<p>This article covers a panel called Too Asian? at the annual meeting of the National Association for College Admission Counseling. Inside Higher Ed is a respected publication for university educators. Below is an excerpt from the article. Note the comparison described is between unhooked applicants with <em>comparable</em> academic and leadership (EC) qualities. I assume this means they are overall comparable except for race. There is no other way to test this question, and I assume the Stanford admissions office is competent to do so. I doubt Princeton is any different, and I hope the Dept. of Justice investigators are capable of this kind of analysis, or at least call Mr. Reider for an interview.</p>
<p>[Reider said he thought the article and the question of Too Asian? that it posed was shameful and said that he was embarrassed as an American that such a piece would appear today. He asked whether anyone would think of publishing an article called Too Latino? and compared the bias to the kind of bigotry that for decades limited the enrollment of Jewish students at top private universities. This is a racist question, he said.</p>
<p>He also said that the bias is real and cited his experience in his previous job as part of the admissions office at Stanford University. There, he said, the office did a study some years ago in which it compared Asian and white applicants with the same overall academic and leadership rankings. The study was only of unhooked kids, meaning those with no extra help for being an alumni child or an athlete. The study found that comparably qualified white applicants were significantly more likely to be admitted than their Asian counterparts.]</p>
<p>It's really not surprising at all... Denying racist discrimination policies towards Asians can only get them so far - the truth will eventually come out.</p>
<p>Because it's simply: racist, discriminatory, and UNFAIR.</p>
<p>It's a shock that such practices are still happening in the UNITED STATES where NOTHING BUT one's skin color gives him/her an UNFAIR disadvantage.</p>
<p>to file a DOJ complaint. People here have called him arrogant, but he put himself in the spotlight to call attention to an injustice. It's a stretch to compare him to Rosa Parks, but you get the point.</p>
<p>no i don't.
i don't think that asian students with 2400 sat's and 4.0 gpa and played 12 years of piano should just be admitted without question, it's true that colleges have enough of those applicants. but say we had two of these students, and one was african american--i just don't think the asian should be at a disadvantage because of his/her race.
character and passion for his/her EC's should count more than race. and if the race factor wasn't considered in admission, and the college ends up with 99% asian/white, so be it.</p>
<p>it definitely should be based on merit. if it happens to be that Asians and Whites score higher, then the admission should be based on the principle.</p>
<p>What about the black kids who are born into wealthy families, or your average Asian kid (who, contrary to popular belief, does not have an SAT over 2200)?<br>
It's unfair to discriminate.</p>
<p>Yes it should be based on merit. By making quotes and what not, the admissions offices are just sending a negative message to the students who benefit from the quotas. The message is that even though they didn't work as hard, or aren't as smart as everyone, they can still get in because of their skin color. The top schools should be race blind, and whats the big problem with having a school 50% asian, 50% white or 100% asian? Obviously they all worked hard to get there, and thus deserve the education. The need to maintain all this diversity is pointless. The qualified students should go to the schools which fit them perfectly, not having to play second fiddle to a underqualified URM.</p>
<p>Those assuming diversity isn't crucial to a liberal arts education are fooling themselves. There's a reason Caltech doesn't mind admitting on the basis of quantitative factors alone, but Harvard or Dartmouth look at qualitative issues. In a liberal arts education, you are supposed to learn from your peers just as much as you learn from your instructors. If you have a whole class of students with near-identical backgrounds and experiences, there'll be a much more limited range of opportunities for students to appreciate and learn about other cultures and other backgrounds.</p>
<p>It doesn't necessarily have to be about race - it could easily be about your economic or educational background. Students who come from a privileged upbringing, even if they aren't spoiled brats, tend to be unable to relate to those from, say, a school in the ghetto. To appreciate the fact that there are all kinds of people out there, you need to be able to meet these people and interact with them. An institution where the vast majority of students are white or Asian won't be able to do this, any more than an institution where the vast majority come from prep schools.</p>
<p>If you ask me, affirmative action should look mainly at economic background. Race shouldn't be a huge issue. But still, if you're looking to build a diverse class, there's no point in keeping cultural or ethnic background out of consideration.</p>
<p>What has shocked me the most is how several posters here have actually tried to DEFEND their use of stereotypes.</p>
<p>Independent of such persons, I believe that only a self-touted supporter of "diversity" would claim that a campus like UC-Berkeley was not diverse. 60% of the first-year students are minorities, with few group preferences.</p>
<p>Only a self-touted supporter of "diversity" would resort to the use of the phrase "URM" and claim that Asians are "overrepresented."</p>
<p>Only he would deny that discrimination exists against Asians by attempting to formulate a remarkably restrictive definition of discrimination and then claim that high school students are not taught proper civics.</p>