<p>What disadvantage does an African American who lives in a wealthy community have, when compared to a white person who lives in that same wealthy community? </p>
<p>No one will ever attest that EVERY african-american got into college due to AA; in fact, there are many african-americans I’ve met that could have gotten into where they are now regardless of their ethnicity. </p>
<p>No one has said that “african americans have it easier than asians”. I simply say that when an African American and an Asian apply to the same school, even if the African American has worse “stats” he/she is still MORE likely to be admitted. On a larger scale, when an asian applicant is applying to the same school as another non-asian applicant, even if the asian has “better” stats, he/she is LESS likely to be admitted. </p>
<p>All this shows is a lack of meritocracy in the admissions of elite universities. I am NOT saying that one race should have more hardship, rather that every race should be treated equally. I want to be able to apply to college and be judged on my accomplishments and ability. </p>
<p>Ultimately I strongly believe the African-American family that lives next to me (in a wealthy neighborhood) has no disadvantage in sending their children to college. They are just as well equipped as my family, and their children go to the same school. It should be a matter of what you have done with the resources you are given, not the color of your skin.</p>
<p>I haven’t really followed this thread much but here’s my two cents. In the interest of full disclosure I was rejected from a few elite colleges, but I am not Asian.</p>
<p>First I would recommend to all posters The Price Of Admission, a book by Daniel Golden, which indicates how exceedingly talented applicants including a disproportionate number of Asians are rejected in favor of much less talented ones. These include alumni, relatives of wealthy potential donors, the politically connected, athletes (including those in sports inaccessible to most like crew or lacrosse), and URMs (including upper or upper middle class URMs which in my personal opinion should not get a bonus). In no way are these students to blame; they’re simply pursuing their dreams. The real villains are those at the colleges who put endowment money before meritocracy, and even more so the politicians who tolerate this system that favors their families while undermining the long term health of the nation. </p>
<p>So to answer the question, yes, and I think it’s deplorable.</p>
<p>Now I haven’t read anything but the first page of this thread but to me, it’s utter bulls*it. From personal experience I know of 2 Asians with great stats who got into the ivy leagues and didn’t have “Tough Backrounds” (comfortable if not considered wealthy) and 2 black kids with 2200+'s and good GPAs and leadership positions who were both rejected from the ivy league (one with a VERY tough backround). </p>
<p>To make broad generalizations about race and say that colleges are prejudiced against Asians is a terrible err in logic. It is tougher to get into a top college for an Asian because the APPLICANT pool of Asians is much tougher to beat. There are just MORE well qualified asian students in a comparable pool than white kids or black kids or hispanic kids. Since Colleges wish to be racially diverse, they don’t fill their colleges with 15000 1600 4.0 Asians. They COULD but they don’t. It’s not BECAUSE the students are ASIAN, it is BECAUSE there are simply a disproportionately large NUMBER of well qualified Asian students.</p>
<p>Also: It works the same way with geography. Surely, there are many MANY more qualified students from New England boarding schools than students from those schools who actually get into Ivy league schools. In an effort to be regionally diverse many qualified Prep School kids are “left in the cold”. Race is no different. It’s just the way things work. In the interest of full disclosure I am from a very agrarian county in Maryland and will be hoping this works to my advantage.</p>
<p>I’m quite familiar with that process, having read about it extensively over several years and having discusssed it for 4+ years on CC. There is no question that there are two different (overall) standards for admission: one for URM’s, another for non-URM’s. I have always acknowledged that. It doesn’t mean that all URM’s are admitted, but it does mean that their academic profiles must be strong enough only to ensure that they can succeed at those Elites. (However, despite the mythology about that, that bar is not nearly as low as many CC’ers and non-CC’ers assume.)</p>
<p>A URM must demonstrate ability to succeed academically.</p>
<p>All non-URMs must demonstrate ability to succeed academically, but are additionally compared in degrees of success and degrees of ability (not limited to or prioritized after quantifiable measures of success & ability, but included in that category):</p>
<p>-gpa relative to course rigor,
-qualitative statements from teachers, counselors, others about the student’s scholarship in letters of recommendation,
-level (difficulty) & number of particular subjects mastered on & off campus – also called Academic Rigor; just note that A.R. is not limited to AP classes graded & examined,
-high school academic awards distributed by faculty,
-academic recognition awards by private institutions,
-demonstrated achievement in extracurriculars (including awards for that achievement, difficulty level of the extracurricular, years in, and years of individual advancement in)
-personal application essay,
-talent/ability,
-personal qualities,
-community service, esp. one’s role/level/scope in that,
-paid work experience and/or internship experience,
-interview,
-alumni/ae relation</p>
<p>Quantifiable aspects include
-class rank,
-all standardized tests not limited to the SAT I,
-raw gpa weighted according to the U’s institutional methodology,<br>
-awards which are quantifiably determined,
-performance on optional national exams not taken for admissions purposes per se,<br>
-AP exam scores can also come into play, depending on the institution. (Some institutions use them only for placement; most Elites would like them, when available, for additional comparative purpose, though they are not required; they provide additional data.)</p>
<p>All non-URMs are additionally compared for overall class balance purposes with regard to categories of e.c.'s, region of application, personal origin. Some U’s state on their CDS that personal origin (race/ethnicity) is third down in importance (i.e., “considered,” as opposed to “important” or “very important”) relative to the above-named elements. For example, Yale and Princeton.</p>
<p>Within any particular department of any College-within-a-University, admissions officers must also look at overload (number of total students) for that dept, and conversely, critical mass. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would be convinced with objective, comprehensive research which would have to include all the application files, including all the above elements. Otherwise, no assessment can be made within the entire non-URM pool. If it were revealed that in a particular application year, a particular set or subset of one race/ethnicity were comparatively equal to or superior to other groups in all of the above, but were denied enrollment in higher numbers than any other group, I would suspect discrimination if also application levels were generously distributed over more than one group. As I indicated earlier, if 9800 whites apply and 200 Asians apply, whites will have a tougher time getting admitted with all other factors being strong for both groups. Whites will be denied in higher proportions in that case than Asians will be, even if all those white applicants are competitive with all those Asians in the above abundant categories.</p>
<p>If I saw that despite an “even” (very generous) distribution of applications, in more than one application year one set or subset of an ethnic category continued to experience a disproportionately high rejection rate despite all the above elements for admission being indistinguishably different from other groups, I would additionally suspect a pattern of discrimination, which raises it to a higher level, for the feds.</p>
<p>Another element, however, must be considered, and that is not only admission to the U itself, but admission to a college within the U. Thus, investigation into a College of Engineering’s admission data (files and all) may reveal higher rejection rates for a particular group if that particular group’s application numbers overwhelm all others.</p>
<p>Hugely insufficient data. No story.</p>
<p>Now, this is not an AA thread per se. If you want to discuss the already beaten-to-death subject of AA (URM’s), and whether it’s “discrimination” to have a clearly different standard for their admission than for all others, that’s another matter. But there is not available the data to determine whether, within the non-URM pool, Asians suffer racially-based discrimination vs. non-Asians. That is the subject of this thread.</p>
<p>Colleges are racist. After all, this is America. What else can I say? </p>
<p>MLK said: “All men are created equal”</p>
<p>Everyone regardless of their race, I don’t care if he or she is white, black, asian, hispanic, purple, I don’t care, should be looked at equally. </p>
<p>An asian kid and a black kid both have a 3.5 GPA with SAT’s in the 1800 range. What would be different? Their race should NOT be a factor at all. That’s when EC’s, Activities, Awards, etc. come in. But I can’t stand colleges who factor in “Race” … that is just wrong.</p>
<p>Its true that blacks get into “elite” colleges with lower than average test scores.</p>
<p>College is a business. Colleges use tactics that seem unfair to the general populous, but they are allowed to do so.</p>
<p>The University of Chicago’s acceptance rate for African Americans is roughly over 50%. Although this number is very high, the actual number of African American applicants is very low. For example, in Notre Dame, the African American population is 3%, but the African American acceptance rate is drastically higher than the overall acceptance rate. In contrast the percentage of Asians applying to elite colleges is very high, thus colleges increase the standards (GPA, Test Scores, etc.) for that particular race. It isn’t fair, but it also isn’t illegal. In my opinion colleges aren’t discriminating against Asians, but they are trying to attract other applicants, even if their test scores and grades are below the average. “Diversity” is sometimes used as a tactic to attract applicants.</p>
<p>“Test and scores are supposed to discriminate - to distinguish among individuals. In another sense, their purpose is to reduce discrimination by reducing reliance on subjective criteria for school…placement.”</p>
<p>Please, folks, there is a huge difference between actions designed to benefit an underrepresented group, and actions designed to limit an overrepresented group. While both could be happening, the motivations and the implications are not the same. I guess if you’re Asian, you might feel that you’re a victim of a double whammy. But I have to agree that there really isn’t enough evidence to show convincingly that elite schools are limiting the number of Asians for an improper or unfair reason. There’s enough evidence, though, for the question to be pursued.</p>
<p>There isn’t a huge difference though. Because when a college can only accept so many students, actions to benefit an underrepresented group must limit some other group.</p>
<p>Believe me, if this thread were posted by anyone other than the site owner, the merger would happen in a heartbeat. You kindly asked earlier what I meant about a first reply I posted in which I noted I wouldn’t follow usual practice here and merge this thread into the latest FAQ thread </p>
<p>about this always contentious issue. My longer answer to the question you raised then is that this new thread, referring to a specific study, has a slightly different nuance from the many threads asking questions like “What do I mark on the form?” or “Are Persians white or Asian?” or “Am I African-American if I was born in South Africa?” and the like. Alas, this thread, just like all the rest on its general issue, has followed the usual pattern that long-time CC participants have long observed of becoming very contentious with rather more heat than light. </p>
<p>The site owner always gets the last call on what is on topic and what is posted according to the Terms of Service. </p>
<p>There has been discussion among the volunteer moderator team over the years about whether “affirmative action” threads are even worth posting here on CC, but the site owner’s opinion, with which most moderators agree (reluctantly or not) is that any issue about the hows and whys of college admission is on-topic for this forum, and so those threads too are on-topic. Back when I was just a regular member of the forums, with no role in moderation, I observed that many of the affirmative action threads very rapidly turned into flame wars, and worse than just being flame wars, they were flame wars full of flat-wrong factual statements. Over the years, I’ve learned from other participants and my own research about various facts related to this contentious issue, and somewhat more than a year ago I started posting “FAQ & Discussion” threads that led off with verifiable FACTS about affirmative action in college admission, to try to change the “framing” (in the cognitive psychology sense) that happens so often when threads on this issue are opened to vent or replied to by posting wild guesses rather than verified facts. </p>
<p>This thread, by its title, frames the issue as an issue of harm against “Asian” students. And that is where most of the discussion has gone. I tend to think discussion of college admission issues stays more calm and more factual if the overall fact that applies to all college applicants is acknowledged: everyone can get into a good college. There is a surplus of places in entering classes in good colleges compared to the number of students who are ready to take advantage of those places. That’s why I typically open a new iteration of the FAQ & Discussion thread with a thread-opening post that includes a paragraph with this text: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By the way I haven’t even heard the results of the Vikings game today. What happened?</p>
<p>I am still waiting for some of the questions above to be answered, so “shut up” someone is the last thing I want to do. There is nothing out of line here. Everything I said can be verified.</p>
<p>You may disagree with my working hypothesis, of course. I admit I have only been using recent postings as data points, and did not go all the way back to 04. If you have a better hypothesis based on my posted evidence, or additional data points to question my hypothesis, I would love to hear it. As I have said before, I am no dogmatist, and actually learn a lot from being proven wrong. </p>
<p>I think people are confusing a propaganda campaign with a rational argument. I don’t expect people to be fair, but I do expect them to be consistent. Is this too much to ask?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Heard about divide and conquer? I am amazed people are still falling for it. You folks should all work together, but this would not be in the best interest of those in power.</p>
<p>Just the opinion of an outsider, the side of one.</p>
There’s a big difference between taxing the rich to feed the poor, and taxing the rich because we don’t like them and want to take away their money. In my opinion, anyway.
To make this more explicit, I think the moral implications are quite different between (a) giving an advantage to disadvantaged underrepresented groups, like URMs and (b) deliberately trying to limit the numbers of disfavored groups, as was done with Jews.
I don’t think there is anti-Asianism of the same kind (or at least the same virulence) of the anti-Semitism that contributed to limitations on Jews. I think there might be an idea that there should be “racial balance,” just as there is gender balance and geographical balance. Is this discrimination? Well, sort of. It’s the same kind of discrimination that benefits people from Iowa to the detriment of those from New York. The difficulty is deciding how invidious it is.</p>
<p>I sincerely believe that race is not the issue (whatever race is), but that it is harder for Asian students to get into top colleges because East and West differ enormously in their thoughts on education. The West is looking for a different kind of student than what the East is willing and able to ‘provide’. </p>
<p>HS stats like SAT’s and GPA’s give a good indication about criteria such as working hard, the ability to take tests, the ability to memorize material and so on. Interestingly enough criteria that fit seamlessly with the Asian educational culture. However, these stats do not do a lot of justice to the level of independent, critical, creative, analytical thinking of a student. And these latter skills play and have always played a prominent role in western universities (and colleges). Not necessarily a HS A+ student possesses them, not necessarily a HS B or even a C student lacks them. In their search for the right students this hopefully and probably is an important reason why universities are looking for information beyond the stats. Unfortunately mnay Asian students are often so busy pleasing their parents with A+ grades that they have little time and energy left to develop these important skills when growing up.</p>
<p>Note: I realize that I am generalizing ways too much: Asia is a big continent where cultures differ enormously, individual (American-)Asian parents differ, individual (American-) Asian students differ, universities will have many other reasons why they are looking beyond the stats, etc. However, I am convinced that the issue here is a cultural (educational) one and not a racial one (whatever race is).</p>
<p>There shouldn’t be any difficulty. To suggest that it is no more invidious than geographic preferences is to assert that race is “no different” than geography. As I have repeatedly mentioned, there is a very good reason why racial classifications demand strict scrutiny whereas geographic classifications do not.</p>
<p>Moreover, the very idea of racial balance is un-Constitutional. As Justice Powell wrote in Bakke, “If petitioner’s purpose is to assure within its student body some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin, such a preferential purpose must be rejected not as insubstantial, but as facially invalid.” Twenty-five years later, Justice O’Connor reaffirmed this in Grutter, noting that any attempt to do what Justice Powell forbade would “…amount to outright racial balancing, which is patently unconstitutional.”</p>
<p>The problem with both Bakke and Grutter is that neither of them sent clear messages. They are remembered as cases that “upheld affirmative action,” but many forget that much of what supporters of affirmative action prescribe was in fact proscribed by Justice Powell and Justice O’Connor. Is it any surprise that twenty-five years after Bakke, at least one university still wasn’t able to craft an affirmative action regime that pasted Constitutional muster?</p>
<p>In this aspect, I once again agree with Justice Scalia. Ideally, it would have been best if Grutter ruled definitively that “critical mass theory” is beyond stupidity and that racial preferences constitute illegal discrimination. Had Gratz been decided in favor of affirmative action, however, the situation would still be better than it is, for then there would be no confusion.</p>
<p>TaiTai, This is a good point but I wish this was the only reason. An Asian last name put the student in a disadvantage in elite college application and Asian applicants are compared with other Asian applicants instead of all other applicants. Race-blind admission is what we ask for. And if it turns out that many Asian applicants still got rejected for the reason that you mention it would be fine with me. If these colleges tout their admission is need-blind, why can’t it be race-blind?</p>
<p>While you can have a race-blind policy, I think it would be very difficult to create a mechanism to actually ensure that admissions are race-blind. Taking names off of the applications would not be enough.</p>
I haven’t even heard the results of the Vikings game today. What happened?</p>