<p>^I was referring to the unique “commodities” that you stated, and I agree, vary with different classes. Of course a college with a debate team will want to admit debaters every year; but I doubt that most elite schools have an institutional priority of finding a circus performer for every class. It is certainly a unique EC/commodity, but does it matter if one year there’s no circus performer? My answer is no.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong. Again. You keep stating what you think the committees should and should not weigh and consider. I’m telling you that they don’t think that way. They don’t just want any old ‘uniqueness.’ It also has to bring some level of value. They’re not looking for a collection of freaks. They’re looking actually, first of all, for students who will fit in with their distinct campus culture, which is different campus to campus – despite some people thinking “elites” are all the same. They are definitely not all the same. There’s a distinctly different atmosphere at each of them. Somebody too “unique” might not even fit in at all, for that matter. There have to be enough elements of social fit to ensure a healthy adjustment, as well as something which sets the candidate apart as an individual.</p>
<p>Please refer to my previous post, which cites a circus performer EC as an example of a “unique trait.” (A Middlebury admissions officer once commented that they were really surprised to have THREE circus performers in last year’s class. I didn’t just pull that example out of thin air.)</p>
<p>You are equating “unique” to “freak,” which is 1) offensive, and 2) wrong.</p>
<p>I am not stating what I think the committees should consider; I am stating what I believe the committees do consider, based on anecdotal evidence (e.g. what I hear personally from admissions officers at selective institutions) and on published evidence of admissions procedures.</p>
<p>Post 1201: Well I never talked about circus performers, so that’s just a red herrring. And if an e.c. is too “unique” there will be no carry-over or even translation, necessary, to a different campus contribution. Again, they’re not looking for people so unusual that they will not fit in. You’re trying to understand a system and a process that you have not enough life experience to assimilate as it is realistically implemented. I’m not putting you down; I’m just pointing out the futility of looking at this from some theoretical or idealistic viewpoint. That’s not what’s happening here. It’s competitive, business-wise; it’s practical, economically. That’s what drives it. Concepts like AA figure in because they are part of the underlying mission statement and thrust, but by no means does AA or even racial balance dominate the decisions. They’re choosing commodities. Bring them what they want and value (and that’s not possible to predict with accuracy, because of the comparative dynamic), and they’ll return the favor with an offer of admission. If you didn’t get in, you didn’t bring them enough of what they want this particular cycle, compared to everybody else.</p>
<p>^I have no idea what your point is. I gave circus performers as an example of a unique EC that would be interesting to an admissions officer–it was certainly considered a minor “plus” at Middlebury. Of course a school doesn’t want a student who won’t fit into the campus culture–is that even worth saying? It should be obvious.</p>
<p>
Thus far you have not explained what your greater life experience has taught you about understanding the system/process that is different from my view of it. The elites have many different institutional priorities–what they “want and value”–but the general gist of those priorities remain the same. Why would they change? Perhaps one year they need a bassonist and the next year they need a top debater–but those are not meaningful changes in the context of a class.</p>
<p>It’s patently clear what my greater life experience has taught me: I understand how businesses are run, because I’ve worked in them and run them, whereas you get all your information from books. Books are helpful in explaining theory & operating principles but not all that helpful in distinguishing results from desires or principles.</p>
<p>You also, despite all your protesting about how you supposedly understand holistic admissions, do not understand the practicalities of how it works. You keep nit-picking indiividual e.c.'s and individual geographic locations as if single variables have enormous weight. They don’t. It’s the multiple variables that radically change the equation and the value. And every student is looked upon as a collection of multiple variables, not to mention the make-up of the combined class, which is then not just multiple variables but mega-equations then being weighed/balanced. So it’s either the life-experience aspect or you are limiting your own imagination.</p>
<p>In any case, this is turning into too much of a paired conversation, so maybe we could hear from Bay or Hunt or someone else.</p>
<p>As far as colleges’ own viewpoints, my position remains unchanged.</p>
<ol>
<li>Racial preference is a form of positive discrimination.</li>
<li>Title VI “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.”</li>
<li>A literal reading of Title VI would see that racial preference, being a form of positive discrimination on the basis of race, should be forbidden, and thus any institution that desires to practice racial preference may do so under the condition that it relinquish federal financial assistance.</li>
</ol>
<p>I don’t see this as an unfair position. To me, it’s simple: if it’s worth so much, then pay for it out of your own pocket.</p>
<p>^^Indeed, you have an intimate knowledge of businesses that I do not have. However, how is this relevant to differentiating your view of holistic elite admissions from mine? I have repeatedly acknowledged the varied and changing institutional priorities (or business commodities, if you like) of elite schools. My contention is that these institutional priorities do not change significantly on the whole; for instance, I doubt that having high SAT scores will ever be a “minus” factor. Whether it is a “plus” factor and how much of a plus that is, will change; but the fundamental priority of enrolling an academically excellent class, measured in part by SAT scores, is unlikely to change. This is simply, of course, my contention; but with regard to institutional priorities, unless you have intimate experience working in admissions, life experience in running a business is not particularly relevant.</p>
<p>I am not nitpicking individual ECs and geographic locations; I am giving examples. You have heard of such a practice, I hope? I assume, in giving these examples, that other variables are approximately equivalent–i.e. that the North Dakota student is not academically underqualified. Please note that I am again giving an example, not “nitpicking.” I would appreciate you also giving examples, through quotes, of how/where I have given you the impression that I see single variables as possessing enormous weight; they obviously do not, or else admissions wouldn’t be doing a very good job of being holistic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My position can not be more clear. Look at all the empirical evidence and come up with a working hypothesis that accounts for all of them. Opinions are simply not worth the paper they are written on without supporting evidence. What you were providing were opinions and you said so yourself. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You did a lot more than that in the other thread. While you started out that way, stridency and your true intent took over very quickly. Have you forgotten how you badger another poster into agreeing with you, when the investigation barely got underway?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What I , and several others, have tried and failed to make you understand was that internationals did not see it the way Americans did. Many saw it just as another example of “Americans would do any thing to win”. They also saw it as another example of “American hypocrisy”. To illustrate, here was an article by a Canadian journalist concerning the games:</p>
<p>[The</a> West, mad at China for being fake: that’s rich | Macleans.ca - Columnists](<a href=“http://www.macleans.ca/columnists/article.jsp?content=20080820_27791_27791&id=4]The”>http://www.macleans.ca/columnists/article.jsp?content=20080820_27791_27791&id=4)</p>
<p>Remember, this was from your friend and neighour. Can you imagine what others were saying about you?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure. Just like in the other thread. For every comment supporting Asians there were, what, ten (?) comments that question the data? Is this your definition of “balance”? Go and count the numbers if you don’t believe me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have. Have you?</p>
<p>
Observing actual differences, based on data, is not the same as stereotyping. Surely you can’t argue that there aren’t significant differences in the major choices of Asians vs. whites at the Cal State schools, or that those differences are random? It’s obvious that members of different groups are making different choices, for some reason. We have some evidence that there are also differences (albeit different differences) at Michigan. We don’t know what the differences are at super-selective schools–they might be even different differences. </p>
<p>Edit: one data issue. I noticed after I did my brief review of the Cal State data that they treat Filipinos as a separate category, and that it’s large enough to change some results if you were to aggregate them with Asians. I don’t know if Filipinos are typically counted as Asians at most schools. Also, there are a lot of ethniciity unknown students in that data set, and you can’t assume that their distribution matches that of those who are identified.</p>
<p>Canuckguy, when you’re in a hole, you should stop digging. You’re really making yourself look bad by continuing to impugn the motives of somebody who’s trying to have a civil discussion.</p>
<p>Re 1210</p>
<p>So, you’re saying there’s evidence that we should cast business as the new “Asian” major?</p>
<p>
Sure, at the Cal State schools. Isn’t that what the data show? I wouldn’t assume that the data would show the same thing at Harvard, though.
Fabrizio, I’m not sure I understand your objection to this line of reasoning. Do you think that differences in major choice between ethnic groups don’t exist, or that we should pretend they don’t exist? Or do you think they don’t matter in admissions, or that they shouldn’t matter?</p>
<p>
I will have to restrain myself from thinking that the last phrase there is a Freudian slip. Neither version of the data is in “my” favor. I’m just trying to figure it out. You’re right about the data, of course. But I still think that 2.8% admitted for African-Americans is awfully low. Wouldn’t that likely result in an even lower percentage of African-Americans actually enrolled?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are right to let the data speak. My main objection is to the mentality that surfaced about five pages back, when a slew of irate parents responded to chaosakita’s [url=<a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/08-0608-AAPI.pdf]link[/url”>http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/08-0608-AAPI.pdf]link[/url</a>] by insisting that what they saw with their own eyes couldn’t be wrong. That is, as I’ve been saying for the past few pages now, I have problems with elevating “wide-spread observation[s]” to the status of near-truth. While I am quick to point out the problems with “I see it” as evidence, I nevertheless do not begrudge anyone of the veracities of his observations for his area. I’m simply arguing that “your mileage may vary”; what’s true in area X may not be true for area Y.</p>
<p>Who knows, maybe Bay is right. Maybe Asians are more likely than other racial classifications to change majors, and thus the end results (e.g. over two-fifths business administration at Cal State, plurality economics majors at Michigan, etc.) do not disprove that these students started in STEM fields. But there is no data to confirm or disprove that.</p>
<p>
Your view is inconsistent with Supreme Court jurisprudence. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 343 (2003) (In summary, the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. Consequently, petitioner’s statutory claims based on Title VI and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 also fail.).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No slip. I consciously wrote “in your favor.” In context, my original calculation was 6.5%, but I added incorrectly, as the true sum was 7.5%. Thus, I made a mistake, but it was in your favor as 7.5% > 6.5%</p>
<p>As I wrote earlier, you can think of the 2.8% as a “minimum” value. It’s the predicted value under a model that supposes “numbers only” admissions, which presumably is to the greatest detriment of “underrepresented” minorities, who on average have lower SAT scores than their peers.</p>
<p>Previously, Bay seemed to suggest that a 630/630/630 for an “underrepresented” minority candidate isn’t any worse than an 800/800/800 from a white or Asian candidate. Such an arbitrary distinction cannot be made under a race-neutral admissions scheme. And so, my “strong subjective criteria compensate for weaker objective criteria” would come into play, which could be to the benefit of “underrepresented” minorities.</p>
<p>Thus, when “soft” variables are taken into consideration, it is entirely possible that the percentage will increase.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is why I emphasized literal and should, two distinctions you ignored and subsequently removed in your quotation.</p>
<p>
That’s certainly true. But some areas may be more representative of applicants to highly selective schools than others. For example, I live in a DC suburb, and my daughter attends an IB magnet program. It is a cliche at that school–even among Asian students–that Asian kids are interested in math and science. Of course, not all of them–but we constantly hear that this is what their *parents *would like them to do. And there’s another magnet that’s all math and science, and it’s more heavily populated by Asian students. A lot of these kids are the children of professionals, and in many cases the kids were born in the U.S. and their parents were not. This is one reason I think they are a lot like the Jews of a few generations ago, with “immigrant striver” characteristics. Immigrant parents of any ethnicity tend to put a high premium on education and on professional careers in general. I also think that the posters on CC tend to reflect this kind of demographic. Is this representative of all Asians in the U.S.? Probably not. Is it representative of those who are trying to gain admission to the most selective schools? Maybe.</p>
<p>
The Freudian part of this is that I don’t understand what you mean by my “favor.” The numbers are what they are. I actually consider it a good thing that even under Espenshade’s theory African-American admissions wouldn’t drop to 0.8%.</p>
<p>
So your position is that your literal intepretation of the statute should be used instead of the Supreme Courts interpretation of the statute?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My original (and wrong) sum was 6.5%. I referred to that as evidence against the “virtual disappearance” possibility. The correct sum, however, is 7.5%. Thus, even under my lower and wrong calculation, there was no “virtual disappearance.” That was what I meant by “in your favor.”</p>
<p>Re 1218</p>
<p>That is my position, yes. But, it is not only my literal interpretation; it was also the interpretation Chief Justice Burger, Justice Stevens, Justice Stewart, and then-Justice Rehnquist held in 1978. Justice Stevens has since reversed his position, but then as now, the Chief Justice and three Associate Justices disprove of a non-literal reading of Title VI with respect to racial preferences.</p>