<p>Keilexandra: I meant without name calling by all of you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My point though is… why Baseball over Tennis? Why Lacrosse over swimming? Why Brass over violin? Why percussion over piano? Look if what you’re saying is true, then a lot of white people play brass. A lot of white people play percussion. A lot of white people play baseball. Why aren’t they hurt by Affirmative Action. Are the “slots” for baseball, brass, and percussion players unlimited?</p>
<p>
I’ve actually considered this before, but it’s quite easy to show that this is wrong. The notion that Asians almost always only major in math and science fields is undermined by the reality that this notion is extremely exaggerated. There are plenty of Asian lawyers and humanitarian majors out there. Just because Asians are more known for math/science achievement doesn’t mean that the overwhelming majority of Asians drifts towards that area (remember, we’re talking Asian-Americans, not Asian internationals). Though your point seems valid at first, it extends a stereotype waaaaay too far to possibly be true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This thread has nothing to do with national distribution. It has to do with applicant distribution among a handful of Elite U’s in the U.S. The “overwhelming majority” of U.S. Asian-Americans may not “drift toward that area,” but among Asian-Americans applying to elite U’s, they do strongly align toward sciences. It is a much smaller population we’re talking about.</p>
<p>Admission rates for Cambridge and Oxford are calculated by school (college), and individual colleges offer certain majors. Some majors are offered by more than one college. Certain majors are extremely competitive for admission; others have a more generous admission rate.</p>
<p>The top UK U’s recruit & encourage qualified ethnic minorities and keep data on their progress. They also practice holistic admissions, but are interested less in e.c.'s than US colleges are. The goals of Briitish elite U’s and US elite U’s are not the same. </p>
<p>[News</a> and Events: - Fact sheet: What are admissions tutors looking for?](<a href=“http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/press/factsheets/admissions.html]News”>http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/press/factsheets/admissions.html)</p>
<p>[University</a> of Cambridge](<a href=“http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/dp/2009021005]University”>http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/dp/2009021005)</p>
<p>[University</a> of Cambridge: 5 June 2008: Cambridge releases its admissions figures](<a href=“http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/press/dpp/2008060505]University”>http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/press/dpp/2008060505)</p>
<p>[University</a> of Cambridge: 21 March 2007: Cambridge publishes 2006 admissions statistics](<a href=“http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/press/dpp/2007032103]University”>http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/press/dpp/2007032103)</p>
<p>[BBC</a> NEWS | UK | Education | Drive to get ethnic minorities to Oxbridge](<a href=“http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7974889.stm]BBC”>BBC NEWS | UK | Education | Drive to get ethnic minorities to Oxbridge)</p>
<p>[Equality</a> & Diversity: Race Equality at Oxford, 2004-2006](<a href=“http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/eop/rraa/raceequal.shtml#_Toc16233217]Equality”>http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/eop/rraa/raceequal.shtml#_Toc16233217)</p>
<p>You know, I think the common thinking here, is that HYPSM is always right.</p>
<p>Therefore if HYPS wants diversity, it must be right/good.</p>
<p>HYPS also rejects more high scoring asians, this must mean asians lack in other areas.</p>
<p>And seriously. So the SAT is not a perfect indicator of success. But you’re saying that being a saxophone player is? Or being a basketball player?</p>
<p>The SAT is by far the best standard available. It may not be perfect, or even good, but it is the best there is.</p>
<p>Asians aren’t robots. Stop comforting yourselves into thinking they are. Stop the denial. The truth is right in front of you. There is discrimination against asians, it’s freaking obvious. Open your eyes! </p>
<p>the only somewhat valid argument here is, that elite private universities can admit whoever they want. </p>
<p>But if you say that most high scoring asians are unqualified in other factors compared to other races, you’re wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As an outsider, I am hard pressed to believe America’s elite universities are using the best graduates approach; they certainly are not using the best students approach. The evidence is all around us. Just look at the elite grads that run our governments and our industries. In government, they get U.S into expensive wars, create deficits of outrageous size, and can not tell the truth if their lives depend on them. The same can be said for industries and Wall Street, where they don’t seem to understand what risk or morality is all about. Americans, as far as I am concerned, have been ill-served. Doe anyone truly believe that this the “best graduates” the elite adcoms can come up with?</p>
<p>Has anybody entertain the possibility that I might, just might be right all along? Martha Mitchell Syndrome maybe?</p>
<p>
I still don’t think you’re quite getting this. It’s not baseball OVER tennis–it’s baseball AND tennis. If (and this is a proposition, not an assertion) white students play tennis and baseball, and Asian students play tennis but not baseball, that’s going to hurt Asians as they compete for slots at a college that wants to have both sports. Now some of you want to dispute the notion that Asians applying to highly selective colleges really do concentrate in specific ECs and projected majors, and that’s fine–that’s something you could study. But if it’s true, then it’s going to have an effect on admissions.</p>
<p>Here’s something from another thread which may provide some food for thought in this discussion:</p>
<p>Yale Class of 2013 Academic Interests:</p>
<p>Of the 1308 matriculants, 171 did not indicate a probable major. The most frequently listed majors requested by matriculants are:
Life Sciences* 172
Engineering 140
Economics** 92
Political Science 78
Ethics, Politics, Econ. 72
International Studies 65
Mathematics** 58
Chemistry 46
History 44 *
English 41
Physics** 35
Philosophy** 30
Psychology** 27
Classics (Greek and Latin) 19
Humanities 17</p>
<p>*Includes Ecology and Evolutionary Biology; Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology; Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry; and Environmental Studies.</p>
<p>**Includes combined majors.</p>
<p>It would be interesting to compare matriculant, accepted, and applicant distributions.</p>
<p>It would be really interesting. Just looking at those figures, if you assume that Yale deliberately tries to get more or less that number of people in those different disciplines, you can see that it could make a big difference if few Asians applied to, say, History, English, Philosophy, etc. And it could be that the white students who apply for math and the sciences have higher grades and scores than the average white students–in fact, I think that’s highly likely. (And my suspicion is that if you broke down those Life Sciences numbers, you’d find fewer Asians in some of them, like Environmental Studies.)</p>
<p>Again, I want to emphasize that I’m not at all assuming that colleges wouldn’t try to avoid “too many Asians.” After all, we pretty well know they did that to Jews. But I do think it’s possible that they aren’t doing it, or aren’t doing it to the degree that some of the numbers suggest.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One CC participant searched quite diligently, and mentioned that he can’t find any publication of ethnicity or race distributions for applicants, as contrasted with enrolled students, even though applicant data are gathered by all colleges under federal regulation. </p>
<p>ACT publishes self-reported ethnicity and race figures for test-takers </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.act.org/news/data/09/pdf/three.pdf[/url]”>http://www.act.org/news/data/09/pdf/three.pdf</a> </p>
<p>related to self-reported course rigor in high school, and College Board surely has the same kind of data for SAT test-takers but doesn’t publish it in quite the same convenient format.</p>
<p>“(And my suspicion is that if you broke down those Life Sciences numbers, you’d find fewer Asians in some of them, like Environmental Studies.)”</p>
<p>Well Hunt, let me tell you my suspicion. I suspect that bulk of the URMs at those elites tend to study easy or fluffy majors. (I can be more precise if you insist), but a cursory glance in the year book at my son’s 09 graduating class (it is easy, they also print pictures) indicated that more than half of those URMs got their degrees in African Studies, History, Sociology, Philosophy, Languages and so on. Less than 5-10% were in hard science majors. During my son’s engineering reception all I saw was the Asian brown, Asian yellow and white faces. </p>
<p>What I suspect is that many URMs when they apply wish to be in harder majors (I personally know two of them). Although they may get some boost in objective measures, I am certain that they all are bright and were in top 10% of their class. I suspect that after a while the elites push them towards majors so that they can graduate in four years. They have a thing for their 4 year graduation rate. Personally, I believe that elites due to their self centered desire for techni color campus are cheating many of the URMs who could very well pursue their first choice majors at other places. I think it makes them feel good.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hunt-- what I’m questioning is the logistics. You’re saying that asians play tennis. Well if there’s a lot of asian people playing tennis then that means there’s no spot on the team for white people. Which means that asian play tennis. However, if only white people play baseball. Only white people would be on baseball team. Which means that white people are also restricted in EC’s (in this case they only play baseball) So why aren’t they affirmative actioned against.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow, this may the worst stereotyping of this thread! Simba, please find some data to back this up, and then data to say what is an “easy or fluffy major.” My D (URM) is majoring in what you would call a “fluffy” major, but started in senior level courses for that her freshman year. She is also doing MCAT pre-req’s. So would you classify her fluffy or hard science?</p>
<p>Just as you are opposed to stereotypes of Asians, you are doing the same of URM’s.</p>
<p>“May” be? It couldn’t be clearer.</p>
<p>Here is what I pick up about the superrior-than-thou voices on the thread:</p>
<p>Asian-American applicants to Elite schools = brilliant, because they’re Asian and because Duke U. supposedly proved they were “superior” “in all categories.” It should be assumed, therefore, that when any particular Asian does not get admitted, it must be based on racial/ethnic identity primarily or alone.</p>
<p>White applicants to Elite schools = trying to keep up with that. No Caucasian Anglo applicant could possibly equal an Asian-American student, let alone surpass that, in any category. They are not rejected in massive numbers (4,000-5,000 at any admissions cycle, approx. same number as Asians rejected) for any reason other than these whites are underqualified. When the same number of Asians get rejected, it is blatant discrimination. </p>
<p>URM’s who apply to Elites = stupid, incompetent, and worthy of mockery</p>
<p>There’s no “maybe” about it. This has to be on the most racist threads on CC, and the racism is not being promulgated by non-Asians.</p>
<p>It is also one of the most ignorant threads on CC. Non-“hard”-science majors are not less intelligent than science majors, nor is their work in college less difficult.</p>
<p>Who said that Asian applicants to elite schools are brilliant because of their race? Such a strong statement requires a specific quotation for verification.</p>
<p>To me, Arcidiacono et al.'s research provides evidence against the oft-claimed “Asians might be weaker in subjective factors.” Is it possible that Asians are, in fact, weaker in these areas? Sure. But, one’d be hard pressed to argue that such a viewpoint is equally valid absent additional research supporting it. And as of now, there is no such paper. Personal experiences are just that, personal.</p>
<p>It should not be assumed that race is the sole reason why some Asian appplicants are rejected. That is patently absurd, and I would like a specific quotation of such a sentiment from this thread. Nevertheless, Espenshade’s research has shown that Asian enrollment increases in the absence of racial preferences. He did not, however, find that Asian enrollment would increase to “90%” or anywhere close. In that aspect, many people on both sides of the discussion are mistaken.</p>
<p>As for me, I still see a lot of the same mentalities in display from the opposite side of the discussion. Apparently, any research that praises or finds value in racial preference policies is not biased, not motivated by an agenda, and totally scientific. Thus, we see the extreme deference to books like The Shape of the River. However, any research that even mildly questions the worth of said policies must be riddled with bias, must be motivated by an evil right-wing agenda, and couldn’t possibly be scientific in any sense of the word.</p>
<p>I always thought math and science were the easy majors, because there is a right answer for every question. History and literature are much more difficult because they require you to write essays and papers using a much broader and more creative thought process.</p>
<p>
But there are white people on the tennis team, just as there are white violin players. There are a lot more white people in general (in most places, anyway). And there are hundreds of high schools that don’t have many Asian students at all. And guess what? Some of those schools have very good white tennis players and violinists. So, some of those spots at top colleges are going to go to competitive white tennis players and violinists…and white (or at least non-Asian) players will get virtually all of the slots reserved for baseball players.</p>
<p>
I agree. In fact, let’s remove all stereotypical notions that aren’t at the very least supported by data from the basis of our arguments. It’s really unfair to claim that the overwhelming majority of Asians do premed and engineering and that the overwhelming majority of URMs do studies and psychology. This applies to both sides.</p>
<p>
There’s no “brilliant” to it; NOBODY is imposing that any race is inherently more intelligent than any other race. There are only trends and research papers from which we base reasonable conclusions off of. The fact that you proclaim this as racist and that you single-out Asians as being racist without recognizing anything else from this thread is a testament to your irrational obstinacy.</p>