CONFUSING: Can normal "typical" Asians-Americans possibly get into Ivies?

<p>"To take it back to the original post, take a hard-working Asian-American guy who wants to go to Berkeley or UCLA. How would he feel if he got rejected because they would rather admit some football players instead? How is that any different?"</p>

<p>It's not. Nor is it different if an academically more qualified bassoon player got passed over by a less-academically qualified oboe because the Orchestra is graduating all the oboes. These are choices and I defend colleges' right to make them.</p>

<p>Here is a thought I've used in the multiple "affirmative action" posts on CC. Basically, you can't have your cake and eat it too. One can't decry a system that doesn't only focus on academic metrics -- i.e. holistic admissions yet then want to get into the so-called "top tier" schools. These "top" schools' very diversity, their ability to craft a broad student body -- is one of the inherent things that MAKES them "top tier". You can't say: I'm a 2300 SAT Asian so I DESERVE a spot over a 1900 Puerto Rican or a 1900 Women's soccer player or a 1800 Flute prodigy or a 1800 development admit. The fact that there seems to be an abundance of 2300 SAT Asians (I'm over generalizing of course -- but for the sake of our argument...) and once the unofficial quotas are met, they'll have to settle elsewhere. </p>

<p>Is this fair? Depends on your view of things. What I do know is that 2300 SAT kid will EXCEL wherever they attend.</p>

<p>Also, there are MANY excellent schools that will gladly admit students based on metrics alone -- no emphasis is given to athletics, ECs, etc. But the fact is that none of these pierce the "top 25". Again, what does this tell us? That society values the diversity that the top schools (public or private) can bring together. If you're part of a numerically high sub group like top performing Asians, those are the chances you know you have to take with the "top tier" -- otherwise, gladly go take the full-ride scholarship to the State public and shine. Like I said, you cant have your cake and eat it too.</p>

<p>At least that's my take on things.</p>

<p>"You make it sound like football players are worth absolutely nothing in this admissions barter system. Who's to say that these great football players, who are probably All-American athletes, havent worked just as hard at football as this Asian guy at academics. How would they feel if they if they didnt get a chance to play at Cal because the Asian guy got in?"</p>

<p>While I agree in principle with what Beefs is saying, we should take a step back and think about why many students with strong academic backgrounds are spiteful of those who get in for athletics. By shifting the focus to athletics, we are admittedly losing sight of the actual purpose of college, which is to study and learn. It is not that athletes haven't worked as hard; it is that their work doesn't pertain exactly to study or learning. One can make the argument that athletics has benefits for the student body, an argument I won't contest, but the focus slowly moves away from mental development. </p>

<p>On the same line, a strong orchestra doesn't have direct benefits to learning, nor does recruiting talented musicians improve the "intelligence" or "strength" of the student body. It's is an important skill, but doesn't connect to the basic principle of a either a pre-professional or liberal arts education.</p>

<p>Finally, a diverse racial composition may have tangential benefits to the student body, but again, it does not improve the pre-professional or liberal arts experience.</p>

<p>Technically, none of these things should really be considered in college admissions, for the main reason that we cannot fairly weigh the benefit of one talent or trait over another. But my thinking is that, if we are going to count sports, we might as well look at music and race too.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You can't say: I'm a 2300 SAT Asian so I DESERVE a spot over a 1900 Puerto Rican or a 1900 Women's soccer player or a 1800 Flute prodigy or a 1800 development admit.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Considering the examples in your scenario, it strikes me that the Asian, the soccer player, and the flute prodigy all worked to get where they are. The puerto rican was born that way, and the developmental admit was also born that way. Through no merit of the latter two did they achieve the "accomplishments" that the first three worked hard to claim. In any case, universities can shape their incoming classes however they feel best benefits them, if that means taking one person whose strongest selling point is the color of his skin, over another person whose strongest selling point is a sport he practiced four hours a day or a research project he did for an entire school year. However, just remember that social milieu changes extremely quickly. I believe that we are in an age where political correctness and emphasis on diversity (not of opinion, but of superficial qualities, or qualities that contribute little to a student body) are over-worshipped, and in twenty years or so, I believe these factors will not account for as much in college admissions. Think of this century as the "rebound" from the early 1900s, 1800s and before, when the notions of political correctness and diversity simply did not exist at all. However, we will someday reach some kind of equilibrium, hopefully, or otherwise slingshot back the other way - social harmonic motion.</p>

<p>I also agree with ThisSideUp.</p>

<p>I know an Asian who got into Cornell with a 3.5-3.6 GPA. Yes, it happens.</p>

<p>
[quote]
My point is that I don't see why we are singling out just the Ivies or just private schools. Seems to me that public schools also play games with their admissions. They're all guilty.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>UC Berkeley? UCLA?</p>

<p>Anything is possible in life! Most of you are acting as if an Asian being admitted to an Ivy is harder than a dead person being resurrected. It's going to take some time to change. Being admitted isn't as important as your ultimate direction in life and how you apply your knowledge to the real world. Look at Bill Gates - Harvard dropout.</p>

<p>A typical non-hooked 3.8, 2100 SAT asian without a Pulitzer-caliber essay (assuming weak EC's) will definitively be rejected at all Ivies except for possibly Cornell and Penn CAS.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Based on the 4000000000 posts I just saw titled "asian blah blah blah", most Asians seem to want to get into Ivies. But I'm still kind of confused from all these posts.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Make that most Asians on CC want to go to the Ivies or peer schools. The vast majority of Asians in the US don’t consider Ivies or other prestigious colleges an option due to finances (or generally not thinking that higher education is an option – Asians such as Cambodians, Viets, Laotians, Hmong, etc. generally don’t see education as a “way out” as certain other Asian ethnicities – and even the other Asian ethnicities are generally divided depending on socio-economic factors).</p>

<p>
[quote]
in the context you're taking it, yes, its harder for "normal" asians to get into the ivys. And by normal i'm guessing you mean near perfect gpa, top of the class, perfect math SAT scores, excels in math/science ECs, plays piano/violin, introverted and studies all the time, did things for the sake of getting into college, basically the stereotypical Asian.</p>

<p>Yes the stereotypical Asian is going to have a harder time getting into an ivy league schools simply because of the sheer volume of typical asians.</p>

<p>my advice to you would be that if you're only doing things to get into college, focus on arts or humanities to be a little more original. If you're passionate about math and science then you won't care that the competition in that area is more fierce.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ughh, not this argument again!</p>

<p>
[quote]
Its a terrible thing to say, but Asians seem to create the problem they themselves resent. With 90 percent of Asians taking SAT prep courses and poring over studies until 12 or 1 or 2 in the morning, its easy to see how Asians seem to be the strongest overall group applying to top colleges.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It’s a terrible thing to say since the majority of Asian students can’t afford to take SAT prep courses.</p>

<p>Why do you think about HALF of Asian-American college students in the US go to community college?</p>

<p>
[quote]
At the same time, colleges cant afford to take all the 4.0 2200 Asians even if they are stronger than lets say 80 percent of the applicant pool because frankly, no matter how counter effective AA is, you can't have 70 percent of the student body be one ethnicity (unless its white which would be proportionally correct to the US population). Of course, everybody wants their kid to do well but by encouraging this type of lifestyle, Asian parents and students are enhancing a policy they so deeply detest.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But these very same universities can take an inordinate amount of Jewish students?</p>

<p>Jews make up only 1.5% of the college-age pop. and yet make up about 26-27% of the Ivy League student body (and as high as 30% at certain Ivies like Yale and Penn).</p>

<p>Asian-Ams, otoh, make up nearly 6% of the college-age pop. and make up “only” 17-18% of the IL student body. </p>

<p>You do the math as to which group is more overrepresented (overlooking the factor that Asians are a much more DIVERSE group).</p>

<p>
[quote]
These "top" schools' very diversity, their ability to craft a broad student body -- is one of the inherent things that MAKES them "top tier". You can't say: I'm a 2300 SAT Asian so I DESERVE a spot over a 1900 Puerto Rican or a 1900 Women's soccer player or a 1800 Flute prodigy or a 1800 development admit. The fact that there seems to be an abundance of 2300 SAT Asians (I'm over generalizing of course -- but for the sake of our argument...) and once the unofficial quotas are met, they'll have to settle elsewhere.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uggh – not this BS “diversity” argument again.</p>

<p>So …there also isn’t an overabundance of “2300 SAT Jews”? And considering the % of Jewish students at the Ivies, it doesn’t seem that their preponderance in having high test scores has affected them negatively.
This whole diversity argument that these schools use is BS.</p>

<p>They defend taking an inordinate % of black students from immigrant families (from Africa and the Caribbean – 40% of the black students at the Ivies) by arguing that it is on the basis of cultural “diversity” (yeah, the fact that they tend to have higher test scores isn't the key factor).</p>

<p>And btw, black immigrant students also have the stereotype of being academic “grinds” – but that doesn’t seem to hurt them as the Ivies can’t seem to get enough of them.</p>

<p>Otoh, the arguments these schools (as well as certain posters here) use for limiting Asian-Am student enrollment is that too many Asian-Ams would bring a lack of diversity – despite the fact that the Asian-Am community is very diverse (and certainly much more so culturally than the Jewish community).</p>

<p>In addition, the majority of Asian-Am students at the Ivies and other top universities are “whitewashed” Asians (aka “twinkies” or “bananas”) who are culturally no different from their white counterparts (due to having grown up in “white suburbia) – and are usually of Korean, Chinese or Japanese ethnicity.</p>

<p>If these schools were really interested in “diversity” – they would be admitting more Asian students who have greater cultural ties to their roots, as well as more Asian-Am students from underrepresented ethnicities (Laotian, Hmong, etc.) – but they DON’T. They basically admit Asian students who have the highest test scores/ECs, etc. – basically Asian students who have grown up in affluent suburbs and the best students from the top magnet schools in urban areas).</p>

<p>The common factor in gaining admission is high test scores – but with regard to diversity, that means very different things for black and Asian applicants.</p>

<p>This btw, is in contrast to UCB – which has a more diverse Asian-Am student pop. (in fact, one professor at UCB who initially was against the doing away of affirmative action and the inevitable increase in the Asian student body – admitted that the student body, in many ways, has become even more diverse).</p>

<p>sorry i wasnt aware that the option "jewish", "christian", "muslim", or any other religion for that matter is included on most college applications.</p>

<p>Uhh, Jews are also an ethnic/cultural group.</p>

<p>Do you think it matters if an Asian applicant is Christian (as opposed to Buddhist)?</p>

<p>Before we get too far into blaming the black kids, please take a look at this article:</p>

<p>At</a> the elite colleges - dim white kids - The Boston Globe</p>

<p>No, i dont.youre making my point.what does it matter if its a jewish white kid from new york or a white protestant male from texas;theyre both still white. im starting to get annoyed with over resentful asians on these boards that blame college admissions woes on affirmative action. aa threads pop up every single day. its ridiculous.</p>

<p>USC, despite having a higher % of Jews in its student body than in the US pop. - a no. of years ago established a program specifically to increase the % of Jewish students in its student body.</p>

<p>Why would there be a need for that if Jews are just "white"?</p>

<p>And USC is hardly the only school to have done so.</p>

<p>And you don't think the Jewish community has concerns about the admissions policies at Princeton (much less in the years past at all the Ivies)?</p>

<p>id like the link to this site and to other programs of the same nature.</p>

<p>Do a google search - easy enough.</p>

<p>k&s doesn't specifically mean to single out Jewish people; k&s is just making the point that distinguishing people based on race is as arbitrary as distinguishing by religion. </p>

<p>Many opponents of affirmative action will draw parallels to the early situation whereby Jews were denied spots even though they were more qualified; standardized tests were designed as a method to stop Jews from coming.</p>

<p>Many Asians are more qualified than those of other races that get admitted, however, the admissions process is designed in a "creative" fashion where the admissions officers don't have to admit any discrimination. The discrimination is there, but it is not as obvious as it way before. The case is excessively difficult to make, and it is not necessarily the best use of Asian American legal force. It is certainly an issue, but not the most important one.</p>

<p>^ Right - I'm in no way saying that admissions policies w/ regard to Jews should be changed (except for maybe at Princeton - lol).</p>

<p>Case in point - the whole “geographic diversity” was started (if I remember correctly, by Princeton) in order to get more "good 'ol boys" from the South and to restrict the no. of Jews accepted from the NE.</p>

<p>Jews are still overwhelmingly concentrated in the NE (%-wise significantly more Jews than Asians in the NE) and yet, even with the policy still in effect today – we see somehow see an inordinate % of Jews at the Ivies (the majority probably coming from the NE).</p>

<p>
[quote]
"maybe 3.7-3.8 GPA), good SAT score (2100), maybe leader of a club and member of many other clubs, and no major ECs like winning reserach projects and what-not?..."</p>

<p>Such a person -- regardless of race -- isn't likely to get into Ivies (This also is true of URMs in case anyone is wondering).</p>

<p>You've described the background of the typical Ivy applicant as well as the typical Ivy reject. Even if such a person were also a legacy, they wouldn't have good chances of getting into most Ivies.</p>

<p>They may, however, be able to get into some top 25 colleges.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Really? I have better ECs than just a few clubs, but otherwise I have the same stats as listed above. That's so unbelievably demoralizing. Does anybody disagree/agree?</p>

<p>(referring to cornell/penn. not HYP)</p>

<p>is Asian majoring and loving classics a Non-typical asian?</p>

<p>beefs, if you can be overly resentful of Asians complaining about affirmative action, why can't we be resentful of a system that is in all ways weighted against us? you don't have to read these threads if you don't want to, but we can't just opt out of affirmative action with a click.</p>

<p>weighted against asians? Thats a laugh. </p>

<p>Especially when despite making up 6% of graduating high school students they make up 30% of ivy league student bodies. </p>

<p>So no, don't exaggerate and falsely claim that the system is "in all ways weighted against" you. The evidence shows that the entire system of college admissions is weighted 5X in your favor.</p>

<p>When colleges admit athletes, legacies, urms, they are making a variation from the unfair system at which Asians are 5X as successful at in order to make positive changes to include more people and build a better student body.</p>

<p>NOT, despite the fact that you may believe college admissions revolves around asians, because they are "out to limit" the number of asian students.</p>

<p>Colleges are trying to be inclusive. They can't intentionally exclude asians when they aren't even thinking about them in the first place.</p>