<p>so my reasoning is that if you are asian and you go to BC, then you clearly will standout to potential job employers upon graduation…right? </p>
<p>Similarly… if you are white and attend UCLA, then you clearly have an advantage when it comes to job employers…right?</p>
<p>so if im asian, and i want to go to a school that is best for me in the future in terms of job offers and such… im better off attending BC over UCLA?</p>
<p>Employees are looking for the strongest applicants, not the most racially diverse. It should not make a difference.</p>
<p>that makes sense, but it just seems to me that employers would have the natural human tendency to single out outliers in a pool of thousands of kids.</p>
<p>anyone else?</p>
<p>huh? I was going to respond with a real comment, but the post number 1 is just too ignorant. Time to work on your critical thinking skills.</p>
<p>please don’t condescend to me. the op believes that his race will make him stand out, which is false. his accomplishments will make him stand out, regardless of his race.</p>
<p>@bluebayou
id appreciate it if you would please share some insight</p>
<p>Completely false assumption - one that will make you look foolish if you ever tried to use it in any face-to-face discussion.</p>
<p>While it has been observed “that in a nation of blondes a brunette is considered exotic” it hardly translates into a competitive advantage in the interview process.</p>
<p>You assume that your “outlier” status is clear and obvious. BC has many Asian students.</p>
<p>You assume that this status is valuable to the interviewer. Businesses generally prefer an overall level of diversity; with the exception of the '70s and early '80s when female and African-American hires were actively recruited, I’ve witnessed no over-arching policy to hire from a particular ethnic group. </p>
<p>You assume that the potential employer lacks employees from a particular ethnic group. </p>
<p>You assume that your outlier status is superior to another’s and it super-cedes other interview factors. Given the choice between a one-eyed, three-legged valedictorian of Aleut descent and a smug, average performing undergraduate from a well-represented minority group, I’d choose the Aleut.</p>
<p>In short, you are assuming that the interviewers are making the same observation about racial diversity at a school and ‘valuing’ it in the same way you seem to be. I see no evidence to support your theory.</p>
<p>Hopefully these answers help you write whatever paper you’re working on.</p>
<p>it was not an assumption.</p>
<p>And therein lies the flaw</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you sure the name of school you were admitted to was not “Boston University”?</p>
<p>Even if BC had only one Asian, it would not matter to employers. They hire talent first. They are also seeking diversity, which means URMs, and perhaps women depending on the industry. And no, Asians are not under-represented in business, nor at top b-schools.</p>
<p>The fallacy in your logic, OP, is that employers have to count and report the diversity of their own employees; they could care less how many people of color a college has.</p>
<p>thanks for the responses.</p>
<p>IN THAT CASE…
i guess ill be going to ucla. for econ. cause i dont see any other reason id choose bc over ucla.
-anyone have any comment on that? would YOU choose ucla over bc for econ?</p>
<p>^^depends on the price. </p>
<p>UCLA at instate rates is half the cost of BC, so it’s a very good value. UCLA at OOS prices is just slightly less than the cost of BC, and the value proposition is a much different equation. </p>
<p>While UCLA econ is undoubtedly ranked higher, a private college offers a lot of benies that cash-strapped California colleges have long eliminated/reduced. So the question becomes is whether the whole package at UCLA worth ~$55k vs. the whole package at BC for ~$60k? As a budding economist, you get to make the call.</p>
<p>btw: if you are an international, go with the UC prestige.</p>
<p>@bluebayou
what “benies” would you be talking about?</p>
<p>and price, fortunately, is not that big of an issue for me (also not international).</p>
<p>let me throw in NYU econ then (not Stern).
^anyone have any opinions on NYU compared with BC and UCLA?</p>
<p>For one benefit, the UC’s in general have really crappy advising. For another, UCLA has forced triples for Frosh housing. (Think of three students: three beds, two desks and only two wardrobe closets. And if they are girls who are fashion-mavens?) Think of the infamous UC bureaucracy. Think of impacted majors; biz-econ classes, for example, are restricted – one must “apply” to get into those courses. Think of closed out/capped classes. Privates offer a lot of benefits that publics cannot offer. But they come at 2x the price.</p>
<p>NYU Stern is excellent for anyone desiring The Street. Otherwise, it’s no better than any other top ~30 econ program for getting jobs, most of which are local contacts. If you want to work in the NE, BC or NYU, west coast, a UC.</p>
<p>thanks bluebayou. good responses.</p>
<p>anyone else? anything else?</p>
<p>bumpbmpbump</p>
<p>How many asians do you think are there at BC?</p>
<p>according to ipeds, the federal reporting service, 9% of BC students are Asian, 9% Hispanic, 5% Black…</p>