<p>Bay - for the same reason that you suggest athletes have their own seats, URMs have their own seats, and so on.</p>
<p>The schools are admitting different pools of people and classifying them as such. If the school says they admitted 19% Asian Americans, why should I be looking for how many they admitted from China, India, Burma who are also considered Asian but are not part of this particular pool? </p>
<p>How does it in anyway enhance my American born Asian American kid’s admission odds? No one born in US is being considered for the International pool. Would you count all the internationals admitted from Africa as part of African American pool? If that is how it works, may be Harvard already counted them that way right?</p>
<p>What would serve as proof that Asians weren’t being discriminated against? To never, ever hear another story of a 4.0, 2400 Asian kid not getting into HYPS? To never, ever hear another story of a 3.7, 2100 black kid getting into HYPS? What set of numbers would serve as sufficient proof?</p>
<p>From what I understand, the schools do NOT do this by race with respect to non-URMs, and they say as much. So outside the URM “pool,” the chips fall where they may with respect to race, including the athlete and legacy pools.</p>
<p>Bay - Ivies do list Asian Americans as URM if one looks at their announcements or their mailings to any Asian American prospect. They include them in the big number that identifies people of color (I am very unsure how this statistic works since they are talking of 40 to 50% are people of color and I keep going caucasians have no color?). I went to a Columbia presentation yesterday and the adcom made a point about Columbia is best of Ivies with 50% of people of color. The other 50% must be part of the backdrop with no color?</p>
<p>I agree with Shrinkrap. Marketing the racial diversity of the campus (of which Asians would contribute) is different from using URM race as a factor in admissions.</p>
<p>Shrinkrap - Lot of schools out there make statements about being minority majority schools (Several of the top California schools do say that - Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA come to mind).</p>
<p>^ I don’t think i understand what you are getting at. Many schools, probably most, market the idea that they are diverse and welcoming of sutdents of colo. But “URM” as I leanred it here, refers to underpresentned. It CAN mean woman, or people form Idaho, and sometimes Chnies, Japanese, or Korean Americans. But it is primarily black Americans, Puerto Ricans, Mexian Americans, and Native americans that are universally under represnted. </p>
<p>It means the school is adding up all the percentages for people of color (I don’t see a difference other than being an euphemism for minorities) and stating that more than 50% of their school are considered minorities in the classification, making them majority of the student body. </p>
<p>If women were considered a minority, Yale would be considered a minority in majority school too.</p>
<p>I’m not sure if this clarification is necessary, but I’ll make it anyway, for the sake of anyone who might be confused by the language used here:</p>
<p>‘People of color’ is a general term for non-white people.</p>
<p>‘URM’ is a general term for ethnic minorities whose presence on campus is smaller than their presence in society at large. At most American colleges, this includes African Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics/Latinos. (Whether ‘Hispanic’ is an actual ethnic group is a question US government agencies don’t seem overly concerned with, which is in line with their insistence on using the supremely outdated and inaccurate term ‘Caucasians’ to refer to whites. This sometimes creates confusion, as some students may be both Hispanic and white, or Hispanic and black, etc. Changes were made to the phrasing of the ethnicity question on the Common App to reflect this.)</p>
<p>Thus colleges count American Asians and non-white international students as people of color, but do not treat them as URMs.</p>
<p>^Yes. Presumably, the 12% non-resident aliens consists of more than one race, and quite possibly includes all racial categories. My guess is that Harvard et al. do not record the races of those admits because the Federal government doesn’t require it, rather the gov’t probably only tracks the racial outcomes for American citizens/residents. Even Harvard may not know the races of its international admits. If so, no one can say with certainty how many of each race are admitted each year.</p>
<p>Nope, none at all. Which is why I haven’t made any assertions about it. Unlike those of you who assert there is a cap when there is absolutely no evidence of it and when challenged to provide the evidence cannot do so.</p>
<p>And, I might add, in spite of an anonymous survey of college admissions officers posted here a week or so ago in which only 1% said they limited the number of Asians.</p>
<p>Of course, I’m sure that’s the one question they lied about on the survey, while freely admitting to admitting more full-pay students, giving preference to URMs, using paid agents to recruit foreign students, and being pressured by special interest parties to admit certain students - all those they were willing to admit to, but lo and behold, they must have lied about the Asians.</p>
<p>ewho, last year when the results came out, some where noticing how the (intel and siemens) awards clsutered in neighborhoods and schools. I only recognize the neighborhoods in New York and Caliofnia, and it still seems true there. Is there clustering in general? Any thoughts relevant to this thread about that?</p>
<p>also, I don’t understand the “Castle” reference. Do I have to watch it?</p>