<p>I guess the problem here is your definition of "better-qualified". In your eyes, the one with higher scores and grades is "better-qualified".
Most private universities do not use this criteria. For them anyone who can do the academic work is qualified (and their impressive graduation rates attest to their ability to determine who is academically qualified). After that -- the "better-qualified" are the students who help them build the kind of freshmen class they are looking for. And yes, sometimes someone with lesser numbers lucks out, because he brings in something special that would have been missing otherwise.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not every URM that's admitted is admitted based solely on AA/race, but many are. And if you look at the converse, I still think that many more hardworking (and multitalented) Asians are denied acceptance because they are put in a different category.
[/quote]
cookiemon90,
I hope that you will end up at school that has rich and diverse student body. If that happens, you will get to meet many hardworking (and multitalented) URMs, and hopefully will never again make a statement like the one quoted above...</p>
<p>You Asians seem to forget that these decisions also affect other non-URMs: maybe all the rejected white students should sue, also. After all, if AA is the ONLY reason Asians are rejected, then it must be the same for white students.</p>
<p>All I can say is GET OVER IT.......life isn't always fair for ANYONE, and Stanford is only trying to make the college experience positive for the students who go there, which I believe it is entitled to do. It is not all about you Asians; it is about the quality of the educational experience for EVERYONE. I am sorry its decisions impact you, but like I said, that is life and many people are impacted by decisions made for the benefit of others....what makes you think you deserve more than the rest of us??</p>
<p>And for the record...I do not believe in AA, but I DO believe colleges are entitled to consider everything about an applicant when making a decision to include someone in a class.</p>
<p>If you are so unhappy about it, then GO SOMEWHERE ELSE where all they consider is test scores. </p>
<p>This discussion makes me crazy....</p>
<p>Hi, guys, for those of you who have stats but denied admission, think on the positive side. When they build a class, they need some B and C students, otherwise, who is going to get B and C's in a Stanford Math 122 class? The professor is not going to give everyone a A. If the class is all high stats students, the professor stilll needs to give someone a B or a C and that wont be fair to you guys since your are all top students. A fair way is for all the top students being distributed among top schools and then it becomes logical for some top schools to reject a top student and others admit her or him. In the end, a gem is still a gem no matter where you put it.</p>
<p>i've met PLENTY of African Americans who have applied to top universities, such as Stanford (2200+ SAT, 34 ACT, amazing EC's & Teacher Recs.), and were rejected/deferred. Race is only "considered" while viewing your application. Just because someone is "black" or "hispanic" doesn't mean that they will have an inevitable advantage over you--the entire application has to be put into perspective! You can not let the stats you see on CC convince you that this is how Stanford (or other prestigious university) decided to pick students for the class of 2012. Everyone who was accepted was obviously qualified (regardless of race or nationality). </p>
<p>by no means to i advocate preferential treatment, but take this into consideration:
how many black or hispanic engineers, lawyers, or doctors have you met in your lifetime? Surely not as many compared to whites or asians. If you put everything in perspective, blacks and hispanics are below caliber (statistically) in all areas of learning/quality of life (eg. highest illiteracy rates, highest drop out rates, blacks=household with only one mother, hispanics/blacks=lower income brackets). If a hispanic child who has dreams of becoming a lawyer, per se, had to care for his younger siblings, work hours after school to help his or her parents pay the bills, and STILL managed to pull off a 2000--ladies and gentlemen, I believe this person deserves to be there more than someone who shows little passion for what he or she wants to do and pulls a 2400 because his parents paid for SAT tutoring. </p>
<p>I realize that not all Asians or Whites are economically able to pay for such amenities; however, the selection committee should also bring this into consideration (which they DO.) </p>
<p>but I personally wouldnt want to go to a school that was 70% asian, 25% white, and 5% black/hispanic/american indian, etc. It lowers the quality of the learning environment and it gets boring. I've also read that if all colleges decided to discontinue AA, the number of minorites (esp. blacks/hisp.) in high status jobs would decrease, inevitably creating an economic relapse for UM's. (this was a theory for a lincoln-douglas debate i did long ago) </p>
<p>OH yeah..if you didnt figure out already---Im African American, my mother being from Eritrea =)</p>
<p>agree x100 =)</p>
<p>Professor 101, it's highly unlikely that Stanford would ever admit a C student.</p>
<p><a href="mailto:cgarrett101@aol">cgarrett101@aol</a>.:</p>
<p>
[quote]
think because Asians come from a culture where only test scores count, they will never understand how other factors count in admissions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What "culture" are you talking about? As I said before, there are tons that fall under "Asian." Your sweeping generalization is shocking.</p>
<p>You cite your own situation, which is but anecdotal evidence that shows little.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You Asians seem to forget that these decisions also affect other non-URMs
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That was pointed out a while ago. Also, what is this "You Asians" you keep saying? You assume that those arguing against AA and such are Asian.</p>
<p>
[quote]
After all, if AA is the ONLY reason Asians are rejected, then it must be the same for white students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who is claiming that? The idea is, the URMs get in with subpar stats, the Asians don't get in at all (though they are stronger applicants overall -- from SAT to GPA to ECs to honors/awards). It's an inconsistency, a disparity, and an injustice.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All I can say is GET OVER IT.......life isn't always fair for ANYONE
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You can't come up with a convincing argument, so you resort to this?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you are so unhappy about it, then GO SOMEWHERE ELSE where all they consider is test scores.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think anyone is arguing that they should be admitted based on test scores. I think it very insulting that you imply that Asians are only about test scores, and aren't distinguished in their ECs and honors/awards.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This discussion makes me crazy....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's because you don't quite understand the heart of the issue, methinks.</p>
<p>erimiri:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've met PLENTY of African Americans who have applied to top universities, such as Stanford (2200+ SAT, 34 ACT, amazing EC's & Teacher Recs.), and were rejected/deferred.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've met plenty with such stats who get in. See, anecdotal evidence doesn't have much weight.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but I personally wouldnt want to go to a school that was 70% asian, 25% white, and 5% black/hispanic/american indian, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who said those would be the final proportions? The highest Asian population I've seen is 56%, at UC Irvine, where it doesn't matter what race you are.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It lowers the quality of the learning environment
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Want to tell me how, on more than a single-situation basis?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've also read that if all colleges decided to discontinue AA, the number of minorites (esp. blacks/hisp.) in high status jobs would decrease, inevitably creating an economic relapse for UM's.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I don't think that'd be correct. There are many colleges that don't need to practice AA -- ones that are always very Hispanic- or black-serving.</p>
<p>"You Asians seem to forget that these decisions also affect other non-URMs: maybe all the rejected white students should sue, also. After all, if AA is the ONLY reason Asians are rejected, then it must be the same for white students."</p>
<p>again, studies have shown that something like 4 out of every 5 slots taken by affirmative action admits would instead be taken by Asians in a race-blind system. white students, yes, have a right to sue, but certainly not as much of a right as Asians.</p>
<p>"i've met PLENTY of African Americans who have applied to top universities, such as Stanford (2200+ SAT, 34 ACT, amazing EC's & Teacher Recs.), and were rejected/deferred. Race is only "considered" while viewing your application. Just because someone is "black" or "hispanic" doesn't mean that they will have an inevitable advantage over you--the entire application has to be put into perspective! You can not let the stats you see on CC convince you that this is how Stanford (or other prestigious university) decided to pick students for the class of 2012. Everyone who was accepted was obviously qualified (regardless of race or nationality)."</p>
<p>And I am willing to bet money that these African Americans who were rejected were overwhelmingly wealthy- probably to the tune of 200k-300k a year wealthy. Or maybe even 500k+ wealthy. Just becaues they were rejected and URM doesn't necessarily mean race didn't help them- their income was working against them. if they were not admitted, then evidently their "diversity" was not enough to offset their well-off circumstances.</p>
<p>"If a hispanic child who has dreams of becoming a lawyer, per se, had to care for his younger siblings, work hours after school to help his or her parents pay the bills, and STILL managed to pull off a 2000--ladies and gentlemen, I believe this person deserves to be there more than someone who shows little passion for what he or she wants to do and pulls a 2400 because his parents paid for SAT tutoring."</p>
<p>If an Asian or white child overcomes the circumstances you have described, would they get as much credit for their accomplishment as you seem to be giving this hypothetical hispanic child? How come affirmative action proponents always act as if every URM admitted is severely disadvantaged economically- whereas disadvantaged whites and Asians do not seem to exist?</p>
<p>The other severe problem I have with AA discussions is that, with few exceptions, AA proponents always seem to stereotype greatly. How do you know that disadvantaged URMS have passion for what they are doing, whereas the vast majority of 2400 types have no passion for anything they do?</p>
<p>"I've also read that if all colleges decided to discontinue AA, the number of minorites (esp. blacks/hisp.) in high status jobs would decrease, inevitably creating an economic relapse for UM's. (this was a theory for a lincoln-douglas debate i did long ago)"</p>
<p>I would love to see these studies. I haven't seen them, but I highly doubt their validity?
Say URM with 1700 SAT score wants to be a physicist. He is admitted to Stanford and a less prestitigious school. Will he/she be better off maintaining a 4.0 at a state school, or keeping a 2.0 GPA at Stanford?</p>
<p>"Institutions are NOT interested in mere high test takers."
"If you are so unhappy about it, then GO SOMEWHERE ELSE where all they consider is test scores."</p>
<p>I love how all the Asian stereotypes seem to come out now, that we are discussing AA.</p>
<p>No one said that they should consider only scores. </p>
<p>But if you are to define merit- you should be consistent across all skin colors. There is no reason a URM student should be given huge amounts of credits for overcoming adverse circumstances- whereas a white or asian student in similar circumstances would not get nearly as much credit.</p>
<p>There are also many double standards. Take two hypothetical students, one white, one asian.
Both play violin, play tennis, do math team, have perfect stats.
But the Asian one seems to have commited the cardinal sin both to CCers and to admissions officers, whereas the white student has not.
Why? Is there some "diversity" difference between these two candidates that is so vast that they warrant different considerations?</p>
<p>"Everyone who was accepted was obviously qualified (regardless of race or nationality)."</p>
<p>It depends on how you define qualified. If you set the standards really low to justify your argument and viewpoint- then of course, everyone is qualified by your standards.</p>
<p>"it is about the quality of the educational experience for EVERYONE."</p>
<p>I've asked this about 20 billion times now in at least 3 different threads- but can someone please give me a detailed, specific example of how this "educational experience" would be changed based on having AA.
No, I have heard terms like "diverse perspectives" and "viewpoints" way too many times- be more specific. What kind of "perspective" will a URM admitted under AA bring? how would this URM go about sharing this perspective with other students?</p>
<p>nngmm, maybe i didn't make this clear when i wrote that. What i mean is that many more "orm"s are affected than URMs, not that URMs don't work as hard.</p>
<p>p.s. for those of you who think that the term "asian" refers to a homogeneous population, this inference is far from true. the best example i can think of is cal. at cal, there is a notably high percentage of asian students, do you hear the graduating classes complaining about being a part of a boring campus? nope</p>
<p>Stanford is "entitled" to do whatever it wants, just like the bus systems in the south were entitled to do whatever they want. AA isn't as serious as the civil rights issues of the 1960s, but it is an injustice nonetheless.</p>
<p>btw, i'm not arguing solely on my behalf, in case you haven't noticed, i didn't post my stats anywhere on this thread. and i don't want your pity. I DO believe I was negatively affected by AA, as were many other students of overrepresented, but it might not be the only factor in my rejection.</p>
<p>"Who is claiming that? The idea is, the URMs get in with subpar stats, the Asians don't get in at all (though they are stronger..."</p>
<p>well, for one i am grateful that colleges just don't choose students based on "stats" (tests, gpa). there is much more than test scores and gpa to an applicant who would be a "good fit" for a college or university. </p>
<p>as for affirmative action: i do not personally support it, and definitely believe that it should not be allowed in public institutions (unless the people of a state put it to a vote). however, i do feel that private institutions should be allowed to have some leverage when making these decisions. just like notre dame can discriminate against non-catholics and brigham young can discriminate against Mormons, private institutions should be able to use certain methods when picking students. </p>
<p>also, i've realized that a lot of people (and i'm not necessarily referring to posts on this thread) point to the fact that there are "minorities" in prestigious colleges with less than superb states while more "qualified" applicants didn't make it, as some form of discrimination caused by affirmative action. how can you say this without knowing the complete picture of the applicants' profiles. we don't know what the applicants' extra-curricular activities are, we don't know the quality and nature of the essays, etc.</p>
<p>now, of course (i feel), that if a university admits one student over another solely because of race, then there is a serious issue that needs to be stopped. but i need to see proof of this..</p>
<p>cookiemon90, the bus system in the South received public funds as did state schools, public accommodations and many other things that LEGALLY barred African Americans from utilizing any of these things. Blacks paid taxes for decades for things they never received. They were barred (by law and custom) for many things - unable to buy property in certain areas, etc. I agree Asians are very diverse. The UC system now has 23 categories of Asians to make sure that people are clear about what Asian students are being admitted . So, once this data is studied, various Asian groups will be competing with one another. Vietnamese, Hmong, Filipinos have far less opportunities than many other Asian groups. This is being studied and considerd. So, you're correct, it's not fair to simply discuss Asian as a broad category. I think the original thread was about Asian Indians who have the highest GPA and achivement level of all Asian groups.</p>
<p>as mentioned in my previous posts (i feel like i've said this a billion times before), for me, i've based my comments here off of the posts i've read thus far on CC, not in general. Additionally, as bob mentioned before, just because a student is a URM doesn't mean they came from a disadvantaged background.</p>
<p>I would be interested in reading a study of admissions based on AA, a new study dealing with this year's admissions because I think that this year is a critical year in the whole college boom. </p>
<p>as for private universities, employers are not allowed to base decisions based on race, gender, and other characteristics, so why is it allowed for private universities?</p>
<p>btw, in Bakke v. Regents of University of California, the quota system was ruled unconstitutional, but affirmative action, i think, is technically ok. This is the idea i'm contesting</p>
<p>This back and forth could go on forever with strong opinions.</p>
<p>Applicants do have a way to make the admission process race-blind over a period of time. In the common app and also in other apps, ethnicity is an optional item. So if anyone believes that the process should be race-blind - they can leave it unspecified.</p>
<p>If more and more people leave it unspecified, the adm. officer is forced to view the entire app and not get carried away by stereotypes of any ethnicity. Asians who feel the process is biased can keep the adm. officer guessing; and URMs who want to show they are not in purely due to URM consideration have something to back it. </p>
<p>Other parts of the app can bring out the non-objective related component of the applicant - be it ECs, disadvantaged status, whatever... Diversity can still be achieved in the schools by "building a class" from these other parts of the app.</p>
<p>So applicants who want to make the process race-blind do have control to change it over maybe 10-15 years by not specifying the ethnicity. When 80% of the apps have unspecified ethnicity, it will become a mute point in the process.</p>
<p>As a person who has been in higher education for 30+ years, there are many other ways to determine a person's race (by their surname (not foolproof, however,, high school attended, organizations, etc.). It is not true for all cases but there are many clues to one's background. Often photos are also required.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and URMs who want to show they are not in purely due to URM consideration have something to back it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why would anyone do that? I'm not going to 'forget' to put myself as a double legacy to the school I admissions to. I have nothing to prove. I want to get in. I'll do what I can to improve my chances. I think most people are would do the same. Forget 'fair', life ain't fair.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'll do what I can to improve my chances. I think most people are would do the same.
[/quote]
you are right, most people would do the same (and there's nothing wrong with that)... but not all. I know some kids that did not mention their legacy status, because it was important for them to see that they can get in on their own merit. I can imagine that there are some extremely accomplished URMs who are so sick of hearing that they owe their success to their URM status, that they don't mention it.</p>
<p>I do agree with lmpw that there could be other parts of the app that will reveal the ethinicity. Agree with Nearl and nngmm too on their take.</p>
<p>But my point is if a majority of the players want to play a 'fair' game, they can and over a period of time it will be a fair game. I feel in their hearts most kids want to play a fair game.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I feel in their hearts most kids want to play a fair game.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, but what is fair? Many African Americans and Latinos will argue that it is only fair to give some advantage to black and Hispanic kids in admissions to top schools because their race put them at disadvantage all their lives. It is not a matter of socio-economic status, but a matter of the society being racist, whether it admits it or not.</p>
<p>Just like it would not be fair to judge the applicants by the number of APs taken disregarding how many are offered by the school they come from, it is not necessarily fair to measure everyone's accomplishments on the same scale disregarding their background.</p>
<p>however there are those URMs who are fortunate enough to have lived a privileged life. What we've been saying is that not all URMs have been had a "disadvantage all their lives", so those who have can reflect this in their essay. no body is saying to disregard their background, because background is more all-encompassing than race. Race is given, but background includes the experiences the CANDIDATE him/herself goes through.</p>