<p>bomgedad:</p>
<p>What's your point? The reasoning with kids from disadvantaged backgrounds is that, if they did very, very well with a headwind, they're probably more desirable students than those who come with a tailwind. So the issue, in the case of both students and athletes, is "contribution." Athletes contribute to winning on the sports fields. Students contribute to better or worse classrooms.</p>
<p>I have another theory. Law of Compounding and Theory of Large Numbers. </p>
<p>If you have a civilization (written/spoken/tradition) as the Chinese have that is very long and homogeneous, there is a compound factor of the number of intelligent people. The "penny doubling" illustration is an example: If the Chinese started on day 1, and the European Cilvilization started on day 2; How many Chinese will there be on day 15 vs European?</p>
<p>If you add to this scenario that the Western Civilizations had wars that encourage their best and brightess to fight and die. This already small number of smart people becomes even smaller. Plague occurences also indiscriminately killed.</p>
<p>I wonder...what would the SAT ranges be without the stellar scores of Asian students? Of the perfect SATscores, what percentage are Asian? What percentage are immigrants, first or second generation American? Is there a drop off in the fourth and fifth generation as the students become more 'Americanized'? Papa Chicken?</p>
<p>Cheers, we can't even get an accurate count of Asians in a given school. You self report that info and it is voluntary. Unless you are URM, there is little incentive to do so, and many Asians believe that it will hurt their chances of admissions. I read a student newspaper article at a school that has alot of Asians,b oth international and US, and the numbers did not jive with a facebook count. You can't always go by the name, nor by the appearance. Unless there is an Asian alert going on, it is difficult to come up with the numbers. Yes, you can get info from the parental info required on the app, and essays and references can be a give away too, but I can't see adcoms today being instructed to look for these "signs" given the emphasis on making the process fair with certain stipulations spelled out. Most adcoms deplore the those exceptions and it makes them rankle to have to admit a substandard athlete, a non stellar development kid. Even college presidents will tread carefully with recs,and every selective school loves to tell the story of the big one that did not get in. I think we need more Asians in the adcom departments. In all mly visits, I did not see any. And I have visited a ton of colleges. I have seen just about every other ethnic type. I wonder if there is discrimination in selecting Asian adcoms?</p>
<p>When we toured Bowdoin in 1999, we saw an Asian admission officer whose task (among others) was to recruit more Asian applicants. Apparently, it was not easy (because of the HYP obsession). We also saw one a three years ago at Harvard, and she was flanked by an Asian undergraduate. At MIT, Marilee Jones had two Asian students to give the student perspective.</p>
<p>Nov. 27 update: </p>
<p>Deborah Y. Ho '07 and Shayak Sarkar '07 have penned an op-ed on the same topic, where they respond to several of the points raised in this discussion.</p>
<p>Original post:</p>
<p>Yesterdays staff editorial on Asian-American admissions generated more online comments than most staff editorials do, most of it in sharp opposition to the editorials argument (or at least its argumentation).</p>
<p>As one of the editors of this piece, I want to try to clarify a few of its arguments. The editorial did not mean to suggest that Asian-American applicants are, either individually or on average, somehow lacking in admissions criteria that are difficult to quantify, such as leadership qualities, extracurricular involvement, [and] achievement outside of the classroom. Such a suggestion is patently false: one needs only to look around Harvard to see fellow students who exhibit these qualities.</p>
<p>Rather, the editorial attempted to argue that colleges are justified in looking favorably upon applicants from underrepresented minorities who exhibit these qualities. If you believe in using affirmative action in college admissionsfor the sake of creating a diverse student body, or in order to account for challenges students may have faced before applyingthen these are the sorts of criteria that make many minority applicants qualified for admissions, despite SAT scores well below those of Asian-Americans or whites.</p>
<p>Essentially, any group which is overrepresented in universities compared to the overall populationAsian-Americans and Jews jump to mind firstwill face de facto discrimination in the admissions process so long as some preference given to underrepresented minorities. What this editorial argued was that this is very unfortunate for overrepresented groups, but is necessary to ensure that applicants from underrepresented groups can still be admitted.</p>
<p>There are several related points that the editorial ignored. One was that it did not address whether Asian-Americans face discrimination or disadvantages in society today. If they do, that might be a compelling reason for admissions committees to give Asian-American applicants a leg-up, instead of the current implicit leg-down.</p>
<p>But the answer to this question might be specific to a particular subgroup of Asian-Americans. The editorial used the term Asian-American loosely; we mainly had individuals of East Asian decent in mind. Some of our editors and readers have pointed out that East Asians, Southeast Asians, Southern Asians, and Central Asians, for example, all face different sorts of challenges in the U.S.</p>
<p>Race in college admissions is a complex issue, one that is tinged by a history of outright discrimination both in college admissions and in society at large, and its one that were clearly still grappling with today. Feel free to share your own thoughts.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The speculation about personal qualities is made on an individual basis as each applicant's file is reviewed. A musician who plays violin in the school orchestra will not be seen as edgy, independent, unconventional, or risk-taking as a kid who plays guitar in an alternative rock band he formed & promoted on his own. The kid who plays tennis will not necessarily be viewed as a team player/leader, while the captain of the football team will.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The guitar example is not apt. Do you know how many high school boys play guitar in "alternative" (ie. whatever the hell is on the 'other' radio station) rock bands? Now, a jazz guitarist or a classical guitarist, that's some variation. "Alternative" rock guitarist? No, just no.</p>
<p>Are team sports inherently better than individual sports? That's seriously biased against tennis, martial arts (inc. boxing and wrestling), Olympic weightlifting, swimming, track and field, the list goes on...</p>
<p>fabrizio, there may be thousands of kids who play in these bands in their garage. But I'd give points to kids who get their act together, promote it, and actually draw a following. It shows initiative. Usually those kids have to prepare demo tapes & market themselves. That takes a great deal of confidence & organization skills. More than likely, the violinist in the school orchestra is a more skilled musician. But it's the initiative shown that I think is impressive.</p>
<p>Team sports demonstrate different character strengths than individual sports. Specifically teamwork & cooperation. All sports require dedication & tenacity. I'm not putting those sports down at all. They just are not good ways of demonstrating people skills.</p>
<p>
[quote]
fabrizio, there may be thousands of kids who play in these bands in their garage. But I'd give points to kids who get their act together, promote it, and actually draw a following. It shows initiative. Usually those kids have to prepare demo tapes & market themselves. That takes a great deal of confidence & organization skills. More than likely, the violinist in the school orchestra is a more skilled musician. But it's the initiative shown that I think is impressive.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I see I ignored the "he formed & promoted on his own." If the guitarist actually did organize a band, promote it, and attract audiences, then by all means he should be credited for his entrepreneurship.</p>
<p>Alright, individual sports by definition are not good ways of demonstrating people skills. After all, it's one person on the court, the lane, or the platform.</p>
<p>% of Asian Am students at Berkely, per PR, it as 41% ! (with 30% Caucasian)
I mention this because UC Berk. holds an interesting case study. Certainly there may be a higher number of Asians living in Calif. but doesn't their Calif. state school status prohibit them from considering race in the admissions process? Can anyone tell me if this is correct? If so it may reinforce that without the chance to "discriminate" AAs would be represented to a similar degree at the other top schools. Perhaps the better questions is what % of AA applicants at UCB were admitted vs. the appplicant admit ratio at other top schools that are not state run.</p>
<p>dogs, I'm not familiar with California state schools. Perhaps they admit like we do in NJ. It's very much a numbers-driven process. In fact, the websites are specific about rank/GPA/SAT requirements for both admission & merit aid. The elites that Mr. Li is complaining about have a very different admissions philosphy, as all their websites will tell you.</p>
<p>Race based admissions are ok - THAT is underlying theme of the editorial</p>
<p>The rest of the editorial is basically nonsense, better suited for the carefully worded boilerplate diversity justifications put out by universities on a routine basis</p>
<p>SS. While Berkely is a state school, it's the top of the UC system and unlike most other state schools. PR lists it with a 99 percentile selectivity rating. While it may very well be numbers driven its not comparable to most state schools like Penn State and Rutgers. Very competetive. Thats why its listed in Marites quote along with Brown, Yale, Harvard.</p>
<p>On another note. The fact that a ball player that is Asian may be looked on more favorably than a violinist demonstrates the degree to which stereotypes are at work. Why would it matter if a talent existed it should be evaluated as any talent regardless of whether it conforms to ethnic/racial expectations. Are athletic or musical students supposed to go in another direction if their talent happens to be consistent with kids with similar backgrounds. </p>
<p>The perception that AA applicants might have to cross a higher bar than their white counterparts has merit. I've heard adcoms say that the increases in average SAT scores at many top schools is driven largely by Asian-Am. In other words a jump in average SAT scores might show that it correlates with the increase in As Am students and/or their stats. While it may not be overt we have seen this occur over generations to many minorities. That there might be more interest in a Vietnamese vs Chinese student is just part of an attitude that if your family and culture strongly supports your achievements that makes you less worthy.This is a tough subject. I personally feel if all things are equal a college can and should go right ahead and balance decisions with an overall diverse population as the goal. However, a student or society has a right to question that to keep it in check if it slants toward the realm of discrimination and where does that line occur? I do not know. Our society will continue to struggle with this issue which is not black & white but has many shades of grey.</p>
<p>I know of one Chinese-American student who was recruited by a UC school for tennis. His dad was very happy that his son got a free ride, at least at the beginning. A couple of years later, they found that practicing three hours a day plus playing in tournaments on a regular basis was rather limiting academically and socially.</p>
<p>Do the handful of white pro basketball players get an edge because if it's all based on talent the team might be all African American? Must a student reject pursuing an interest that many of their cultural peers engage in and value because it won't get them as far as choosing something against the stereotype? Why can't it be OK if a hundred As Am kids play piano anymore than it is for white soccer player applicants? Should girls, that now represent 60% of college students and within this generation will equal boys in Law schools, still get female specific scholarships? Can a girl get an edge over a boy at MIT or RPI, a Muslim over a Jew at Brandeis, a caucasian at Howard? a Jew over a Christian at BC,or a boy over a girl at Vassar? What about our biggest affirmative action, hah, variable, called legacies and the equally or more qualified candidates that lose a spot because of their edge? Aren't most legacies at top schools white and therefor take away from the goal of diversity? Why not eliminate them?</p>
<p>While the teen filing a law suit may or may not have merit based on his specific situation I think its a good thing to challenge this process just as Jews, women, African Americans and others have needed to in the past. It keeps the "slight edge" one might or might not receive from turning into outright favoritism or discrimination. These are interesting times. I look forward to seeing how our society struggles through this and hopefully comes out the better for at least having this discourse.</p>
<p>A student should not reject an interest in order to get admitted into a particular school. My own motto has been to choose the school that fits the child, not make the child fit the school. </p>
<p>A student must be aware that orchestras do not need dozens of pianists. He and his parents may still opt for him to learn to play the piano as opposed to the tuba, French horn, or some other instrument (disclaimer: my own kid learned to play the piano and stuck with it in spite of being told by a HYP interviewer that he'd be better off learning to play the oboe--he did not apply to HYP anyway). </p>
<p>Is it discrimination to choose to recruit someone with a needed skill oversome else with perhaps better stats but with a skill that is not needed? Is a coed college justified in seeking to achieve gender balance or should it admit only on the basis of academics? Should a liberal arts college accept students who are going to major principally in a couple of fields, say, pre-med and economics. or should it try to bring in students with different prospective majors? These are hard questions. Years ago, profs in a small department at an Ivy tried to get the adcom to admit more students into their department. They claimed that too many applicants were headed for economics. They were very disappointed that the adcom did not heed their plea and claimed....discrimination. Yup. Not racial discrimination, of course, but favoritism towards students who were more likely to be future donors (their own department not likely to generate future millionnaires)</p>
<p>Great example. I'd love to listen in on the conversation when they try to discern which candidate may be a future donor.</p>
<p>In this case, they didn't. They just assume that an econ major is more likely to be well off than someone with a degree in Celtic literature or classics, or Sanskrit. At least that'w what the disgruntled profs told me. I have no idea what the adcom thought, and the profs were not privy to its deliberations, either. It is entirely possible that the econ applicants had better stats than the future Sanskrit, Celtic, classics majors had. But the profs felt they needed to stick up for their specialty and also felt that too many econ majors made for a very lopsided student population, and that was inimical to the spirit of a liberal arts school.</p>
<p>As for prospective donors, it's not difficult. That's what development offices are for.</p>
<p>
[quote]
SS. While Berkely is a state school, it's the top of the UC system and unlike most other state schools. PR lists it with a 99 percentile selectivity rating. While it may very well be numbers driven its not comparable to most state schools like Penn State and Rutgers.
[/quote]
I know it's more competitive than most state schools. The question is, does it practice stat-driven or holistic admissions. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Why would it matter if a talent existed it should be evaluated as any talent regardless of whether it conforms to ethnic/racial expectations.
[/quote]
It matters, because as marite & many of us have said, it depends on what colleges WANT & NEED. Violinists are a dime a dozen. Athletes who can compete at top levels are much rarer. Classical music is a hugely poplular EC amongst Asian kids. WHy is it any surpise that it won't turn heads & impress adcoms? That goes for violinists of ALL races. Many of the kids who are rejected call it racism, yet overlook the colleges' needs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are athletic or musical students supposed to go in another direction if their talent happens to be consistent with kids with similar backgrounds.
[/quote]
No. Just don't expect the common EC to be a hook.</p>