<p>
</p>
<p>OMG… you mean it is NOT the only school in the country. Okay, but it’s the only school that can guarantee your off spring will become a magical, mystical success with a choir of angels singing in a cloud above them for the rest of their existence on the meager planet. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or maybe it did accomplish its goal: Li got into Harvard as a transfer from Yale.</p>
<p>I know that sounds cynical, but if he had another, more altruistic goal in mind, why didn’t Li share the progress and outcome of the investigation with the public or the Asian-American community?</p>
<p>But another question we MIGHT want to ask is whether there is ever a situation where ‘holistic’ admissions might be a fig leaf for something else – namely reverse discrimination, and we might want to ask whether there’s ever a situation where “having a diverse student body” shouldn’t be the major factor in creating a student body.</p>
<p>In our home state of Virginia, there is an ongoing debate about our magnet schools – Presumably if you have a magnet school (Governor’s school) for science and technology, then math and science prowess should be the number 1 criteria for stocking the school with students. If the goal is to produce scientists, then diversity should be secondary to that goal, not primary. </p>
<p>Similarly, if you have a school for music, then presumably you’d want the best musicians. (Musicians that I have met sometimes make derisive remarks about an ‘affirmative action orchestra’ asking who would ever want to go to a concert of musicians who had been chosen for diversity rather than for musical skill.) </p>
<p>I’d argue that the use of quotas in these two situations HAS to be understood as reverse discrimination – how else do you explain admitting students with lower math scores to a math school or students who are less skilled as musicians to a music school? I know that when I’m sick I want the best doctor to see me, not the one who has been exposed to the greatest number of diverse experiences. </p>
<p>I think it’s fair to argue that if Harvard is the flagship school for the United States (which is debatable), then it should simply take the best students – the best scientists, best mathematicians, etc. – unless we want America to be a less competitive nation in the future. How can we compete with other nations who simply choose the best students when we do not?</p>
<p>People also need to remember that discrimination based on race is not always illegal, such as when race is used as a “factor” in holistic college admissions.</p>
<p>The Ivies could argue they are indeed taking the “best” students, but that test scores, GPA, number of AP courses taken, and other objective measures don’t always tell the whole story of “best.” The typical example would be the kid who rises to the top in a deficient inner city school environment, but whose test scores are lower than what is normally accepted by HYP etc. With a little boost and support, this kid could go on to be truly the best in his chosen endeavors.</p>
<p>Also, we need to critically consider how tracking in done in our schools. In our district, middle school math placement tests find out who can already do algebra problems without (supposedly) having been taught algebra. Well, guess who gets selected for the advanced math classes then? Some really bright kids who figured out the problems on their own with no preparation, some bright kids who were taught extra math outside school, and quite a few truly average kids who were taught higher level math outside school. And the majority of those who were taught outside school are Chinese and Indian. It’s a free country, so that’s their right to go to Kumon and similar programs. However, this is a practice they bring with them from their home countries and one which is still not a mainstream Caucasian, African-Amerian, or Hispanic American practice, though that is starting to change. So who gets left out of advanced math are many bright white, black, hispanic, and special education kids who could certainly succeed in an accelerated math program if given the chance. They just weren’t able to do math they weren’t ever taught to do. For that matter, there are probably plenty of average and below average kids who could hack it in 7th grade algebra too, if given the chance. </p>
<p>So these selected children go on to be permitted to take the advanced science classes in the high school, that the advanced math track prepared them for. And so on. Thus, if the Ivies only let in the “best” students based on test scores and rigor of curriculum, are they really getting the smartest students, or merely the ones whose culture or environment best prepared them to compete for admission?</p>
<p>PS–This is not to say I’d agree with a lowering of standards. However, there are cultural issues which need to be addressed, in my opinion. Just this week, a public school principal told me that she withessed a scene in which a Caucasian student entered AP Calculus class on the first day and was greeted with cheers. It turns out the student was the ONLY non-Asian who qualified for the class.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, “best” doctor is not always clear cut. Some medical conditions are more or less common based on genetics. Some are more or less common based on cultural habits that increase or decrease risk of such conditions. A doctor more familiar with people with your genetic and cultural background (this does not require actually being of that background, although that appears to be more common) may be a better doctor for you. A doctor of your same gender and age may be more likely to have personal experience with medical concerns that you may have.</p>
<p>(This is not just theoretical; some people do medical tourism to other countries because they have a condition that is rare and not well known to doctors in the US, but is more common and better known to doctors in some other country.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This seems odd. When I went to school, teachers recommended some students who did well in 7th grade math to take algebra 1 early in 8th (or rarely in 7th) grade, instead of waiting until 9th grade. No pre-existing knowledge of algebra was assumed to be placed in the advanced (year ahead) math courses.</p>
<p>Here is a dare. I dare all Asian-American to stop applying to all the Ivy colleges and only apply to your state flagship public universities. My usage of the word Ivies refer to the tippy top 10 private colleges of the U.S. News ranking. The consequences will be as follows:
<p>I dare the Asian-American to take up this challenge.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If they did, there would be even FEWER Asians at the Ivies…</p>
<p>making-a-point,</p>
<p>Do you believe that there are no Blacks or Hispanics who are as high achieving as Whites or Asians? Just wondering…</p>
<p>BTW, our local UC is 50% Asian, so it looks like it’s already happening. :-)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s happening. I have met some pretty awesome (full ride and then some) 2nd generation Asian American kids at DD1’s flagship state, nearly all, needless to say, premed :). One of my coworkers’ kids passed on a half ride to Harvard for a full ride and then some to our own flagship state… And so on.</p>
<p>Left unchecked, and as one can probably tell by CC alone 
Ivy admission becomes a goal in itself, not a stepping stone to something bigger.</p>
<p>
The fact is that there aren’t that many, at least if you’re talking about standardized tests, as a percentage of test-takers of each group. I know I’m one of the usual suspects who often gets involved in discussions like these, but I always think it’s important to distiguish between two issues that often get mixed up in these discussions. Here’s what they are, and my take on them:
<p>When these two issues get mixed up, it causes confusion, because the reasons for the first kind of discrimination (which is clearly occurring) are quite different from the reasons for the second kind (if it is occurring).</p>
<p>I think there is a difference between trying to give a leg up to under-represented races and discriminating against a particular race. Like Hunt said, I support the former, and don’t think there’s much evidence for the latter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The University of California data on this subject (from a few years ago): </p>
<p>According to UC numbers*, approximately 13% of white HS graduates are eligible for UC. Approximately 30% of Asian HS graduates are eligible for UC. The UC eligible numbers for Hispanic and Black students is significantly lower than that of white HS grads. (Note, most of that eligibility is base on gpa, but some is test scores.)</p>
<p>*State residents</p>
<p>Please quit grouping diverse peoples into the ambiguous term “Asians.” For my money, I am especially happy to see the high achieving child of Cambodian refugees or Philipino peasants get a foot’s hold into an elite private college rather than the tens of business owners’ and other upper middle class Chinese-American or Korean-American families’ children. It’s not like there are tons of such unique college applicants taking away seats from the privileged.</p>
<p>^ Giving special consideration to the people you mention would create yet another class of favored URM’s. They may be deserving, but so are subsets of whites / Caucasians which colleges lump all together into one supposedly priviliged or well-represented group in admissions. This issue is exactly why so many of us think socio-economics and not race should guide any decision to lower admissions standards to aid an URM group.</p>
<p>In my mind, refugee status or spending your formative years eeking out an existence in a peasant village are socio-economic considerations that I would find impressive in a high achieving applicant.</p>
<p>I guarantee you that Harvard and Princeton (and similar schools) would say that they *already do * consider socio-economic factors, refugee status, etc., as part of their review. Part of the problem with Jian Li’s case was that Princeton said then that it didn’t discriminate against Asians, and his only evidence to the contrary was based on statistics–and Princeton said that it considers a lot more than statistics in building its class.</p>
<p>“colleges lump all together into one supposedly priviliged or well-represented group in admissions”</p>
<p>Do we know this? When it comes to Harvard and Princeton, at least, I think that first-generation college attendees/rural trailer-park whites are indeed getting an extra look. They probably do not get as great a score boost as URM students, but I don’t think the schools are looking at white students monolithically.</p>
<p>Cross-posted with Hunt.</p>