<p>Statistics in and of themselves prove nothing. I could cite statistics that show the Yankees have won about a third of the World Championships over the last 90 years and from that assert that Major League Baseball has capped the Yankee championship quota at 33.33333. That would make just as much sense as your claim about quotas of Asians at selective colleges based on the percentages of Asians at those colleges. You apparently don’t understand the concepts of causation and evidence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay. The percentage of Asian American unhooked males under your analysis still beats male internationals, legacies, URMs, and race unknowns, and is probably pretty close to the unhooked white male’s percentage number, so he is looking good. The only applicants who might be in a better position are the male athletes. Too bad your son didn’t choose to play a sport well.</p>
<p>toughyear,</p>
<p>Those studies you have cited have been picked apart on numerous other threads, and they have not proven to be conclusive of anything. If they were proof of the existence of racial discrimination, the charade would have been ripped apart by lawsuits years ago. This is not to say that discrimination is not happening, only that those studies do not prove it.</p>
<p>anna’s dad, i am not following you. a well researched statistical conclusions, i take it as facts. then you can form your opinion from it. if your opinion doesn’t stand well against known facts, then you better change your opinion, not use funny words like causation or evidence. you keep saying evidence, what evidence are you looking for? evidence for what? there is nothing causing anything here. what causation? it is just that in the college admission practices, there is a unfair suppression on the american asian applicants … are you an asian american (perhaps asian indian?) or are you unrelated but want to have this futile argument?</p>
<p>
Bay, well, this is proof enough for me. Just look, when the schools do not practice the racial-balancing (Caltech) or return to the race-blind admission (UC systems), the percentage of asian american students rise drastically above the levels that existed before. I am not sure what more direct evidence than this do you want ? Do you want that Harvard, for example, adopt the race-blind admission policy of the UC systems or Caltech and see what happens to its class?? Only then will you take it as ‘proof’ ? Some people are so determined to stick to own opinion no matter what facts or ‘evidences’ are presented before them.</p>
<p>Thank you toughyear. Are you ready to start the group high school class of 2016? I will have a second kid in that pool.</p>
<p>Bay - too bad no sport is right. Too bad the kid probably won’t make it to an Ivy is a godsend of a quarter mil since most others have merit scholarships. So I am not complaining and could not careless if an admission won’t come through. </p>
<p>I am on this thread to make sure other kids don’t take rejection personally and claim discrimination. They can all do something about it - go to another school, do extremely well and prove that it is not the school that makes them who they are but it is themselves. The numbers of making it in are definitely not in their favor. So having so much vested in getting into an Ivy is not healthy for these kids.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The thought of rehashing these arguments turns my stomach.</p>
<p>I suggest you read this thread: *“Race” in College Admission FAQ & Discussion * and the 7 versions that preceded it in the Admissions forum to get a comprehensive overview of where the law stands on this issue. (Sorry I don’t know how to link that thread here). I’m surprised that this thread has not already been tacked on to that one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very good advice, texaspg.</p>
<p>
well said, texaspg.</p>
<p>
Sorry, no intention to upset you. I am not interested in the legal definition of race or anything like that. I am just interested in the relative success in the college admission, no matter which ones they apply, for the group of students that my child falls in, and that is the asian americans (of japanese, korean, chinese, indian origins). And when I see a clear suppression as it exists today in most of the top colleges, it churns my stomach. my second child applied last year he is a Freshman in his 1st choice college – he would’ve declined these schools anyway, but still when he was rejected by HYP, and it made me stay ‘upset’ LOL. The schools that are more friendly to american asians, relatively speaking, are those UC schools, Caltech, Chicago and MIT (because they give less emphasis on recruiting Athletes and perhaps less legacy also).</p>
<p>^^ </p>
<p>"well said, texaspg. "</p>
<p>Agreed.(10 char)</p>
<p>And I know I am pushing it, but when your Asian kid says “I wish I was black”, as much as I wouldn’t want it any any other way for me and mine, remind them that it’s “good” for about six months in the 11th grade, in a very specific, very small sub group. </p>
<p>And not even the dancers! My son is heavily involved in “B boy dancing”, and it’s STILL good to be Asian. The hubs told me he heard on the radio this AM, a mother says , “look at you! Your ankle is swollen! Your good, but you will never be Asian!”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Evidence to back up the assertion that you and others on this thread have made that colleges have a cap, or a quota, or an allocation, set at a certain percentage of Asians, and that this alleged but unproven cap, quota, or allocation is the cause of what some perceive as an under-representation of Asians at some universities, relative to their test scores and GPAs. </p>
<p>I’m not denying that the under-representation exists (I don’t claim to know one way or the other); only arguing that there is no evidence that the reason for it, if it exists, is arbitrarily set caps, quotas, or allocations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the particular example, all applicants of Chinese ethnicity were required to meet a higher score than all applicants of all other ethnicities (including white and other Asian ethnicities) in order to gain admission to the high school in question during that time. How is that not ethnic-based discrimination?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In other words, do you support racial quotas as a “reactionary policy” to limit Asian enrollment in order to increase enrollment of underrepresented groups such as white students (the largest such group and the one that will gain the most benefit in many of the universities being discussed)?</p>
<p>I think the smoking gun is that Princeton clearly hates Asian-Americans so much they are now admitting more of them vs ten years ago. Busted! Lol. (Hint - if Princeton wished to discriminate against Asian-Americans, they wouldn’t “have to” increase their representation even if apps from Asian-Americans climbed disproportionately.)</p>
<p>And LOL at the “what Caltech does” argument. If the Ivies wanted to do things like Caltech, they’d have done so. I highly doubt any of their administration is jealous of Caltech in the least. No offense to Caltech which is a fine school, but it isn’t exactly the Future Leaders of America. It’s quite self consciously dorky and one sided. Ivies have no interest in emulating that student body. They want a wider definition of talent.</p>
<p>“And when I see a clear suppression as it exists today in most of the top colleges, it churns my stomach. my second child applied last year he is a Freshman in his 1st choice college – he would’ve declined these schools anyway, but still when he was rejected by HYP, and it made me stay ‘upset’ LOL”</p>
<p>Why would you have ever believed your son was entitled to HYP admission? Isn’t that awfully arrogant on your part?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are actually at least three arguments with respect to Asian Americans in universities that tend to get mixed up in these kinds of threads:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Whether there actually is covert intentional, or unconscious/unintentional discrimination against Asian American applicants to highly selective universities. These arguments go around and around because there generally is not enough evidence visible to those on the outside to prove it either way.</p></li>
<li><p>Whether there should be limitations on, or policies to reduce, the number of Asian Americans in highly selective universities, so that more students of other racial/ethnic groups (including European Americans, who would likely be the largest benefactors of such policies) could attend such universities.</p></li>
<li><p>What the current law actually says is legal or not.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>“That 42% of the class is truly used for merit-based admission. This is just absurd. I don’t like Harvard.”</p>
<p>Who are you kidding? You love Harvard. You drool over it. You’re frantically waving your hand “pick me pick me pick me”! You say several posts down that you sure hope Ivy Asian admissions increase. </p>
<p>Tell me again, if H’s policies create an inferior student body to one that is “properly” merit based … If all those non deserving URMs stole the spots of deserving kids and thus classroom discourse will be at a lower level – then why are you salivating at the prospect of your kid going there? I call major hypocrisy. You decry what they are and yet you’d sell your kidney to get your kid there.</p>
<p>“2. Whether there should be limitations on, or policies to reduce, the number of Asian Americans in highly selective universities, so that more students of other racial/ethnic groups (including European Americans, who would likely be the largest benefactors of such policies) could attend such universities.”</p>
<p>I’d like to know what proof there is that URM preferences in admissions are disproportionately coming out of Asian Americans vs whites. Funny how the “kid who stole my kid’s spot” is always black, never white.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This analysis neglects several important factors. Caltech, unique among highly selective private universities, offers no admissions advantages for legacies or developmental admits, and a so-slight-as-to-be-negligible advantage for athletic “recruits”. You could change the above statement to read “when the schools do not practice the legacy/developmental/athletic admissions tips” etc etc etc and probably be a lot closer to the heart of the matter. </p>
<p>There’s also the question of the applicant pools. You’d need to compare the percentage of Asian applicants in each school’s pool. It may be that a larger percentage of Caltech’s applicants are Asian. Ditto for many of the UC schools, especially for UCLA and Berkeley, which attract an especially large number of Asian applicants from abroad. UC’s applicant pool is primarily from California, a state with a higher percentage of Asian students than you’d find in, say, Connecticut.</p>