<p>^Why not? The number of white admits went down.</p>
<p>Is it possible that their number could have gone down more had they not taken some from URMs?</p>
<p>
I don’t think so. They didn’t “take” any from URMs, because they actually went down in number. Supposedly the end result is what you’d have with no racial preference at all–and the number of whites is a bit less, URMs are a lot less, and Asians are more. Now, it could be that the whites who got in under the revised scenario aren’t the same ones who got in before, but I don’t see any real reason to think that.</p>
<p>Actually, as I think about this some more, I think a problem with the study is that they don’t show us all the permutations. Thus, for example, they don’t show us in a chart what would happen if you leave in the preference for URMs, but eliminate the disadvantage of Asians. If doing this would have shown that some of the non-URM slots would have shifted from whites to Asians, then I guess you could say that when you eliminate all racial preferences, some of the URM slots were “taken” by whites. I’m not sure why they don’t show us that, though.</p>
<p>
You think it doesn’t cost money to defend a complaint like that?</p>
<p>
I think the Princeton person who made that comment about Jian Li’s ECs was dumb. But you know, it’s been known to happen before that Yale accepts somebody that Princeton waitlists. It even happens to white people. And the reverse happens, too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Essentially, I believe that if Li was good enough for Yale, he was good enough for Princeton. That doesn’t mean Princeton had to accept Li, but to claim that he didn’t have what it takes to get into Princeton isn’t viable. As I said earlier, Rapeleye only made that remark because Li had the guts to file a complaint against her employer.</p>
<p>
It takes time to reveal all the information the OCR requests, and time is money. So, yes, it costs money, but no, Li did not sue Princeton.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Legitimate complaint. It’s true that if you remove racial preferences, you’re removing “affirmative” action and “negative” action. Kidder, Kang, and Wu argue that you can keep the former while killing the latter. I reiterate that these three firmly believe that Asians are discriminated against in admissions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>SAT is a decent predictor of academic performance (that’s why it’s used).</p>
<p>Amount of overrepresentation based on pure SAT score.
Blacks: 9.0/.9 - 900% overrepresented.
Hispanics: 7.9/2.2 - 260% overrepresented.
Whites: 51.4/47.7 - 8% overrepresented.
Asian: 23.7/38.7 - 39% underrepresented.</p>
<p>Absolutely amazing. It’s amazing how much more favorable treatment blacks get in comparison to hispanics.</p>
<p>Forgive me if I missed it somewhere on this thread-without-end but what exactly were Li’s credentials? I assume he had a 2400. Is it known what his other strengths were?</p>
<p>Actually, Li’s complaint could be quite lethal for Princeton. If found violation and deprived of federal fundings which will include fundings from National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, Department of Defense and National Institutes of Health, Princeton could not survive one day because most of the faculties and staffs in hard science are paid through these sources. This kid knew what he is doing.</p>
<p>Unless some smoking gun document emerges, Princeton is highly unlikely to be found in violation, and even if they are, there would be some kind of consent agreement for them to change their procedures. They are unlikely to lose a dime of federal money, even in the worst-case scenario.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Essentially, I believe that if Li was good enough for Yale, he was good enough for Princeton. That doesn’t mean Princeton had to accept Li, but to claim that he didn’t have what it takes to get into Princeton isn’t viable. [/quote[</p>
<p>Why not? Yale and Princeton might have been looking for different things that day. You seem to be under this delusion that merit is evaluated on such a way that there is a clear ranking of people according to objective criteria, and so therefore the 4.0 applicant with 2400 SAT’s and a gold medal in some science contest is “more deserving” than the 3.9 applicant with 2350 SAT’s and only a silver medal. Maybe Yale found him interesting and Princeton didn’t. Ah well. He’s not “entitled,” and no one who gets into one school is “entitled” to get into some other school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did bias cause you to completely gloss over my “That doesn’t mean Princeton had to accept Li” remark and misinterpret my entire paragraph?</p>
<p>It cannot be argued that a “4.0 applicant with 2400 SAT’s and a gold medal in some science contest [sic]” doesn’t have what it takes to be admitted to Princeton. Princeton isn’t under any obligation to take him, but he was certainly qualified to be there.</p>
<p>Edit</p>
<p>I reiterate once more that Rapeleye only disparaged Li’s application because he filed a complaint with the OCR against Princeton. Had he done nothing, he would’ve been one of those “many qualified applicants we [Princeton] reject every year” instead of a guy whose “outside activities were not that outstanding.”</p>
<p>What it takes to be a reasonable candidate for Princeton and what it takes to be admitted to Princeton are two different things. The vast majority of Princeton’s applicants have what it takes to be a reasonable candidate, but only 9% (or whatever the number is) of them have what it takes to be admitted. </p>
<p>But, one more time, there is no “entitlement” for ANYONE, even if said person is a 4.0 GPA / 2400 SAT / double legacy / URM / from Montana who cured cancer over the summer and won an Olympic gold medal over the winter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, no, no, that’s not how it works. The percentage of applicants that have what it takes to be admitted is far greater than 9%. Admissions officers always emphasize that many of the rejected applicants were “qualified” to attend.</p>
<p>A few years back, I attended a seminar hosted by a Yale admissions officer. He told us to imagine a simulation where a fixed number of students are selected from the same pool of applicants at two schools, a nonselective university and an elite university. At the former school, you can expect the same students to be admitted no matter how many iterations of the simulation you run. At the latter school, however, students who are admitted in the first simulation could be rejected in the second simulation. He took pains to explain that this didn’t mean admissions was a crapshoot; rather, it signified just how competitive the candidates were.</p>
<p>It is very difficult to argue that Jian Li was not capable of being admitted to Princeton. He certainly was, but that he was qualified didn’t mean he had to be chosen.</p>
<p>Assuming that Li is qualified for admission to Princeton, how do you conclude that the reason he was not admitted was because he was Asian?</p>
<p>Why are people arguing over Jian Li’s case? I think it brings things to light, but we all have no idea to tell if he was rejected because of his race. </p>
<p>I personally think his race was a factor in his rejection, but it’s not like we don’t know that colleges don’t consider race already.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think that Li was rejected because of his racial classification. I think that he was the ideal candidate to file a complaint with the OCR to determine the prevalence of “negative” action.</p>
<p>maybe Li was just stupid in other areas such as Leadership, Social skills, etc. I mean Bush went to Yale because he earned it; He had enough talent to fool us into re-election.</p>
<p>Why is it that so many HS students think that over-cultivating the talents necessary to get superb HS stats will give them an entrance ticket to one of the top colleges? Yes, the students who are brilliant in hard working and memorization are often ahead in the race of having the highest stats. But who has ever said that running for the highest stats this way is the right race to run when you want to get into a top college? </p>
<p>Admissions people have always been clear about the limited role of stats, hours of community work etc. They do not just say so to cover poorer results of students with a legacy, minority students, or talented sports players. They mainly say so because they are not looking for a class loaded with kids who are brilliant in hard working and memorization. What they are looking for is a class loaded with kids who are able to contribute to their college. Each top college has its own set of criteria, but what they share is a need for students who have potential in academic thinking. HS high achievers do not necessarily have this potential as HS stats do not really measure academic thinking. </p>
<p>A lot of Asian students deliver these HS high stats and most of them have worked extremely hard in order to get them. A group will also have potential in academic thinking. However, lacking proper data is making it hard to trace them (this is why essays are so important). Western HS students, who are less inclined to work extremely hard and/or to memorize, often end up with lower stats and on the surface this may make it more acceptable that they are not accepted by top colleges. However, as far as the potential in academic thinking is concerned, a group of these kids will be having the potential that colleges are looking for. The ‘potential academic thinking’ race is just another race than the one based on “working/memorizing hard”. </p>
<p>If you want to end up with a more fair system (no system is really fair) you will have to have national HS exams with so called ‘open questions’, questions for which there are no perfect answers but that allow students to show their ability in critical thinking.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think my “Jewish filter” is misunderstood.
As I took a quick look at the baseball rosters, none of the teams, not even Columbia, look terribly “Jewish” to me. Harvard’s undergrad orchestra also does not look very “Jewish”. (In fact, it looks far more “Asian” than “Jewish”).</p>
<p>I interpret this to mean that sporting success is not the important factor that distinguish these two groups from each other, as posters here seem to suggest. It certainly does not explain the Jewish numbers in these elite institutions. Other much more important factors must be at play. </p>
<p>One interesting thing I do notice in the baseball rosters is the preponderance of private school grads. This seems to be consistent with my assessment that these schools function as finishing schools for the scions of the rich and famous. Nice to see my hypothesis is still standing strong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Steve Sailer wrote the best article on this topic.</p>
<p>[VDARE.com:</a> 02/19/06 - Winter RacesAnd The Races Of Man](<a href=“http://www.vdare.com/sailer/060219_olympics.htm]VDARE.com:”>http://www.vdare.com/sailer/060219_olympics.htm)</p>
<p>He argued that there is a strong positive correlation between how “repetitious a sport is and the educational level of its enthusiasts”, and sports “where athletes make subtle adjustments in technique as they do the same thing over and over appeal more to higher IQ people”. Interesting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You sure fab is the one grasping for straws here?;)</p>
<p>The comparison of Jewish and Asian students is an interesting one. In my opinion, Asians are, in some significant ways, where Jewish students were about 40 years ago. They have a lot of the immigrant striver characteristics, and they outperform majority groups on grades and scores. But just as Jews did 40 years ago, they concentrate on particular career paths and ECs. Therefore, a system–holistic admissions–that was cynically designed to limit the number of Jews now operates to limit the number of Asians. Why doesn’t it limit the number of Jews now? Because Jews, as they assimilated, diversified. Nobody talks about “too many Jews” any more, unless they are questioning whether to go to Brandeis.
I think Asians have it a little better than Jews did, because I don’t think there is an anti-Asian animus that is similar to anti-Semitism. But also, in the years that holistic admissions has been in place, I also think that schools have come to believe in it–that they really are “crafting” a class of diverse, interesting students. Asians may be hurt by that if they are too similar in significant respects, just as students from New York City are probably hurt by it. (Imagine how the admissions profile of Harvard might look if it were geography-neutral.)</p>
<p>
This is why members of MENSA like bowling so much.</p>