I’m not sure if I buy the notion of a Factor X, but I will work with it. However, here you’re assuming that this factor is innate and hence equally distributed. But as with any other quality used for admissions, it’s almost inevitable that this Factor X can be manipulated through development, and so the distribution will be far from balanced between races. And this Factor X is likely contingent in some way on academic achievement, extracurricular achievement, or overall personal qualities (that can be developed as well), which suggests that whatever this Factor X may be, it lies more often than not with those who have demonstrated those aforementioned abilities; hence, I don’t think you can assume that the 100th best African-American applicant has a higher quantity of X than the 300th best Asian applicant because of supposed equal distribution when it is not equally distributed.</p>
<p>The straw man seems to be a very popular logical fallacy here on CC…
anyhow, has anyone ever (officially) suggested that admissions be completely race-blind? That is- no disclosure of name and race on the “personal data” portion of apps. after one is accepted, the race would then be revealed to the college. would be an interesting experiment to say the least</p>
<p>You´re right monstor. I am assuming that it is an innate quality. It can be manipulated in the sense that some families can learn to take better advantage of it, by encouraging their children to use it toward greater achievement. But like I.Q. that is said not to vary much after age 6, I think factor X can be tapped to a greater or lesser extent at any age. Someone with loads of X but who didn´t use it to potential growing up, can still “break out” and reach incredible heights later in life. Just look at all the highly successful people who didn´t necessarily have great academic stats.</p>
<p>I agree with you that “elite universities in their admissions are trying to identify FUTURE potential for success, and they use past accomplishments as only one important indicator.” However, there is no need to discuss the X factor; it is not that complicated. It is simply what [url=<a href=“Getting In | The New Yorker”>Getting In | The New Yorker]Gladwell[/url</a>] refers to as the “best graduates” approach (c.f. “best students”).</p>
<p>I’m not sure if Jian Li advocated exactly what you wrote, but he has clearly communicated that he is in favor of holistic race-blind admissions.</p>
<p>Even though I am Asian and happen to be the current valedictorian at my high school, I do feel a sense of discrimination in the college admissions process and that my chances at top colleges may not be as high as they should be. However, throughout these ongoing debates, I am having an epiphany that being rejected by a certain elite college such as Harvard should not ruin your life. There are many other great colleges that can meet your needs like your state university; prestige is just a factor that may affect how job seekers or friends/family judge you. (This is not to say that I think that the Ivy League colleges or other similar colleges are not life-changing and do not provide a unique, special experience.) I know from reading the boards here that you make yourself at a college; a college does not make you. Basically, I don’t think any Asian, or even any person of any race or religion, should get too hyped about getting into a top college.</p>
<p>Yes fabrizio, I remember reading that article years ago, and just reread it. For me, it supports the argument that you can´t really assume discrimination of anybody by comparing qualifications on paper. It´s really impossible to measure fairness given the intangibles in admissions criteria.</p>
<p>^^ All this is true. However, it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Just because being rejected from a top college is no big deal, doesn’t mean that discriminatory practices possibly (or not) leading to such is no big deal. Racial discrimination is clearly illegal.</p>
<p>As an example of “meritocracy” within the context of holistic admissions, look at Caltech–the admissions committee does not “consider” race, gender, or legacy. (I’m not sure about development or athletic admits, but given Caltech’s character and athletic track record, I suspect the latter category is insignificant.) The school admits solely on the basis of academic ability and passion/potential for math and science. It is an entirely holistic process and high test scores won’t do you any more good than at a peer elite. </p>
<p>Does Caltech have an “unbalanced” race/gender profile? Yes. So what? That’s the price of non-discrimination.</p>
<p>I also think Caltech’s % of Asians would be lower for a comparable school that was a) not a tech school, and b) not in California. 30% sounds about right in the context of current academic distribution.</p>
<p>Which begs the question: Can an admissions process be “holistic” if it does not consider the applicant’s accomplishments in the context of his/her race?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>However, using race as a “factor” in admissions has been upheld as permissable by the U.S. Supreme Court.</p>
<p>Yes, but Keilexandra, how do you prove discriminatory practices if you accept that admissions are not based on the highest stats? Sure, they probably should eliminate the race check box altogether on the app, and maybe put a socio-economic box instead. But adcoms should still try to find information about an applicant´s cultural setting (family and school´s emphasis on achievement) to get a more valid reading on a kid´s innate potential.</p>
You could argue that the current system isn’t holistic because it doesn’t consider the color of an applicant’s eyes, or because it doesn’t consider how many letters are in an applicant’s last name.</p>
<p>Im sure ill get flamed AGAIN for posting this, but what the he double-L</p>
<p>Asian Black Hispanic White Total
Admit % 63.46%, 56.26%, 47.61%, 53.73%, 53.27%
Avg. admit SAT 1324, 1187, 1261, 1318, 1299
SAT varr. Mean 25 -112 -38 19 0</p>
<p>Accepted SAT Range (1994-1996)= 1324(asian)-1187(black) = 137 point spread based on race.</p>
<p>Wildwood - The Duke mismatch study shows that Duke admissions officers, in holistic review, rated Asian applicants modestly higher than even white applicants. One hopes that Duke adcom is adept at judging an applicant’s achievement, curriculum, essay, personal qualities, recommendations, and test scores. Yet, incorporating tips, hooks, and class-building somehow ends up, IIRC (no source here, alas), with Asians–highest-rated across NON-statistical factors as well as stats–having the lowest admit rate.</p>
<p>Your question tacitly acknowledges that race is not just “a factor”; rather, it is “a very powerful factor,” for its consideration is what changes non-holistic admissions into holistic admissions.</p>
<p>I am of the view of that holistic race-blind admissions is not an oxymoron. Racial classification is not the be-all-end-all factor that determines whether a process is holistic.</p>
<p>Not sure if this have been mentioned or not, but UK universities, including Oxbridge and the G5, do not factor in race, athletic recruitment, legacy status or any other factors which we would call “hooks” in their admission process.</p>
<p>Gladwell notes that our elite universities are unique in pursuing the “best graduates” approach as opposed to the “best students” approach used by just about every other country in the world. As you mention, UK universities employ the latter philosophy, so it is not just Asian universities that do not factor in what we consider “hooks.”</p>
<p>The “best graduates” approach certainly has its benefits; the likelihood of having superstar alumnae is higher than with the “best students” approach, which tends to result in happy and successful graduates but who are not necessarily superstars.</p>
<p>As for the question, “Do elites discriminate against Asian students?” neither the referenced study or any or all of the posts has convinced me of that. I have to say “no”.</p>