<p>FredFredBurger, your story is fascinating, but it's mainly fascinating because it's unusual. It's very difficult to believe that an African-American male with your stats was rejected at top schools, unless there was something else that hurt you in your applications. But, as you certainly know, anecdotal evidence doesn't prove much.
I'd also like to mention that the question of whether top colleges in fact give significant advantages to URMS is different from whether they should do so. Personally, I think it's pretty clear that they do, and I think it's a good idea. I do think that it should evolve into a consideration of socio-economic status rather than race alone, but I don't think we're there yet.</p>
<p>I think it is more socioeconomic-from how I've described my school I would think it's pretty obvious that it's an upper middle class suburb in NJ, quite similar to Long Island suburbs for those that are familiar with LI.</p>
<p>In addition, while ancedotes certainly do not prove much, considering how many AA males score as high as I did on the SAT's (2370+), we could be easily talking 5, 10, maybe 20 kids in each given application year. At that point, we could agree that although again an ancedote does not make a generalization for a group-this "ancedote" holds a lot more weight than the random black kid with an 1800 and no ECs that got into a top school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Limit, maybe. Eliminate, no way. UCLA is not allowed to use race-based affirmative action because of Proposition 209, but it still uses holistic admissions.
[/quote]
After this applicant cycle I would be surprised if UCLA's holistic admissions policy was not investigated.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What makes holistic admissions 'holistic' is subjectivity. Essays, recommendations, extracurriculars, and so forth are all subjective (c.f. stats which are objective.) Does race count as a subjective factor? Most definitely. Is it required? Most definitely not.
[/quote]
What about if applicants write about how their ethnicity influenced them? Anyways, I have already talked about this earlier in the thread in an exchange between myself and Ethyrial.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I do think that it should evolve into a consideration of socio-economic status rather than race alone, but I don't think we're there yet.
[/quote]
People from disadvantaged or average socio-economic backgrounds, of all races, are considered under-represented at top colleges. Also, it's not really about how much an applicant's family makes, it's about what opportunities were available to the applicant.</p>
<p>Newjack88,</p>
<p>Ha, investigated? For what? Racial discrimination? The only way there would be a successful investigation (in your eyes) is if the investigators all buy into the "disparate impact" theory, which has seen little, if any, success in the Courts. (The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lampooned it in the case where Proposition 209 was challenged.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
What about if applicants write about how their ethnicity influenced them? Anyways, I have already talked about this earlier in the thread in an exchange between myself and Ethyrial.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What if they write about that? Does that make race a required factor for holistic admissions? No. The guidelines do not say, "you must consider race." They say you must have subjective factors.</p>
<p>thanks dontcha</p>
<p>In the new thread "Urm?" the question was asked: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The federal definitions for the categories tracked by the federal government appear somewhere in the massive FAQ thread on ethnic self-identification in college admission, with which this "Urm?" thread will be merged. I am not aware that there is any percentage factor in the official definition of most ethnic groups.</p>
<p>The percentage of matriculating students who marked "race unknown" would be much more helpful if it went hand in hand with how many applicants marked "race unknown"--to see if it is used against the student or not. Colleges should also publish percentage of applicants accepted for each race and gender as well as the average SAT scores for each race and gender (accepted students) including "race unknown." </p>
<p>This process needs to be more TRANSPARENT. At least with something like race.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This process needs to be more TRANSPARENT.
[/quote]
I disagree. Because even when race is not considered you still have "lesser qualified" applicants getting accepted while "more qualified" applicants are rejected. Honestly, I do not see how publishing the statistics like you are saying will do anyone any good. I think you should know by know that getting into a highly selective school is more than about statistics...</p>
<p>
[quote]
I disagree. Because even when race is not considered you still have "lesser qualified" applicants getting accepted while "more qualified" applicants are rejected. Honestly, I do not see how publishing the statistics like you are saying will do anyone any good. I think you should know by know that getting into a highly selective school is more than about statistics...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So, you think the process should remain opaque and shrouded in vagaries? Well, each to his own, but more transparency would make it clear just how beneficial being a "URM" is in admissions.</p>
<p>At least one user here thinks the advantage is not that great because he did not have a 100% acceptance rate. But, who ever said that being a "URM" means having a 100% acceptance rate? Nobody. Being a "URM" simply means you'll be preferentially treated in the admissions process, but that is no guarantee of admission.</p>
<p>Do admissions officers put Filipinos in the same category with Chinese, Koreans.. etc? Many students have spoke about how it is hard for Asians to get into top schools because Asians must compete with other Asians, who tend to be the most accomplished applicants. So are Filipinos considered Asian as well? Or are they in a different ethnicity category, which may help them get into the top schools more easily</p>
<p>I think you are better off marking yourself as Filipinos; Marking as Asian will be like setting your foot on fire.</p>
<p>You may get leverage as a Filipinos.</p>
<p>I believe on the common app when you click asian, there is the subcaterogy filipino, among chinese, koreans..etc. I'm not sure if the admissions officers look as each different asian ethnicities as unitedly part of the asian race, or want a variety of different asians. does anyone know?</p>
<p>Filipinos are pretty generally pretty well off in the US. They have higher average earnings than the Japanese, Chinese, or Koreans here. Don't count on it to help you.</p>
<p>Well, they are Asian because they are from Asia. But it would be easy to make them think that you were not because they don't have Asian sounding last names(at least the ones I've met).</p>
<p>Data for CA:
Student Subgroups # Pupils 2007 API Growth 2006 API Base
African American (not of Hispanic Origin) 371,724 643 635
American Indian/Alaska Native 40,056 696 691
Asian 397,086 852 847
Filipino 131,037 813 808
Hispanic or Latino 2,279,399 665 656
Pacific Islander 31,265 719 714
White (not of Hispanic Origin) 1,428,569 805 801 </p>
<p>Not much difference between Asian (852/847) with that of Filipino (813/808).
I thought Filipino might be part of Pacific Islander (719/714) which might have given you some leverage.</p>
<p>ParentOfIvyHope: What do those three-digit numbers mean? (I feel like such an idiot.)</p>
<p>It is just a API index I added at top and is out of 1000 scale.</p>
<p>i'm filipino as well and have been struggling with this for a while now. even though the other asians in my school refuse to admit it (i AM asian even though i look hispanic!!! ASIAN!ASIAN!!!), filipinos are definitely asian.</p>
<p>same problem with me. people are thinking that i got into stanford simply because i'm filipino, or because of my hispanic last name. but filipinos are regarded as asian as well. people are just jealous i think</p>