<p>please we're not being racist or discriminatory. but i'd like to know some facts/rumors about the chances of different races/ethnicities.</p>
<p>like i know if your African American you have a better chance.
ive heard being Chinese is not a good thing? is that true?</p>
<p>how about just being white/caucasian?
how bout middle easterns b/c their considered white?</p>
<p>theres alot to talk about. let the discussion begin.</p>
<p>
[quote]
like i know if your African American you have a better chance.
[/quote]
Yes. You still have to be "qualified" ( but if you have top grades and stats, good essays and recs, and you are AA, you'll most probably get in, which is not so for whites and Asians)
[quote]
ive heard being Chinese is not a good thing? is that true?
[/quote]
It certainly does not help, but probably does not hurt either (even though all the Asian kids that don't get in think it's because of "reverse affirmative action"). Close to 40% of the students at Stanford are Asians.
[quote]
how about just being white/caucasian?
[/quote]
That's your "control group," isn't it?
[quote]
how bout middle easterns b/c their considered white?
[/quote]
For the purpose of "racial diversity" they are considered white, I think. And I don't think they are underrepresented at top universities. It probably would give you a boost at top LACs though.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Close to 40% of the students at Stanford are Asians.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Does that include grads? I thought the figure for undergrads was more like 25%, though that may be just one class.</p>
<p>^ I am not sure how up-to-date that figure is, my point was that obviously a lot of Asian kids do get in, so the all-too-common "I'm screwed because I'm Asian" attitude is silly.</p>
<p>UC Berkeley, which is legally not allowed to practice affirmative action is 40% asian. (i think)
Stanford is 25% Asian, and practices affirmative action.</p>
<p>these numbers do seem to suggest that AA does significantly harm the chances for Asians.</p>
<p>a lot of Asian kids get in- but this is beyond obvious.
the more pertinent question is whether more would be getting in if not for affirmative action.</p>
<p>the world is 55percent or more Asian
but the US is no where near that number
so it seems Stanford has found a reasonable compromise</p>
<p>excuse my ignorance
but what does LAC stand for?</p>
<p>nvmd
i just figured out</p>
<p>"I'm screwed because I'm Asian"</p>
<p>but that never happens...</p>
<p>The facts at most of the top colleges are that some ethnicities have to have higher test scores than others to be considered competitive. It's just a fact of life, so one has to roll with it.</p>
<p>However, at some LACs, it is an advantage because those ethinicities are not well represented there (for instance those in Maine!)</p>
<p>Stanford is 24% asian - Look at link below for Stanford diversity.
U-CAN:</a> Stanford University :: Page 1</p>
<p>nngmm: The "screwed because I'm Asian" attitude is NOT silly, because there is a much higher percentage of qualified Asian applicants in any applicant pool to big-name top-tier universities than that are admitted. As this article from the Daily Princetonian points out,</p>
<p>The</a> Daily Princetonian - Jian Li, Asian-America and West College</p>
<p>qualified Asian applicants are hurt not only by affirmative action but also by the preferences given in admissions to legacies and athletic recruits. Yes, Stanford does have a relatively high UG Asian population (and it is 24%, not 40, which is more like a UC statistic), but the fact is that any institution that receives a high number of qualified Asian applicants that also simultaneously practices preferences for URM, athletic recruits, and legacies, a higher bar for Asians is automatically going to be set. The "I'm screwed" attitude is not a reflection at all on a specific institution's Asian student population, but rather on the % of very qualified applicants who are rejected/WLed simply because they are Asian.</p>
<p>Ailey: "It's just a fact of life, so one has to roll with it." But it is racial discrimination if an Asian applicant is turned down in favor of an (insert race here) applicant SOLELY on the basis of race (which, as I explained above, is often the case because of the higher bar set for Asian-Am applicants). Yes, it is a practice that is deeply embedded in all the intricacies of the admissions process, but despite whatever advantages that may come to the institution because of it (more legacy donations, better athletic teams, more racial diversity) it is <em>still</em> racial discrimination against Asians. And THAT is not tolerable.</p>
<p>echang, the practice of affirmative action is heavily based on racial discrimination. yes, it doesn't help if you're asian or white, but everybody needs to accept it as what it is, because nothing's changing for now.</p>
<p>
[quote]
there is a much higher percentage of qualified Asian applicants in any applicant pool to big-name top-tier universities than that are admitted
[/quote]
that's true about every race except URMs.
[quote]
any institution that receives a high number of qualified Asian applicant that also simultaneously practices preferences for URM, athletic recruits, and legacies, a higher bar for Asians is automatically going to be set
[/quote]
there is no doubt that it is not an advantage in any way to be an Asian when applying to the top universities, but I doubt that there is any active "discrimination" against Asians. You may argue that Asians with higher stats often do not get in. That's may be true, but that is not because the bar is set higher for them. It is because at some point +/- 50 points on the SAT does not matter, and what makes the difference between acceptance and rejection is the personality that comes through in the application. </p>
<p>I don't think that it is any easier for a middle class white kid to make it work than for an Asian kid. But because Asian kids often have near-perfect stats, they blame affirmative action, whereas white kids blame their "flawed" 2320 SAT score instead (while neither is the reason for rejection).</p>
<p>Believe what you want to believe. But just know that you're wrong.
If you are familiar with the races and admit/reject/defer patterns of students at competitive high schools it will become blatantly clear that being Asian is clearly a disadvantage.</p>
<p>If you've never been around large quantities of Asian high schoolers, you may stereotype and believe that "personality" alone can account for the reject rates of Asians. But if you actually have, you will realize that while there are disproportionately many "quiet" Asian types, they are not the only ones who have startlingly low admit rates. Even the Asians with the adequate stats, solid ECs, and great personalities are getting rejected in droves from schools that it is apparent they would likely get accepted to if they were any other race.</p>
<p>Look up Daniel Golden's book, The Price of Admission. That will explain all you need to know about Asians and admissions.</p>
<p>There is nothing wrong with a school's attempt to balance its population, for example, to make it more representative of the United States population as a whole. Right now many more women than men are applying for pre-med; does that mean my D is discriminated against because the school would like to balance the sexes? Obviously, a university which ignores such an issue may end up losing out in the end. </p>
<p>Additionally, racial distribution across the United States is as follows (Demography</a> of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:%5DDemography">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Racial_groups):) White, 74.7%; African-American, 12.1%; Hispanic/Latino, 14.5%; Asian-American, 4.3%. Therefore, it seems that even a 24% Asian undergraduate population far exceeds that which would be representative of the population as a whole.</p>
<p>Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying there should be only 4.3% Asian-Americans at Stanford, nor should 74% be white; I'm just saying there are reasons besides discrimination, per se, why the undergraduate population may need to be manipulated. </p>
<p>Finally, I am so tired of people whining about such self-centered things. There are many fabulous universities and colleges in the U.S., and in the end, whether you choose to believe it or not, people succeed primarily through their own efforts...not where they were fortunate enough to attend school. We should be thankful we have been given the gifts (good, genes, good parenting, healthy food, challenging schools, a nice home) to succeed. It's really those who have succeeded DESPITE their home life, learning issues, and poor schools, who should be favored in this competition.</p>
<p>Sorry for the rant....I just get tired of all the "poor me" stuff.</p>
<p>very nice post
again, the world is about 60% asian
the US is only 4-5%
CA is about 12%
77/3 is very close to 25%
25% is a happy compromise
pleas do not take the above so seriously</p>
<p>balancing the sexes is a different story. it will hard to have a healthy social environment on a campus with 80% guys simply because dating will simply be impossible, among other things.
but if you've ever gone to high school and interacted with people of different races you know that diversity is meaningless. you can talk in abstraction about learning about different cultures all you want, but at the end of the day the degree to which this happens is so negligible that it is ridiculous to be reinstating racial discrimination simply to have it.</p>
<p>"Finally, I am so tired of people whining about such self-centered things. There are many fabulous universities and colleges in the U.S., and in the end, whether you choose to believe it or not, people succeed primarily through their own efforts..."</p>
<p>oh i'm so sorry for believing in meritocracy and getting what you work for.
also, how about you be realistic now? if two identical candidates both work equally hard, and have the same degrees and traits, but one is from Harvard and one is from Cornell, who will employers recruit more actively and hire with higher probability? you are just being naive if you say they are looked upon equally.</p>
<p>"It's really those who have succeeded DESPITE their home life, learning issues, and poor schools, who should be favored in this competition."</p>
<p>Exactly why racial favoritism should be eliminated. Whats the bigger challenge? growing up URM and the son of a millionaire or growing up Asian or white in the inner city? yet who will colleges favor more?</p>
<p>talk of "diversity" and how it makes colleges reflect the real world is equally ridiculous. do companies care about the color of the skin of candidates they hire? can it be used to excuse a lack of qualifications or performance in the real world?</p>
<p>Meritocracy, you say? That is not necessarily fair either....a meritocracy rewards people for their PERCEIVED ability and accomplishments: What happened to the fairness of your "meritocracy" when the poor kid in a low-income school who may, in fact, be incredibly bright, worked his *** off trying to keep his grades up, help support his family, and simultaneously avoid his alcoholic father?? Are you saying he didn't deserve as much because he didn't get all As and a 2400 on his SAT? Maybe the only reason you did so well is because you came from a great gene pool and it was easier for you....is it fair to reward you and not him? What did the other kid do to deserve his home life/crazy parents/crappy school/WHATEVER. </p>
<p>All I am saying is that, for a multitude of reasons, life isn't always fair, and the sooner you adjust to it, the better it will be for you in the long run. </p>
<p>Also, I do believe you will succeed if it is really that important to you....not getting into your first choice college will not ruin your life, unless you believe it will. There are many stories of disappointed kids who, in retrospect, realize they are happier/more successful/etc. with their second, third or fourth choice. And in your case, we're not talking "No Name Crappy Local Community College" vs Harvard.....all your options are great....and that makes you luckier than most, even some who may have worked harder than you!!! </p>
<p>Also, I don't know about anyone else, but I would prefer to be in a culturally balanced environment. It's more like the real world, in which we all must live eventually.</p>
<p>Finally, "URM and the son of a millionaire father"? Even assuming that is a common occurrence, don't you think Adcoms consider such factors? They should (and do) expect more from those who have been given more....otherwise, it would just be a game of numbers.</p>
<p>"you can talk in abstraction about learning about different cultures all you want, but at the end of the day the degree to which this happens is so negligible that it is ridiculous to be reinstating racial discrimination simply to have it."</p>
<p>It's very sad for you that you feel that way.....but it also is exactly why a college with too much of one race would be unacceptable......</p>