<p>
</p>
<p>34% business can’t be true for the top 50 schools, for there simply aren’t that many business slots. 6% Biological/Physical Science is absurdly low. 17% Education is also ridiculously high.</p>
<p>I don’t get it sunfish. Do you think that declaring facts to be unreasonable makes them less true?</p>
<p>
I guess I haven’t met them. I have met a lot of Asians who attend magnet high school programs and who are gunning for highly selective colleges. They exhibit the “immigrant striver” characteristics quite strongly, including the exact kind of clustering we’re discussing here. It’s a cliche, even among them, that they all want to go to Ivies and study science/engineering, and that they have “Asian parents” who get angry when they get an “Asian fail” (otherwise known as a B). Maybe they’re not representative of Asian-American students overall, but I think they might be representative of suburban Asian-American students whose parents are professionals, and a lot of whom are immigrants or the children of immigrants.</p>
<p>
I’m pretty sure these numbers are for all colleges, not top ones. sunfish is absolutely right that these numbers make no sense for the most selective colleges.</p>
<p>There are threads on cc about “all the pressure my Asian parents put on me.”. Why are there no such threads among other groups?</p>
<p>Look guys, if you want to pat yourselves on the back for your culture’s “superiority” over, say, the stereotypical black kid who doesn’t come from a culture that values learning, dint get all discombobulated when we all look at you and note some stereotypes about you as well.</p>
<p>^ There is truth in every stereotype. There is also falsehood in each of those same stereotypes.</p>
<p>I already asked about this in [post</a> #579](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063394526-post579.html]post”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063394526-post579.html) in this thread, and it’s time to ask again. </p>
<p>I’d like to ask a serious question, because in the midst of discussion of college admission policies there are from time to time references to “underrepresented” groups without explaining how “underrepresentation” is demonstrated.</p>
<p>If a medium-size privately operated national research university takes applicants from all over the country, and indeed all over the world, but has a plurality of its applicants living within 500 miles of the university (a fairly common pattern), should the university</p>
<p>a) balance “representation” by the world population of all college-age young people?</p>
<p>b) balance “representation” by the national population of all college-age young people?</p>
<p>c) balance “representation” by the regional population–within a specified distance from the college–of all college-age young people?</p>
<p>d) balance “representation” by the world population of all college-age young people who have completed secondary education?</p>
<p>e) balance “representation” by the national population of all college-age young people who have completed secondary education?</p>
<p>f) balance “representation” by the regional population of all college-age young people who have completed secondary education?</p>
<p>g) balance “representation” by the world population of all college-age young people who are as academically qualified–determined by that college’s rules–as the least qualified admitted students from the year before?</p>
<p>h) balance “representation” by the national population of all college-age young people who are as academically qualified–determined by that college’s rules–as the least qualified admitted students from the year before?</p>
<p>i) balance “representation” by the regional population of all college-age young people who are as academically qualified–determined by that college’s rules–as the least qualified admitted students from the year before?</p>
<p>j) balance “representation” by the actual group composition of that college’s applicant pool that year?</p>
<p>k) simply admit students based on the college’s judgment of academic qualifications, as long as its admission procedures admit some representatives of every major ethnic group officially recognized in the United States?</p>
<p>There are quite a few possible standards here, with different possible results, and it’s not usually clear to me which standard participants in the discussion are appealing to when they call one group or another “underrepresented.” Underrepresented by how much? Which students actually apply to which colleges?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like someone said before, obviously Jews were never discriminated against because they were overrepresented too. At first I thought this was actually a sarcastic answer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Other than your really relevant and scientific anecdotes, do you have some other proof by this?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This was the national average for all college students. I totally bet that your reasoning should be considered over the research of university professionals. NYU must be totally stupid to let some people who come to absurd results like this get hired.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Presumed racism totally justifies intended racism, gais!!!</p>
<p>Do you actually have some actual quotes to prove this? Oh wait, their darn dirty Asians!</p>
<p>Re 867</p>
<p>I’ve never liked either “underrepresentation” or “overrepresentation.” To me, they suggest that there is a Goldilocks level of representation that is neither too much nor too little. In particular, I have despised the term “overrepresentation” because of its implication that there was too many of one group.</p>
<p>However, I believe it was two years ago when a CC member convinced me that quotas didn’t need to be in play as long as you defined a benchmark and stated that nothing was wrong if there were deviations from the benchmark. He defined the benchmark as the racial classification breakdown of the nation’s overall population, not just college-age youths.</p>
<p>Under that benchmark, it becomes clear that at many, many colleges and universities, there is both “overrepresentation” and “underrepresentation.” But, nothing’s wrong with either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To broaden this question, the threads related to the following topics should be included:</p>
<ol>
<li>Asian parents write essays for their kids</li>
<li>Asian parents hire college admission services</li>
<li>Asian parents on Harvard parent thread</li>
<li>Asian parents on Yale parent thread</li>
<li>Asian parents on Princenton thread</li>
<li>Asian parents on colleges that have most asians
…</li>
</ol>
<p>
I never said it was some sort of math equation. I support a holistic process, but a holistic process does not mean a completely arbitrary admission process. I would expect any sensible person to realize that over a span of millions of applicants, any fluctuation caused by a holistic process would be negligible, unless there is something more deliberate at hand. Remember, we are not discussing a humble girl from New Jersey, nor are we discussing the “huge” Asian population you’ve dealt with; we are discussing millions of applicants over years of admission processes.</p>
<p>Regarding representation: I prefer choice k, which probably doesn’t come as much of a surprise to anyone. Or rather, something similar to choice k stating that a top college represent those it has judged as most fit in a school before even looking at ethnicity.</p>
<p>One thing indubitable about representation in the form currently being discussed is that it is based on race and not any other hereditary standard like eye color, height, etc, or any other standard, period. May I ask why this is our standard? Some might argue that it’s because cultural diversity has often been based on racial differences. What makes, say, an upper-middle class African-American culturally different from an upper-middle class Caucasian? If that African-American has demonstrated some sort of cultural uniqueness, then I agree; grant him/her an admissions advantage. But you can’t assume that because of his/her ethnicity that he/she will have something culturally valuable to add to a school. In fact, I would argue that most cultural values now are not created by race/ethnicity but rather socioeconomic class/location/environment.</p>
<p>Some would argue that a lower representation would discourage African-Americans and Hispanics from applying to top schools. Is that the responsibility of top colleges, to avoid this discouragement by placing further emphasis on the division of its applicants by race? Sure, there might not be an obvious sensible solution to the social integration of races, but it’s clear that underscoring social segregation is the exact opposite to that solution.</p>
<p>So it remains: why is our standard of representation the color of our skin and not the color of, say, our eyes? And think about your responses and ask: are the reasons I have given helpful or detrimental to the goal of individuals not being “judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”? And keep in mind that this judgment applies not only to those in charge of college admissions but rather to society as a whole.</p>
<p>There is a complete difference between overly discriminating AGAINST a particular minority (as was the case with Jews in the Ivy Leagues years ago) and using holistic admissions. No one is looking at Asian applications and saying, “Oh, an Asian, they’re undesirable, gotta keep them out.” </p>
<p>Maybe part of the issue is the desperation. There is such unbelievable desperation to get into these schools, as if the world would come to a screeching halt if some kid didn’t get into the Ivies / MIT / Caltech. The desperation looks unattractive. YK, if you’re trying to get into “the elite,” it doesn’t matter how many degrees you have from what top-rated schools – the smell of desperation just doesn’t serve you well.</p>
<p>Note how when the Jews were discriminated against, they founded their own school (Brandeis)? Why doesn’t the Asian community do that if it’s such a big concern?</p>
<p>Also note how when Jews were discriminated against, they still took their “un-elite” degrees (CCNY, etc.) and made an impact on the business world?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because in 2009 nobody should have to create a school as a response to discrimination! My goodness, do you honestly believe that segregation is the answer, that it’ll shut us up? It saddens me deeply to read this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This statement does not consider the appropriate historical context. CUNY City College was once known as the Poor Man’s Harvard; it was absolutely an elite institution, filled with high-achieving students who did not fit Ivy League admissions officers’ definition of merit. What changed? People with your political persuasion demanded “open admissions.” Coupled with the end of institutionalized anti-Semitism, the Poor Man’s Harvard was no more.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, there can be a difference. If you were to read the [url=<a href=“Getting In | The New Yorker”>Getting In | The New Yorker]article[/url</a>] I gave you a few pages back, however, you’d realize that holistic admissions was created to discriminate against Jews.</p>
<p>Why hasn’t the Asian community founded a school to avoid discrimination? Because it doesn’t want to. Because it shouldn’t have to. --And to suggest that as a course of action INSTEAD of working to eliminate discrimination is pure institutional racism. </p>
<p>Minority complaints need to be shut up, so keep them busy with “alternative” solutions and they won’t bother us any more. Everyone deserves a fair chance to attend the elite schools, except for Asians who sound unattractively desperate and therefore should just get an “un-elite” degree and make the best of it. [/translation]</p>
<p>Would it bother you too much to provide this study?</p>
<p>Oh no, all the doctors would be Asian!</p>
<p>
It is easier to get into elite schools than to build it. All they have to do is to beat everyone else. No big deal. </p>
<p>
Now it is known as a poor school in Harlem.</p>
<p>While I don’t agree that Asians ought to start their own schools, I do think there is a need in this country for the existence of colleges that admit students solely on the basis of their GPA/SAT scores. Actually, most U.S. colleges already do this. </p>
<p>What I don’t understand is why students who believe that the holistic approach (which includes racial diversity considerations) is some sort of BS screening mechanism, or a bunch of irrelevant fluff, or discriminatory, have any interest in attending this type of school. Plenty of colleges pay big $$ for top GPA/SAT students to attend. Why not attend one of these schools which value you for the accomplishments that you deem most important?</p>
<p>(Serious question. I am interested in some personal responses)</p>
<p>^To whom are you addressing the question? I believe those students who have followed this conversation consistently generally support holistic admissions without racial diversity considerations–yes, it is possible, and very easy. Just eliminate race as a holistic factor. You still have a multitude of characteristics–SES, first-generation college student, country of birth, country/countries of previous residence, geographic distribution, essays, academic interests, musician or athlete or mathlete, et al–by which to create a diverse class. I personally am also opposed to gender diversity considerations, but I do not speak for anyone else on that matter.</p>
<p>I value and support diversity, especially the consideration of non-academic talents. For example, I think an outstanding nationally-ranked athlete can ethically receive an admissions boost equal to that of, say, an IMO medalist. However, I invest greater value and support in non-discrimination, where “discrimination” is defined as consideration of legally protected attributes.</p>