<p>UC has highest consumption of asians <3<3</p>
<p>i agree with beefs people on here are becoming way too resentful of AA. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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).
[/quote]
i hope you don't actually believe this... perhaps that is a consequence of considering geographic diversity but if you are informed you would be aware of the fact that how competitive a school is varies from state to state. schools in the midwest for example cannot compete with the resources that many NE schools receive and are often less competitive. anyways, this is so stupid to complain about because, at a majority of top schools, a majority of the student body is composed of students from California, the NE, Florida, and Texas.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
ummm... yes, everyone who gets in to top schools will have pretty high test scores that'll put them in atleast the top 10% of students who took the test (few exceptions) but it wouldn't be the common factor in gaining admission since more people with high test scores are rejected than get in. people who get into top colleges simply standout (otherwise their application wouldn't have been so appealing to the admissions officers that they were admitted.). it's possible to have great test scores, good ECs, and good GPA/courseload and not standout.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
i'm not sure what you're basing this off of...</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
so i'm guessing you're not "whitewashed?" how about we just tailor the whole admissions process so that you can get into any college you want? that seems like what you want.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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).
[/quote]
that's sort of the case for any race though. plus a vast majority of lower middle class students, regardless of race, don't even apply to top schools like harvard, etc. due to financial concerns. a lot of the times good students in this position don't even care because they realize that they will be successful regardless of where they go.</p>
<p>QUESTION:
why don't Asians complain about other Asians with lower test scores getting in over them? i'm starting to think that some of the people on this board may be prejudiced against Latinos and Blacks. it seems as though many on here cannot tolerate the fact that these URMs get the opportunity to go top schools. </p>
<p>i've seen that some have the attitude that because they scored higher on the SAT or ACT (due to practicing. hardly anyone gets above a 32/2200 without some preparation.) they are "more qualified." what i find stupid about this argument is that by saying that they are "more qualified" these people are basically admitting that the URMs who do get in are also qualified to get in?</p>
<p>EDIT:
anyways to the OP, hardly anyone who is a "typical" student gets into top colleges. everyone who gets in has something unique about themselves. for the record, the "typical" black and Latino student wouldn't even apply to college...</p>
<p>Tyler: So, athletes aside, you are suggesting that it's an inherently FAIRER system in which people are granted admissions based on some trait they were born with, rather than what they worked hard to achieve? Interesting choice of words, especially now that you're bringing legacies into this. </p>
<p>So what are your thoughts on, say, the meritocratic, relatively race-blind graduate school admisisons system? </p>
<p>The Ivy League admissions rate for Asians is closer to 15% than 30%. </p>
<p>It's fallacious to look at the percentage of a collegiate student body relative to the graduating high school population, anyway. How about the percentage of the Ivy League body relative to the percentage of applicants? </p>
<p>Asian</a> American Empowerment - Asian Ivies
"At Ivy schools, the selectivity is at 1 in 10 on average [for Asians]."</p>
<p>The</a> Progress of Black Student Enrollments at the Nation’s Highest-Ranked Colleges and Universities
Let's take a look at the chart. The acceptance rate for African-Americans is, for instance, nearly ten percentage points higher than the overall rate at UPenn, and close to SEVENTEEN percentage points higher at MIT.</p>
<p>I believe normal Asians do have a chance to get into Ivy League schools...I have seen some real examples!
Also, you have to be well rounded with a good personality.....You need to honestly convey in the application exactly who you are, then it's upto the Ivy League if they think you would fit in their environment or not.....
But in the end all I can say is: "Hope for the Best, but Prepare for the Worst!"</p>
<p>Ethyrial:
haha! look at the link for "Asian American Empowerment - Asian Ivies." i like how you got that information from a website called the "Model Minority"... nice.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Tyler: So, athletes aside, you are suggesting that it's an inherently FAIRER system in which people are granted admissions based on some trait they were born with, rather than what they worked hard to achieve? Interesting choice of words, especially now that you're bringing legacies into this.
[/quote]
this whole statement is pretty ignorant for many reasons. first of all, no one is granted admissions based on race. however, it certainly helps these students standout from an applicant pool that is filled with too many Asians and a lot of whites. second of all, yes, no one else except for Asians work hard. all of the white students and other minorities at Harvard didn't have to work hard to get there. yes, near perfect test scores and building a resume of activities you're probably not interested in is a great representation of how hard you work. <em>sarcasm</em></p>
<p>
[quote]
So what are your thoughts on, say, the meritocratic, relatively race-blind graduate school admisisons system?
[/quote]
please, let's think critically about this. there are more uniform standards when applying to graduate schools. also, i wouldn't necessarily call the system meritocratic since graduate program admissions tend to be holistic (if you are applying to medical school, having a perfect or near perfect score on the MCAT, a 4.0 GPA, so-so clinical/research experience, and a so-so interview will probably not help you get in over someone who has a good score on the MCAT, a 3.7 GPA, significant clinical/research experience, and a good interview.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let's take a look at the chart. The acceptance rate for African-Americans is, for instance, nearly ten percentage points higher than the overall rate at UPenn, and close to SEVENTEEN percentage points higher at MIT.
[/quote]
who cares about the rate? if fewer Asians applied and the same number were accepted, the Asian admission rate would be higher. so what relevance do admission rates of different ethnicities have in this discussion, almost NONE!</p>
<p>CC is really starting to bug me. it seems as though people on here are ignorant of how many bright students there are in this country. just because you are smart at your school and have a good rank at your "competitive" high school doesn't mean that you are as good as you think you are.</p>
<p>EDIT:
i couldn't agree more with Kumara.</p>
<p>EDIT 2:
is it just me, or does it seem like Asians put WAY too much emphasis on an ivy league education?</p>
<p>Newjack, </p>
<p>I never implied (and I certainly don't believe) that Asians have some sort of monopoly on working hard. I do, however, believe that they may HAVE to work much harder than others, academically, in order to achieve equal footing in the admissions process.</p>
<p>But I did not bring race into my earlier statement. I was simply asking why Tyler would consider a system based on birth "more fair" than an absolute meritocracy. I found his mention of legacies especially interesting.</p>
<p>Test scores absolutely aren't everything, but you yourself said that "hardly anyone gets above a 33/2200 without preparation." By your own definition, it is a reasonable metric of "hard work." </p>
<p>As for your implication that Asians only get to top colleges by "building a resume of activities [they're] probably not interested in..." Where is your evidence that 100% of Asians are passionless academic grinds? I am reminded of beefs' earlier statement that "90 percent of Asians take SAT prep courses and poring over studies until 12 or 1 or 2 in the morning". You accuse some posters on this thread of "being prejudiced" against Latinos and Blacks, yet the only unfounded racial stereotypes on this thread come from the AA supporters, the champions of racial equality. Interesting, no? </p>
<p>About the graduate school admissions: I meant PhD programs, especially in the technical/scientific disciplines. What are your thoughts on those?</p>
<p>
[quote]
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?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow. I'm an Asian and I think that's a very ignorant thing to say. The system is not "weighted against [you]."</p>
<p>
[quote]
But I did not bring race into my earlier statement. I was simply asking why Tyler would consider a system based on birth "more fair" than an absolute meritocracy. I found his mention of legacies especially interesting.
[/quote]
everyone talks about how college admissions should be meritocratic but no one really provides any details. please, explain how a meritocratic system could be created?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Test scores absolutely aren't everything, but you yourself said that "hardly anyone gets above a 33/2200 without preparation." By your own definition, it is a reasonable metric of "hard work."
[/quote]
lol! please let's be reasonable here so that perhaps we can achieve something by having this discussion. since when was "preparation" synonymous to "hard work?" anyways, wouldn't someone's academic record and recommendations be a MUCH better indicator of what kind of worker someone is?</p>
<p>
[quote]
About the graduate school admissions: I meant PhD programs, especially in the technical/scientific disciplines. What are your thoughts on those?
[/quote]
don't really see how it would be any different from medical school admissions. the decisions wouldn't be solely based on awarding academic performance. it'd still be holistic. additional things like research and other activities would still play a significant role in the admissions decision. also, i would say that in certain graduate programs, like technical/scientific disciplines, Asians make up the majority of applicants so it would make sense that they would be extremely overrepresented in these fields.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As for your implication that Asians only get to top colleges by "building a resume of activities [they're] probably not interested in..." Where is your evidence that 100% of Asians are passionless academic grinds? I am reminded of beefs' earlier statement that "90 percent of Asians take SAT prep courses and poring over studies until 12 or 1 or 2 in the morning". You accuse some posters on this thread of "being prejudiced" against Latinos and Blacks, yet the only unfounded racial stereotypes on this thread come from the AA supporters, the champions of racial equality. Interesting, no?
[/quote]
are you kidding me? did i say 100% of Asians? no. i also didn't say or imply that "100% of Asians are passionless academic grinds." don't put words in my mouth. also, i seriously doubt that beefs literally meant 90%. he was just exaggerating to make a point.</p>
<p>How about a completely blind admissions system? Where the adcoms see just an applicant's test scores, grades, ECs, work, essays, etc., and evaluate that without any identifying information? (Obviously this would not work so well in practice; I am just suggesting it in principle...)</p>
<p>I am puzzled by your next comment. How else does one prepare for an exam, if not through hard work?</p>
<p>Research <em>is</em> an academic activity in nature. Perhaps I should clarify my question some more: what do you think of an admissions policy that looks exclusively at the relevant scholarly background of an applicant, in order to determine how qualified that applicant is to pursue studies at a scholarly institution? Does this seem unfair to you? If so, what part of it is unfair?</p>
<p>Okay, so I was being a little unfair when it came to that last statement... I apologize. I merely found it noteworthy that the rest of us don't need to resort to stereotypes, exaggerated or not, to make our points. Yet we're the ones who have been accused of prejudice.</p>
<p>This argument really comes down to whether you value a racially diverse study body. If you do not, then you will prefer a race-blind admissions system. If you do, then a race-conscious system is necessary. This argument will never be settled unless all parties agree with the premise that a racially-diverse campus adds value to a student's learning experience.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How about a completely blind admissions system? Where the adcoms see just an applicant's test scores, grades, ECs, work, essays, etc., and evaluate that without any identifying information? (Obviously this would not work so well in practice; I am just suggesting it in principle...)
[/quote]
ok so now i get it. a meritocratic system is simply just a system that doesn't consider race or other "irrelevant" factors? but, how exactly are things like ECs, work experience, essays, and even test scores, anymore relevant than race in college admissions? the only way to create a fair system in the United States would be to create a national curriculum which will probably never happen thanks to federalism. reality is that, under the current system, there are so many applicants of all races who have good grades, good etc. and the only way to distinguish them from one another is through arbitrary things like ECs, race, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am puzzled by your next statement. How else does one prepare for an exam, if not through hard work?
[/quote]
yea it's just so hard to go to go a Princeton Review session every weekend... i don't really equate taking a test over-and-over again as "hard work." how about you answer my question: aren't there MUCH better way to assess how hard a person works?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Research <em>is</em> an academic activity in nature. Perhaps I should clarify my question some more: what do you think of an admissions policy that looks exclusively at the relevant scholarly background of an applicant, in order to determine how qualified that applicant is to pursue studies at a scholarly institution? Does this seem unfair to you? If so, what part of it is unfair?
[/quote]
ok if a college wants to create a racially diverse student body, wouldn't considering race be relevant?</p>
<p>EDIT:
[quote]
This argument really comes down to whether you value a racially diverse study body. If you do not, then you will prefer a race-blind admissions system. If you do, then a race-conscious system is necessary. This argument will never be settled unless all parties agree with the premise that a racially-diverse campus adds value to a student's learning experience.
[/quote]
well said Bay.</p>
<p>Right, but ECs, work experience, etc. all seem reasonable metrics of "hard work" and dedication on an applicant's part. If an applicant is capable of juggling club leadership, a part-time job, and respectable academic performance in high school, this is probably fair evidence that they are capable of succeeding on the collegiate level. I consider these other factors irrelevant because, if an applicant is a certain gender or race or whatever else, what exactly does this demonstrate about their future potential? Frankly, not much. </p>
<p>I agree that there are much better ways to assess how hard a person works. But it is almost impossible to compare these other ways objectively. The main benefit of standardized tests is precisely that they are standardized. (As an aside, studies have shown that test coaching yields very little benefit to an applicant's score; a student could probably do just as well if he/she put in the requisite hours with a $20 copy of the official SAT study guide. Hence, "hard work.") </p>
<p>I don't understand the relevance of your last question. You seem to be avoiding my question. What part of that sort of admissions structure is unfair? </p>
<p>Anyway, Bay makes a very good point. Until we can reach some sort of conclusion about the benefits or lack thereof in a racially diverse campus, we'll just have to agree to disagree...</p>
<p>I have to head out for a couple hours, but I'd love to continue this debate when I get back. :P</p>
<p>3 months ago I would not have posted this, thanks to all the parents who pointed me in the right direction!</p>
<p>Just because I'm curious. </p>
<p>Ethyrial, what is your positon on the value of a racially diverse campus?</p>
<p>As an side note, studies have shown that the SAT/ACT have a much higher correlation to the college (grade) success of non minority students than URM students. The value of these test as a predective tool varies. </p>
<p>As a matter of fact the college board discusses this topic, check out table 23.</p>
<p><a href="http://professionals.collegeboard.com/research/pdf/RR%2093-1.PDF%5B/url%5D">http://professionals.collegeboard.com/research/pdf/RR%2093-1.PDF</a> </p>
<p>Read Page 30. The point, if the primary tool in use has shown to have a very low predictive value for a particular group how can that tool be used and considered fair? </p>
<p>Some people (again from the college board) associate this with sterotype threat.</p>
<p>Now which "objective" standardized test were you going to use?</p>
<p>It's never as simple as it seems....</p>
<p>Ethyrial, have you ever tried to think of reasons for race as a consideration in admissions. Aside from your ranting on CC, have you ever sat back and really reflected on why Black and Hispanic kids may get a slight boost at elite colleges. Im confident you've taken American history and have learned of the severe injustices towards African-americans since the founding of this country. And if you dont believe in the whole "repay blacks for slavery" argument, did you ever take a trip into a remotely urban, impoverished area and look around you? Did you notice anything different about these people? Maybe their skin color? Affirmative acton was created to get Blacks and Hispanics out of the hole that has been dug for them since day 1 of their arrival here. South LA, South Side Chicago, and a huge portion of NYC are infested with areas in which people have no hope of climbing that famed American social ladder. How is Victor Chicano from South Central LA supposed to compete with Daniel Korea from Suburban NY when Daniel has had SAT prep courses and a rigorous education all his life. EC's? How? Do you think Victor has access to state of the art cell biology labs and research mentors? I surely don't think so. You say that test scores don't change if someone takes courses to study, but I disagree. I've seen hundreds of kids at my school get 2100's and above just by taking a few classes here and there, and learning techniques aimed precisely at the SAT's. </p>
<p>And then you ask, "But what about those middle class minorities from suburbia?!, why do they get a tip in college admissions?" I am one of those minorities. I can tell you though, that the life of a middle class Latino is not the same as the life of a middle class Asian. There aren't very many URM middle class students at my school, or at any other school in the pretty affluent county that I live in. I've put up with taunts of "Mexican", "lawnmower", "wetback", none of which I am. Use your imagination. Asians are supposed to be always be the smart kids. You need homework help, you go to an Asian. When I got into 6 AP courses, even my friends were wondering how I, a hispanic got into these tough classes. Even more, they wondered how I'd scored higher(sometimes much higher) on standardized tests than virtually all of them.
A full meritocracy in college admissions is not the right approach to a perfect system.</p>
<p>Please ignore my previous post. I didn't realize this was a cause for the poster I responded to until I checked post history. </p>
<p>Just a note, about 140-150 AA students will get into Harvard this year, I'm going to assume they were quite worthy.</p>
<p>I appear to have misrepresented my argument: I want to make it clear that I don't believe standardized tests are some overwhelmingly meaningful way to measure college success. I was just attempting to use it as one example among many more significant indicators of college success (ECs, work, academic competitions, etc.) Standardized testing was a convenient proxy for all of that stuff since there are so many easily-accessible studies about it online. </p>
<p>The study about how test coaching yields little benefit: <a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/ra/sat/coaching.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/ra/sat/coaching.pdf</a></p>
<p>If AA is meant to address historical injustices, why is it that Asians have an even lower rate of admissions to elite schools than whites? Though it may not bear any comparison to slavery, Asians have not always had an easy time in this country either.</p>
<p>I've never claimed that students from low-income areas enjoy equal access to "state-of-the-art biology labs and research mentors"... but neither did I; I just picked up a $10 math book somewhere and trained myself for competitions. This is far from a purely racial problem. Socioeconomic AA is a whole other thing (and one which I am happy to support, to an extent.) I also find it unfair that you would presume that the life of a middle-class Asian is free from racism; I grew up in an area where it was "un-PC" to make any sort of racial remarks denigrating blacks/Latinos/etc., but few people had qualms about making fun of that geeky Asian kid who was studying on the bus, or whatever. But I'm sure this sort of thing is different in every area. </p>
<p>Anyway I definitely don't mean to "rant," and I'm sorry if my posts are coming across like that! My own disclaimer: I'm happily matriculating at one of HYPSM, and I've had no personal issue with the admissions system. I just don't buy it on principle, and I'm always curious to see how "the other side" defends their points. I'm also a "minority," as a female in math/science. And I applaud the idea of getting more females to participate in science, through special programs, scholarships, mentoring systems, whatever -- I'm even involved in a mentoring system myself. But I would NEVER believe that I'm entitled to, say, admissions to a top university program in any part on the basis of my gender. </p>
<p>DTDad: I don't believe much in the value of a racially diverse campus, but I'll happily admit my ignorance here. For the past three semesters I've focused largely on science classes, where I've always learned more from a clever problem-solving technique a friend could bring to the table than from the color of their skin. I've also participated primarily in the kinds of extracurriculars where racial details could hardly be less relevant -- research, music, intramural sports... If anyone has had a different perspective, I'd be quite interested in hearing about it.</p>
<p>Edit: Yes, this is an account I've been using exclusively for AA debates. How does this make a difference?
It is my point exactly that you place the label of "AA admit" on these 140-150 students. I have met minority students whose achievements were certainly so "worthy" that race would hardly have been a factor in their application.</p>
<p>Ethyrial.</p>
<p>Perhaps I was too quick to assume the worst from your post, I appologize.<br>
To the discussion, EC's, work ect... they are just subjective measures that take place before the actual admit process. It's difficult to normalize grade value, EC's, work opportunities ect.. The admission process is and will always be equal parts art/science by nessecity. There isn't an algorithm in existence that can quantify human potential or passion (which is what EC's are supposed to demonstrate). </p>
<p>The Art part of that equation requires context. Race is just <em>one</em> of the many factors that provide additional context. </p>
<p>Is 50 hours working with dogs worth more or less than 50 hours working with birds? Is working at Mcdonalds worth more or less than working at the Science center? If working at the science center is worth more does the fact that a family didn't have a third car so a student could not work at the science center equalize the two? If so, how do you know how many cars the family had? </p>
<p>One last point and this is not about race as much as "hard work". Its a faulty assumption to assume a person with a 2400 SAT worked harder than a person earned a score of 2100. My S has a friend who spends 80% of his time playing Halo and Call of Duty 4 (host parties on a regular basis). This young man took the ACT on a flyer and scored a 35. Before I go on, he is a GREAT kid, balanced, funny, smart and all around nice guy but it's clear he was born a special level of mental HP. Before you give <em>all</em> 2200-2400 SAT kids the award for hard work consider learning delta that is often discussed at MIT.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If AA is meant to address historical injustices, why is it that Asians have an even lower rate of admissions to elite schools than whites? Though it may not bear any comparison to slavery, Asians have not always had an easy time in this country either.
[/quote]
that is what AA was originally for. (women and all minorities initially benefited from AA.) now it just allows schools to legally consider race. again, the admission rate of particular ethnicities doesn't really matter much. if fewer Asians applied to these top schools and the number admitted remained constant, the Asians' admission rate would increase. (instead of complaining about URMs, you should be complaining against whites who benefit the most from the current admissions system: Asian-Nation</a> : Asian American History, Demographics, & Issues :: Affirmative Action)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I also find it unfair that you would presume that the life of a middle-class Asian is free from racism; I grew up in an area where it was "un-PC" to make any sort of racial remarks denigrating blacks/Latinos/etc., but few people had qualms about making fun of that geeky Asian kid who was studying on the bus, or whatever. But I'm sure this sort of thing is different in every area.
[/quote]
though all stereotypes are harmful, some are worse than others. in regards to males, i'd say that the high school drop out thug-stereotype that black males face in school are much harder to face than the anti-social, studious-stereotype that Asian males face.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't believe much in the value of a racially diverse campus, but I'll happily admit my ignorance here. For the past three semesters I've focused largely on science classes, where I've always learned more from a clever problem-solving technique a friend could bring to the table than from the color of their skin. I've also participated primarily in the kinds of extracurriculars where racial details could hardly be less relevant -- research, music, intramural sports... If anyone has had a different perspective, I'd be quite interested in hearing about it.
[/quote]
you did too learn something: "I have met minority students whose achievements were certainly so "worthy" that race would hardly have been a factor in their application." :)</p>
<p>"If AA is meant to address historical injustices, why is it that Asians have an even lower rate of admissions to elite schools than whites? Though it may not bear any comparison to slavery, Asians have not always had an easy time in this country either."</p>
<p>dumbest.argument.ever. </p>
<p>did the "discrimination" against asians in society result in them being behind other groups in education. Definitely not. So why would we seek to represent more asians in the education system? In fact, even if the system was as idiotic as your statement and AA benefited asians as well, it would have NO EFFECT. Saying: "Ok, we want to make sure that there are at least around 6% asians" would be pointless because it happens 5 times over anyway. </p>
<p>AA is about correcting the EFFECT of a past and arguably current historical grievance, its not like reparations, contrary to the beliefs of the ignorant people who make statements like those.</p>
<p>Ethyrial wrote:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm happily matriculating at one of HYPSM, and I've had no personal issue with the admissions system...I don't believe much in the value of a racially diverse campus, but I'll happily admit my ignorance here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>One is left to wonder how "happily" you would be matriculating at HYPSM if you were the only student of your own race there. Based on your statements, I assume it really would not make a difference to you, would it? Perhaps it is not surprising that you are ignorant as to the benefits of matriculating at one of the most diverse institutions in the world, as you are fortunate enough to have the luxury of never knowing what the alternative would be like.</p>