<p>
</p>
<p>It does look to me that all sides seem to want to steer the debate into “Asian American vs. URM” and away from “Asian American vs. European American”. There are cynical reasons why this may be…</p>
<p>To say “we’re going to admit kids based strictly on stats” is a very valid admissions policy, IMO. </p>
<p>And to say “we’re going to consider stats along with other factors” is just as valid. </p>
<p>And “we’re going to give a boost to historically URMs who, even today, tend to be disadvantaged by socioeconomic factors” is not only valid but, in my strongly held opinion, laudable. </p>
<p>But to say “we’re going to set a quota on applicants of one race” is reprehensible. </p>
<p>Fortunately, there is no evidence that any but a very tiny percentage of schools engage in the latter practice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ugh, please don’t call us that, unless you are specifically only referring to some White Americans.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>if quotas do occur, i think that they should only happen when one group, asian or not, constitutes a significant majority of the university. Hence i think the policy should be equally valid at UCI (50% asian) as at harvard (42% white)</p>
<p>It’s all just one group’s interests vs another, is it not? In your example, Asian interests vs white interests. The interests that people tend to prefer are the ones that benefit the, indirectly benefit the group they’re apart of. Since i’m neither asian nor white, i remain indifferent.</p>
<p>Why is there the assumption that selective schools admissions should be purely merit based? Besides races where the fastest person wins, what else works that way? Is the president the best person in the country? Is the chairman of GE the smartest guy in the company, and do we measure that intelligence in some very rigid, well defined manner? Many of these “top schools” are more than just bastions of academic excellence. They are enhanced learning environments. Go to any of the HYPS threads on this site and the students from those schools overwhelmingly speak of how they learn more outside the classroom than in it. HYPS knows this about themselves and, therefore, they accept kids who are capable of performing well academically (certainly these schools are serious about academics) AND who will add to the interesting mix of learning (social, political, artistic, musical, athletic, provocative. Therefore the 2400, 800, 800 (actually I took 4 SAT 2 tests and got 800 on all of them), 4.0 (unweighted), 12 AP test ( took all that my school offered, self studied for 4 others and got 5s on all of them), valedictorian of my first in state/ 25th in newsweek best high school in the US, captain of tennis team, nursing home volunteer, INTEL semi-finalist does not always trump the 2250, 770, 700, 3.6 6’5" 275 lb football all american or the 2170, 4.0, GLBT club president, award winning artist. These kids can quite successfully do the work in the classroom. They are not dummies. But unlike some of the disappointed parents on this thread they respect the differences and the interesting mix created by having all these variety of people around them – academic superstars as well. Like the saying goes, college is a match to be made, not a prize to be won. Nowhere is this more true than at many of our nations’s most selective college and universities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmm … what is the percentage of STEM majors at Caltech? Is it substantially higher than at HYP? Do Asians applicants tend to favor STEM majors? Could this possibly explain a large part of the greater population of Asians at Caltech.</p>
<p>Hmm … what is the Asian population in California and the ratio of Asian attendees at the UCs compared to the state’s population? what is the Asian population in the US and the ratio of Asian attendees at HYP compared to the US’ population. (FYI - HYP have a higher ratio of Asian compared to the US population than the UCs do compared to CA’'s population). </p>
<p>We really have been through this on CC multiple times a year every year … please read the old threads. There certainly is some smoke … but anything raised as a smoking gun has been pretty much refuted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is only at undergradute level that those schools could still afford to accept students not based on merit. At graduate level, it is a different game.</p>
<p>[Harvard</a> Econ Department - Graduate Admissions](<a href=“http://www.economics.harvard.edu/graduate/admissions]Harvard”>http://www.economics.harvard.edu/graduate/admissions)</p>
<p>Toughyear:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are right here. Legacy applicants to the HYP school I know best have better stats than the unhooked applicants. Not only that but legacy applicants with similar stats on admission graduate with higher GPAs than matched non-legacy admits. I suspect the stronger legacy pool is seen across other peer institutions.</p>
<p>I also take exception to your statement that after spots are given to athletes, legacies and URMs that only half the class is open to “merit based admissions”. I’ll grant that any legacy hook, if there is any significant one at these HYP type schools, is not merit based. Nevertheless, who is to say that a higher GPA or SAT shows more “merit” than the student athlete pulling down outstanding grades while on two varsity sports or the high scoring URM who is first in her family to attend a university? Do you think the 2300 4.0 GPA student is going to add more to the college environment than the 2100 3.7 GPA student who has an under represented background or exceptional extracurricular skills? Apparently the admissions officers don’t.</p>
<p>
</a></p>
<p>…Are you seriously comparing graduate admissions to undergraduate admissions? Like, seriously?</p>
<p>Wow. That’s so stupid of you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If everyone operated on pure selfishness as you say, then any member of any minority group would be treated much worse than they actually are.</p>
<p>SlitheyTove
</p>
<p>I agree with you that “when the schools do not practice the legacy/developmental/athletic admissions tips” then the whole issue of disadvantage on Asian Americans will go away. When only the ‘price that Asian American applicants pay’ because the seats are given to URMs, then it is ‘racial balancing’. But the seats taken by Atheletes and Legacy admits, it is a different category. SO, you are right and your statement is accurate, and racial-balancing is only part of the picture/problem. It is the legacy/URM/athletic admissions that take up nearly HALF of the seats, and if you include Internationals, it becomes the true majority of the entering class, and it really suppresses the admission rate for Asian Americans. So, **the truly open seats that are open to students based on individual merit for the american residents are only a minor 42% of the entering class (in case of Harvard class 2014, only 42% of the entering class was the true open admits for American residents, based on individual merits (excluding athletic/URM/legacy/internationals). So, if you take that 42% of the entering class as the entire open admit size, then the asian american admission rate is ‘normal’: 17% (asian americans in the class) / 42% (size of the open admits) = 40%. [This normalized open admission rate of Asian Americans then is similar to the Caltech’s size of 37% Asian Americans. **</p>
<p>So, we the American Asians can blame now this Athletic/URM/Legacy/International admits that take up the majority of the seats for the plight of asian-american admission to top colleges.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I will have to disagree here. What you should consider is, the californian students in the academically top group, especially the education and name-value crazed asian americans, will apply to all of the top ranked universities around the country. Also, the top private colleges in CA, Caltech and Stanford, receive the applicants well distributed around the country. It may be, some CA residents still have bias toward these CA schools and the CA demographics may affect the student body distribution a bit, but I don’t think it is a lot. So, the high Asian American population of CA has only a small impact on the eventual distribution of student races in Caltech, but it may have a slightly higher impact on the UC schools due to its low tuition for CA residents. However, bear in mind, when you talk of top 10 or 15 schools nationwide, nearly everyone in the top academic group of each highschool would apply to them.</p>
<p>"the top academic group of each highschool would apply to them. "</p>
<p>If i understand you correctly, not at the school my kids went to. Most go to CCC’s, CSU’s, and some UC’s, some Military academies, some “Christian” schools. Every year one or two will apply to Stanford, but nobody has ever gotten in. VERY rare for kids to apply out of state, and I don’t know of even ONE that applied to an Ivy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1) Legacies typically have better than average stats because they come from a more educated and affluent background.<br>
2) If a college determines that a student deserves admission because of his academic ability combined with his athletic ability, than that IS meritorious. You just don’t like things defined in any way other than SAT / GPA’s. Never mind that it’s majorly dorky to draw anything but blunt distinctions at different gradations of SAT scores, and that GPA comparisons across schools can only be squinted at.<br>
3) If all those slobs are making up half the class, what’s the appeal of the school to your brilliant child, then?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You could not be more off base if you tried. There are 30,000 high schools in this country. There are only a relative few of those high schools (maybe a few thousand at most) where the top academic group routinely and uniformly applies to Ivies and other elite schools. The majority of students – yes, even top students! – in this country apply to their state flagships or directionals and call it a day. Don’t project your own preference-for-the-top-15 across the country.</p>
<p>YaleGradAndDad
Well, the admission chances for an American applicant who does not fall within any of URM, Athletic recruit or Legacy, that is what we are concerned about. I am not disputing that some of the legacy admits have superior academic record to some of the unhooked admits. Also, there is the possibility of some legacy admits may be given admission even when the applicant’s academics is lower than some of the rejected unhooked applicants. not sitting on their adcom, I do not have concrete evidence to back this up. </p>
<p>
YES</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why apply to schools that will be declined? Ever wondered about the origin of the term “trophy hunters.” Is it all an ego-flattering game?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is? Nope, you THINK there is.</p>
<p>Shrinkrap,
Does your kid’s highschool rank within the Newsweek’s top 500 highschools? Remember,
for top-15 colleges, with say 2,000 entering class size, 40% of which is given for ‘open’ admission (outside of legacy/URM/athletic/internationals), you have only 12,000 seats. For top 5 colleges, only 4,000 seats. There are over 30,000 highschools in the country.</p>
<p>Xiggi - It is so us parents can say the kid got accepted but turned them down.</p>
<p>It is always upsetting when the rejection happens from the school though!</p>
<p>Btw, saw a TV show where the kid called Stanford to tell them there must a be mistake with the rejection letter.</p>
<p>
Yes ;-()
True, seriously, when he got in the early admission, he wanted to go to this EA school if a program that he wanted to go works out and it did. When he sent the apps to HYP, he didn’t know of this, but he made up his mind before the decision came out from these other schools</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you telling us that he/you applied to HYP before knowing the results of the EA decision?</p>