potential.</p>
<p>However, I'm still not sold that we should have any say in what these private institutions do.</p>
<p>dartmouth:
my "assumptions" stem only from what other posters have written, not from anything I've made up. You've demonstrated no inaccurate assumptions on my part.</p>
<p>What you, and many others here, do not understand is this: Jian was competing mostly WITH OTHER ASIAN MALES FROM NEW JERSEY, not mostly with lower scorers, not mostly with non-Asians. He lost out (if you can call an acceptance to Yale "losing out") because of the large representation of that particular applicant pool to Princeton. That's why "being Asian" affected him.</p>
<p>"The current system" is not going to be "without race," because otherwise there would be a huge racial/ethnic imbalance at some of the "elites," not to mention a huge geographical imbalance. The Ivies have been there, done that. They used to do that with Caucasians. The Ivies were once overwhelmingly white & Northeastern. Neither the public nor, eventually, the colleges themselves, were satisfied with overrepresentation of any one particular group and any one region. So Caucasians are more often competing with each other now than with non-Caucasians, Anglos competing more among themselves than with non-Anglos.</p>
<p>It is a question of numbers, of the size of a campus & the many areas of diversity sought, besides ethnicity, but including ethnicity. If the campus were 3-4 times as large, Jian would most likely have been accepted. But Princeton is not going to triple or quadruple its size. It's going to expand its size slightly, we're told.</p>
<p>Being a Malaysian, I find the American debate over AA quite interesting, especially since it gets so heated despite the problem (if it is one at all) being nothing near the magnitude of the problems some Malaysians have because of our own AA programmes. (My dad was told by the national university that despite his excellent credentials, they wouldn't hire him because of AA - that's how bad it is here.)</p>
<p>I think a key point AA's opponents are missing is that if Jian Li had been born into a Black or Hispanic family, it is almost certain that he would not have gotten the stats that he did. AA is used for two things; the first is to right an old wrong (giving priority to the economically disadvantaged - being rejected by a college won't hurt an Asian with bright economic and educational prospects as much as it'll hurt a poor Black or Hispanic whose hopes for escaping the poverty trap are pinned on getting an education) and to create a diverse group of students.</p>
<p>AA will always end up discriminating against certain people. But given AA's goals, I think AA is a reasonable programme that shouldn't be abandoned. (I would, however, favour making it more based on economic factors rather than racial ones - a rich Black arguably doesn't need AA as much as a poor Asian.)</p>
<p>I don't know all the factors or issues at hand here, and I'm not going to pass judgement on anything or make any assumptions. If Jian Li has a case, good for him; if not, I'm not going to condemn him. But even if AA does lead to discrimination, it's very difficult to argue that the discrimination isn't worth it for the results it produces (helping people out of the poverty trap and building a diverse class) or that the discrimination is so far-reaching that it's unreasonable (as many note, Asians are over-represented in the student bodies of many universities).</p>
<p>People here are complaining about “the system.” I’m a bit confused about what “the system” is. The Ivies and top LACs don’t get together and confer on their admissions policies and agree on one such policy. Each school has a different, even unique approach to admissions – which actually explains why Jian got into Yale and not into the others. By railing against “the system,” you are complaining about a nonexistent entity. I realize that some countries do have a system where test scores are supreme in determining college acceptance. That’s not the case in America – because there is no government or single body that determines how college admissions work.</p>
<p>Reading all of this reminds me of the story of Andison, who was denied admission two years ago at every school he applied to. I don't think he was Asian (although I don't know). Should he have sued Swarthmore and Yale for discriminating against Boston residents? How about the documented difference in acceptance rates for girls and boys at many schools? Should girls sue Kenyon after its admissions director admitted in a New York Times article that qualified girls were rejected over possibly less qualified boys?</p>
<p>Very few students get into every school they apply to; many get into none of their reaches, some get into only their safeties. You can find students of all stripes and colors -- whites, blacks, hispanics and Asians -- who are bitterly disappointed in April. Many of them would die for the chance to go to Yale, where Jian is now. Perhaps I would be more sympathetic for him if he were now attending a community college after every college turned him down. Why on earth does he need acceptances from more than one Ivy – he can only attend one school. Is he a trophy collector?</p>
<p>And let’s say he wins? Does Princeton now have to accept valedictorians with 2400 SAT scores over everyone else? What happens if that number exceeds their freshmen class? Clearly, this is not the best approach to college admissions.</p>
<p>Hello, I have some things to add :)</p>
<p>I am just wondering how much do you guys think racial diversity on campuses really works? I know that at many campuses the afircan americans group up with the african americans and the asians group up with the asians. Is that really helping anyone become diverse? The entire discussion aroudn this will probably end up being, "well at my daughter's campus she is so exposed to other culture's it's great." Oftentimes though, some asians might want to be alone with other asians and hispanic with other hispanics. Racial diversity isn't a complete failure but it isn't a success either.</p>
<p>"The admissions process reflects American principles, not Chinese, Korean, Indian, Japanese."
I find this quote to be a little disconcerting. Does the OP know all about every single one of those cultures? Please, explain to us all the Indian culture regarding education. It's ridiculous to one, assume one knows all about the ideals of these cultures, two, to appear to group them all together, and three, to assume that they are all centered around test scores. I'll tell you right now, some asian parents really pride themselves when their kids do more than get 100 on a math test, they are proud when they do well in a basketball game, when they develop independnece through an internship whether or not it is science related.</p>
<p>"Whatever the price, it pales before the price that African Americans in particular have paid from being legally excluded for hundreds of years from probably most of the colleges in the country, including Princeton, which didn't admit blacks until about 1945."</p>
<p>Look, African Americans suffered and are probably still suffering in some ways. But the solution is not to let them into good schools just because of this. Bill Cosby and Shaq have stated that in their opinion, it creates more problems because many african americans are not proud of themselves that they got into a good school because they are black. And not to mention that these students with lower test scores and GPA have to finish school too. Who's going to graduate, Li, or the guy who got in on affirmative action? Also, it's not like Asians haven't suffered at all. Sure, they might not have been here as early as African Americans but they were the ones who worked in the harsh conditions while building the railroad, they were the ones who got shafted into the internment camps.</p>
<p>All of this saying that Li was arrogant and his essay and interviews really showed it are forgetting something pretty big: He got into Yale. I'm pretty sure Yale is one of the most respected universities in the nation and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't take someone if he was indeed arrogant and it made his essays and interview terrible. And I highly doubt his essays were poorly written, you need to be a decent writer to get an 800 writing on SAT writing</p>
<p>Also, remember, not all Asians are middle class and have access to rich secondary school education. Is it really fair for an underpriveleged asian who wants to do math and science to be rejected because of an underprivileged not "model minority." They've both worked hard to improve themselves and it doesn't make sense to me to just reject him because he has black hair black eyes just like the guy with a perfect score</p>
<p>"did he...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>First of all, congratulations on all of your accomplishments and for listing them here. The answer to your question? Yes he did! From nishkid's post and the very fact that he got into Yale (admission to an ivy isn't all about test scores is what you have all been saying so...) means that he did do all these things. Once again, congratulations on your work.</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>The article really just concentrated on test scores both in reference to Li and to other statistics presented in it. There wasn't a real relavance for it. See above, he obviously had good ECs</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>So the kids who go to the top schools have good hand eye coordination? Everyone who goes to top universities can also make good decisions and respond to emergencies well? True, most have probably taken some sort of CPR course in 7th grade. Point being, college is for learning how to make the decisions, learnign how to develop good "hand eye coordination." It's not a necessity to have all these skills going into college.</p>
<p>"Why on earth does he need acceptances from more than one Ivy – he can only attend one school. Is he a trophy collector?"</p>
<p>Umm no, it was actually stated earlier that he wants to make a statement and perhaps...help others! omg that's actually something good about this guy that he really should have gotten into yale!</p>
<p>I will make the assumption that the plaintiff is lacking in the ECs area unless someone can provide factual information about his ECs. Sorry, saying something is true IS DIFFERENT FROM IT actually BEing something true. The article did not say anything about his ECs, I smell coverup.</p>
<p>If Li is so smart, why doesn't he realize he won't win his case for sueing Princeton</p>
<p>" Sure, they might not have been here as early as African Americans but they were the ones who worked in the harsh conditions while building the railroad, they were the ones who got shafted into the internment camps."</p>
<p>Are you serious, I mean seriously. Placing the discrimnnation that was De Jure against blacks against the discrimination that was mainly de facto against Asians in comparisons is stupid. Dear lord, blacks became full members of society in the 1960's, only 40 years ago. You people are all the same, bigoted naysayers of something that is as apparent as the sun. Do you know that over 60% of the blacks in jail for sex crimes against whites are innocent, I can prove that blacks could not get a fair shake of the hand when put into any form official precedings with whites.</p>
<p>Bahumbug!!!!!</p>
<p>Y2kplaya92,
I don't think the WSJ knew enough about Li to write about his ECs. I don't think you should assume anything when making such bold statements. How do you know that they're biased towards Li and not Princeton?
[quote]
Dear lord, blacks became full members of society in the 1960's, only 40 years ago.
[/quote]
Dear load, many Asians were suppressed, poorly educated, starved, and killed in their home countries only 40 years ago. Oh WAIT, that's still happening. Hmmm...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you know that over 60% of the blacks in jail for sex crimes against whites are innocent
[/quote]
Any type of source? Or was that just a number you threw out?</p>
<p>Mention "affirmative action" and "Asians," and lurkers come swarming out of the woodwork. For those of you who can't quote, use {quote}Blahblahblahblah{/quote} except replace the {} with []. </p>
<p>It amazes me how people are getting so worked up over something that's quite simple. Let's look at the RD admissions rates, shall we?</p>
<p>Harvard: 6%
Princeton: 7.8%
Stanford: 9.8%
Penn: 14.9%</p>
<p>The probability of getting into all four colleges is, assuming random selection, 0.0000683%. Good chances, eh? The probability of getting into both Stanford and Penn is 0.015%. Admissions is not quite this random, but when you're dealing with schools this selective, some quirks happen. It is quite possible to be admitted at Harvard and rejected at Yale, or admitted to Yale and rejected at Penn. Luckily for us, there's the legal system...let's sue! Thank goodness he got into his safety schools (Yale and Caltech)! </p>
<p>
[quote]
Is it really fair for an underpriveleged asian who wants to do math and science to be rejected because of an underprivileged not "model minority."
[/quote]
In a word: yes. When admissions officers choose to accept or reject an applicant, they do so on the basis that they are admitting a class, not a bunch of individuals. We need that oboe player and those two trombones for the college orchestra. We should snag that champion chess player for the chess team as well...The archaeology and geology departments are complaining; we'd better admit a few of those people too. We have to keep the alums happy...admit those football players and fencers. </p>
<p>What's left over after all this? Not very many spots. For the spots that are left, how many applicants do you think plan to major in science/math and plan to go into medicine or law? Those applicants are a dime a dozen.</p>
<p>Man, thank you, warblersrule. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Admissions is not quite this random, but when you're dealing with schools this selective, some quirks happen.
[/quote]
I'll add that when you get to college, you will talk with your friends for the first few days about where you were accepted and rejected (just for a few days, until you start obsessing about the cute boy in calculus class, etc). At that point, you will discover that there are acceptances and rejections all over the board -- person X got into school 1 but not school 2, person Y got into school 2 but not school 1... there aren't that many people who get into lots of highly selective schools, all things considered.</p>
<p>I like the way MIT's admissions literature puts it:
[quote]
When we admit a class of students to MIT, it's as if we're choosing a 1,000-person team to climb a very interesting, fairly rugged mountain - together. We obviously want people who have the training, stamina and passion for the climb. At the same time, we want each to add something useful or intriguing to the team, from a wonderful temperament or sense of humor, to compelling personal experiences, to a wide range of individual gifts, talents, interests and achievements. We are emphatically not looking for a batch of identical perfect climbers; we are looking for a richly varied team of capable people who will support, surprise and inspire each other.
[/quote]
MIT's Ben Jones has said on CC before that about 70% of MIT's applicant pool is qualified in numeric terms to attend MIT; I assume other very selective schools feel the same way.. When you can only admit a very small fraction of those highly qualified students, things start to look chaotic on the outside pretty quickly.</p>
<p>Molliebatmit....</p>
<p>There is no doubt that no matter how colleges treat their admissions, there will be many talented and qualified students who do not get accepted. That is just the reality of a rising population.</p>
<p>However, undoubtedly, many of the students who get rejected at colleges are FAR more qualified than some of the students who get accepted. Let us just say that you add up the total number of slots taken by</p>
<p>1) Legacies
2) Connections
3) Athletes
4) Under-represented minorities.</p>
<p>It would be interesting to see an actual figure, but I bet that a VERY LARGE proportion of the student body at some of the top colleges fits into those groups. If unfair policies like legacy, affirmative action, and cronyism were eliminated, the ADMISSIONS PICTURE WOULD CHANGE DRAMATICALLY. Now, of course, there are many legacies, athletes, etc. who are qualified to be there. But I am sure many people get rejected because of these policies.</p>
<p>With a greater population, inevitably, some students will be disappointed. However, if admissions was truly fair, the number of disappointed students would be far fewer.</p>
<p>"Dear load, many Asians were suppressed, poorly educated, starved, and killed in their home countries only 40 years ago. Oh WAIT, that's still happening. Hmmm..."</p>
<p>So, what does that have to do with discrimination in America, you even said it happened in Asia.</p>
<p>Ok here are my sources , read the Ran report.
<a href="http://www.civilrights.org/issues/cj/details.cfm?id=18267%5B/url%5D">http://www.civilrights.org/issues/cj/details.cfm?id=18267</a>
<a href="http://www.courts.state.pa.us/Index/supreme/BiasCmte/FinalReport.ch4.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.courts.state.pa.us/Index/supreme/BiasCmte/FinalReport.ch4.pdf</a>
<a href="http://fairchance.civilrights.org/search/details.cfm?id=18267%5B/url%5D">http://fairchance.civilrights.org/search/details.cfm?id=18267</a>
<a href="http://www.library.uiuc.edu/afx/Criminal%20Justice.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.library.uiuc.edu/afx/Criminal%20Justice.htm</a>
(read every book on this list)</p>
<p>My cousin is working to get 5 black men who were convicted mainly by the testimony by some lieing white woman out of jail, tell me this isn't prejudice. Especially since they were all convicted of rape.</p>
<p>
However, undoubtedly, many of the students who get rejected at colleges are FAR more qualified than some of the students who get accepted.
I don't accept this as an "undoubtedly". </p>
<p>In the first place, SAT scores say something about an applicant's general caliber, but I don't think they say much -- when you have a bunch of applicants who are all pretty great, it's absurd to pretend that a 4-hour test will tell you which ones are the "best" and which are not. So yes, some admits will have much higher SAT scores than others, but I don't think this says too much about about their actual qualifications.</p>
<p>At any rate, take MIT as an example -- legacy isn't considered in admissions, and the school is division III and isn't allowed to recruit athletes like division I schools do. And yet still people moan about the unfairness of it all. </p>
<p>People are rejected, in sometimes difficult-to-understand ways, because there are more applicants to top schools than there are seats at those schools. That's all.</p>
<p>"I will make the assumption that the plaintiff is lacking in the ECs area unless someone can provide factual information about his ECs. Sorry, saying something is true IS DIFFERENT FROM IT actually BEing something true. The article did not say anything about his ECs, I smell coverup."</p>
<p>I can't make this any more clear. Let's do this by simple logic:
IF you got into Yale, THEN you had good ECs
I think we can all agree on this and it's unlikely that Li had any legacies or connections seeing as he was born in China and came here when he was 4. Moving on this assumption, since Li got in Yale, he had good ECs. Don't be ridiculous, nobody can be 100% sure of his ECs (although nishkid comes pretty close but unfortunately he might not really know li which is unlikely but w/e). Thus, we must assume that because he got into Yale, he had good ECs (and he obviously wasn't lacking in tests or GPA area).</p>
<p>"In a word: yes. When admissions officers choose to accept or reject an applicant, they do so on the basis that they are admitting a class, not a bunch of individuals. We need that oboe player and those two trombones for the college orchestra. We should snag that champion chess player for the chess team as well...The archaeology and geology departments are complaining; we'd better admit a few of those people too. We have to keep the alums happy...admit those football players and fencers. </p>
<p>What's left over after all this? Not very many spots. For the spots that are left, how many applicants do you think plan to major in science/math and plan to go into medicine or law? Those applicants are a dime a dozen."</p>
<p>Oh my god, you hit it right on the dot, all Asians want to go to science and math and medicine and law. And you're telling me I hold steretypes? Look around. An asian founded youtube, I'm pretty sure that's not medicine or law. An asian is probably the world's most famous cellist, I'm pretty sure that's not medicine or law. Asians have won grand slams and gold medals at figure skating worlds, that's not medicine or law. Yahoo was founded by an asian, that's not medicine or law. Ok, I rephrase my original question. If two idential applicants and both want to study business, is it really fair to admit the underpriveleged african american over the underpriveleged asian because the Asian's skin color is the same as the perfect score Asian from the richest town in the coutnry?</p>
<p>"So, what does that have to do with discrimination in America, you even said it happened in Asia."</p>
<p>I think that most people would agree with me when I say that discrimination is bad no matter where is takes place. To say that just because discrimination didn't happen in America to asians (which by god it did) they should be accepted over less qualified, less likely to graduate non "model minorities" is ridiculous.</p>
<p>Also, molliebat, MIT does recruit athletes. And if SAT scores don't tell too much about the applicant then why have the SAT at all? Why do top schools even want to see how you think and write and make decisions under pressure? Who are you going to take the lower SAT guy or the higher SAT guy when both have saved a country, are valedictorian, are in 8 clubs?</p>
<p>Y2kplaya92,
The fact is, these people have had difficult lives in the past too. Just as African Americans have suffered, Asians have suffered as well - and continue to suffer.</p>
<p>Also, I'm not doubting the fact that minorities often get the shorter end of the stick in the justice system. The library of sources you brought in is largely irrelevant to what I asked for. I wanted you to back up your statement:
[quote]
Do you know that over 60% of the blacks in jail for sex crimes against whites are innocent
[/quote]
A story about your cousin is irrelevant as well, as I am not doubting that minorities get the shorter end of the stick in the justice system (this includes Asians!)</p>