<p>What does this mean? The most obvious meaning is that Asians don’t play much baseball, and thus any college that’s recruiting baseball players–or using baseball as a tip factor in admissions–won’t be looking at Asians. This has nothing to do with personal qualities, level of achievement, or anything else. It’s just a part of the “market” for admissions that Asians are not competing in. The question is, how broad is this factor?</p>
<p>I think you find that there are very few Asians (or none at all) on the rosters of every sport at the elite colleges. (See the rosters for every sport at Harvard, here: [The</a> Official Website of Harvard University Athletics: GoCrimson.com](<a href=“http://www.gocrimson.com/landing/index]The”>Harvard University - Official Athletics Website)) So this “market” for admissions that Asians are not competing in is quite broad.</p>
<p>I think it’s the position of the U’s (again, not me – don’t confuse me with the U’s) that they cannot be admitted in a heavily quantitative review. (The list I included earlier contains a whole bunch of quantitative factos; the point is that anyone of any ethnicity who hopes to gain admission to an Elite, who is NOT a URM, is closely competing on all those quantitative and all those qualitative factors, both.)</p>
<p>If, once admitted, they “couldn’t make it on their own,” then they would not be admitted. There is a predictability to it. As I’ve mentioned in earlier threads on this subject, prior (esp. very early) AA policies did not examine carefully “ability to succeed” [in the college environment], and naturally their was no real history to track such outcomes yet. There were later adjustments when it became clear that it was risky on all fronts to admit without better indications.</p>
<p>Keile, I “attack” arguments which are irrational and based on mythology. This has nothing to do with groups or ethnicities. I’ve been on CC for 5 years. I argue with many whites on many issues, agree with many Asians on many issues. I answered you thoroughly and directly on the question you posed to me, respecting you enough to provide the answer, and the answer in context. I would never “assume” lack of bias without investigating. The “studies” in question, as siserune has pointed out, do not “reveal” bias or discrimination. They reveal score discrepancies. To further expand on my previous post (I didn’t bring it up here because I have said it so often on previous threads, and possibly on this thread as well), if SAT I (not all standardized test scores together) were singularly or preeminently a qualification for admission, then there would be no question that Asians were being discrminated against, in my view.</p>
There’s one on the fencing team–from Alabama! (And a couple of others as well.)
Actually, looking at all the men’s teams, there are one or two Asian names on most of them (including football). On some, there are none (such as ice hockey). But certainly, as a whole, I would say it is far less than 10%–somebody less lazy can count them up.</p>
<p>Do you think it’s the position of the universities that they also cannot be admitted in a race-blind review that consists of both quantitative and qualitative factors?</p>
<p>I once again point out that if race alone is what distinguishes “holistic” admissions from “numbers only” adimssions, then it must be a pretty important factor.</p>
Whether they would admit it, it’s obviously true, just as most members of the football team wouldn’t be admitted in a football-blind process.
But what, exactly, does this have to do with a discussion of whether Asians are discriminated against vis-a-vis whites? Are you simply assuming that because race matters in URM admissions, that it must matter in terms of Asian admissions?</p>
<p>Let me edit this response to say that URMs might still be admitted in a race-blind holistic admissions process IF low socioeconomic status was a major factor. Would those opposed to race-baced decisions prefer that?</p>
<p>I won’t be counting them up :), but a link in the same website claims that 1,500, or 20% of Harvard’s student body participates in intercollegiate sports. That leaves Asians with only 80% of Harvard’s seats to compete for in admissions, if they are not competitive athletes.</p>
<p>^To the question fabrizio asked me – cross-posted now with Hunt’s response:</p>
<p>Yes, of course. (Sorry, that’s what I meant; using shorthand, need to leave for work.)</p>
<p>So, yes, they are not competing on a level playing field. (I said that earlier, remember? ;)) There are unquestionably two different standards:</p>
<p>(1) One standard for URM admission (but may I add, other “hooked” candidates such as major donors (could be more than one “race”), recruited athletes – not all of whom are URM’s, and celebrities, which have included more than one “race”). </p>
<p>(2) A different standard for all non-“hooked” candidates (“hooked” defined in #1) together.</p>
<p>And I suspect there hasn’t been much success in reverse-discrimination lawsuits based on #1 because of the fact that such a different standard does include candidates of several ethnic backgrounds, including majority. I will just acknowledge again that there are different standards for “hooked” and “unhooked.” That is clear, and wouldn’t take much of a scientific study to determine.</p>
<p>No, your evidence doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion that “Asians don’t play much baseball.” It’s quite possible that while many do play, few are good enough to play for elite universities. You can’t immediately infer disinterest based on the results.</p>
<p>How encouraging! I finally have firm evidence from the opponents that racial preferences simply send the message: you are not good enough, so I will give you a hand.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t have to assume anything. Espenshade and Chung found evidence that Asians were discriminated against compared to whites, evidence which Kidder affirmed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, absolutely. If you want to admit students who genuinely suffered disadvantages growing up due to poverty, I’m all for that.</p>
<p>I’m calling you on this one, again. Not your “opponent.” I would be your opponent if I stated full agreement with all aspects of AA, which I’ve stated repeatedly is not true about me.</p>
<p>Here’s another anecdotal data point (as it were). The roster of Harvard’s undergraduate orchestra:
<a href=“http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hro/roster.php[/url]”>http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hro/roster.php</a>
20 out of 39 violins appear to be Asian.
12 out of 40 other strings (counting harp and piano as strings)
5 out of 14 woodwinds
1 out of 11 brass
0 out of 3 percussion
Totals: 38 out of 107
And here’s the wind ensemble:
[The</a> Harvard Wind Ensemble](<a href=“http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hwe/Members.html]The”>http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hwe/Members.html)
3 out of 23
And Harvard’s jazz bands:
0 out of 26
Totals of all ensemble:
41 out of 156
What does this mean? Well, Asians make up 26% of those ensembles, which looks pretty good. But look how concentrated they are. Almost half of them are violin players. Now, it’s possible that Harvard is discriminating against Asian non-violinists. But it’s more likely that this fits the hypothesis that Asian kids tend to be concentrated in certain instruments.</p>
<p>I will also add, fabrizio, that your labelling of anybody pursuing a different hypothesis than your pet one as an “opponent” is unbecoming and reduces your credibility.</p>
<p>No, the message is: You are good enough to succed here, and valued enough to be admitted. That’s the only message. </p>
<p>The fact that there are two different admissions standards for all hooked candidates vs. all non-hooked candidates gives this message: “Value to this college” trumps fully competitive elements on all quantitative and qualitative measures. They value a rich white donor with a 2.8 enough to “overlook” his lack of competitiveness with more accomplished non-donor whites and more accomplished non-donor Asians.</p>
Even if they have low grades and scores, and have to be admitted based on a different standard? Even if they couldn’t possibly get in on an income-blind basis?</p>
<p>Which brings us back full circle: While Asians do have higher SAT scores, and score nearly equally in all quantified factors in the Duke study, on a case-by-case basis whites may win the seat by possessing the particular characteristic/skill/talent that the elites are looking for to craft a well-rounded class.</p>
What’s more, if Asians are disproportionally grouped into specific niches, they might be competing with the highest-scoring non-Asians. I’m thinking of math, science, and engineering. Those future classics majors may not have such high math scores.</p>
<p>If I remember correctly, Princeton’s Director of Admissions publicly stated that Jian Li’s ECs were not that impressive. I think I recall that he participated in Boys’ State and did volunteer work in South America (?). Just curious, was there anything else in his resume that we know about?</p>
<p>One does not need to have “full agreement with all aspects” of policy X to have firmly cast one’s lot with one side of the discussion. As I’ve said earlier, people who are on the fence tend not to contribute hundreds of posts in these discussions. Their very being undecided makes them more likely to read than write.</p>
<p>For this issue, you’re either for racial preferences, against racial preferences, or undecided. I make no bones whatsoever about my disdain for racial preferences; I am passionately for race-blind admissions. Obviously, people who are for racial preferences oppose those who are against them. Some users here seem to be taking the term “opponent” too personally.</p>