<p>I (nor anyone in this thread) never said Asians are disadvantaged at UC’s (which is why those numbers are so high). And I agree, these numbers corroborate the fact that Asians are disadvantaged at top schools.</p>
<p>If you don’t think so, you’re just completely incompetent when it comes to basic statistics.</p>
<p>“African-American applicants with SAT scores of 1150 had the same chances of being accepted as white applicants with 1460s and Asian applicants with perfect 1600s.”</p>
<p>Being Asian is the equivalent of being white with -140 points on the SAT. If having subtracting 140 points on the SAT is a disadvantage, then so is being Asian.</p>
<p>I did not address it correctly: " But the Asian discrimination problem is both real and wrong at, let’s say, UCLA and Cal Berkeley. Given the treatment of Asians in this country, and particularly in California, I can’t agree in that context that their complaints are whining. And I think it is absolutely shameful that the University of California discriminates against Asians in favor of other racial groups."</p>
<p>I am not arguing statistics with you. The mere fact that so many Asians dominate in population at top schools supports the claim that they are NOT disadvantaged. If most top schools have less than 5% Hispanic/black population – what makes you think that blacks/Hispanics are taking Asians’ spots?</p>
<p>^OHHhh, I guess I misread that post (thought he was saying Asians are given an advantage at UC’s). Yeah I agree with you about that guy’s post (UC’s don’t discriminate against Asians in any way).</p>
<p>I think top schools are doing a good job of balancing diversity with having an academically powerful student body. I don’t think that Asians “dominate in population” at top schools though (like 15-17% at HYP?).</p>
<p>Oh shut up. This is just blatant racism. You are calling me a loser for “whining” about a disadvantage, and yet you do not believe those who take advantage their race are losers. (Which they aren’t, but definitely more so than those who apply with a disadvantage in the admissions process.)</p>
<p>@speedo and techy233</p>
<p>I’m immature? Grow up. If anybody feels entitled, it is URMs who had no URM disadvantage, as they are using something which had zero impact on their lives to make an impact on their application. It is essentially the same thing as boasting about being president of a club with 3 members.</p>
<p>Thank you, Captain Obvious, all applicants to Princeton are highly qualified, URM or not. That does not mean that one applicant should receive a large edge over another for something which is meaningless. That’s called discrimination.</p>
<p>Jian Li’s research showed that 80% of URM spots would be taken by Asians and whites if the University was race-blind. I’m not saying that that is entirely accurate, or would be a good thing, but it shows that there is patent racial favoritism occurring. Mam1959 has it backwards. UCs and UMICH do not discriminate, or if they do, it is only very slightly.</p>
<p>So ideally, an Asian population should be closer to 40-50% than 20%.</p>
<p>Techy, the URM population is small because very few qualified URMs applied. That doesn’t mean that they are not taking the place of more qualified candidates.</p>
<p>The SAT score study is what I’m going by. Basically, being white is the standard level. Being a URM is an advantage by 310 SAT points, and being Asian is a disadvantage by 140 SAT points. (Out of 1600)</p>
<p>Techy, I’m glad that you were mature enough to not use your URM status since you did not feel that you were underprivileged. But I am not a whiner because I feel a little bit ticked off about an anti-Asian policy. I really am not so much an Asian as an American. I grew up in an environment where there were people of all races about me. I cannot claim that I am any one of them in particular except for my genetic make-up.</p>
<p>Speedo, I’m not trying to use my race to an advantage like people like you do. I’m trying to not have it against me as a disadvantage. I really hope that you are not a Democrat. People like you are a disgrace to real Democrats.</p>
<p>op, actually I wasn’t referring to you, I assumed you were a genuine high level applicant to Pton, who was trying to resolve an issue before applying. After reading your post it turns out you have done some research and have in fact, already made up your mind that you are going to be discriminated against. Furthermore, after reading your post, you appear to be just another whiner, blaming others ahead of the actual decision for your potential failure. You’re a self fulfilling prophecy - probably best off saving yourself or your parents the app fee.</p>
There’s no self-fulfilling prophecy here, nor is OP whining, nor is OP blaming others getting in for his/her failure. It’s just a statistical reality that Asians are disadvantaged when applying to top schools, and that it wouldn’t be a bad idea for OP to omit revealing his ethnicity on his college apps.
A false assumption. Suppose, hypothetically, 40,000 job applicants are applying for 5,000 job positions. 38 thousand of the applicants have blue eyes, and 2 thousand of the applicants have green eyes. Before factoring in eye color, the employer committee evaluates an average score for the candidates for each group on a 1-10 scale, 10 being best. These ratings evaluate all reasonable factors, including both objective factors (test scores) and subjective factors (recommendations from previous employers, resumee, etc).* The blue eyes group has an average rating of 7, the green eyes group has an average rating of 6, and the rating needed to qualify for the job is 5. However, after taking into account eye color and making decisions, the committee employs 4 thousand blue eye applicants and 1 thousand green eye applicants.</p>
<p>By your logic, the blue eye group faced no discrimination. After all, they clearly represented a larger quantity of the accepted, right? And besides, it’s not as if any group were under the qualification bar.</p>
<p>I use this example as an exaggerated illustration but an illustration that elaborates my points nonetheless. Had eye color not been taken into account, and assuming the admissions committee based their decisions upon the ratings scale they used, it would not just be logical but statistically sound for the breakdown of the employed to look more like 4,800 blue eyed people and 200 green eyed people.</p>
<p>*** - See the data table provided at: [News:</a> Testing for ‘Mismatch’ - Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/04/20/mismatch]News:”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/04/20/mismatch) . I want to make clear the point that college admission committees consider the subjective factors as well as the objective factors, and that I realize college admission is a holistic process based on more than test scores and GPA. But I would question anyone who considers factors outside of those provided in the data table as legitimate, in particular ethnicity, while at the same time claiming that racial discrimination does not exist in the college admissions process.</p>
<p>Discrimination is present in your example because there’s no reason to accept one eye color over another (and doing so means that there was some partiality involved) except for a bias.</p>
<p>However, ethnicity is not the same as eye color because there is another motive behind choosing more of one ethnicity (URM) over another (ORM) other than straight up partiality. </p>
<p>Discrimination doesn’t just mean that there’s a difference in percentages, it means that someone was kept from getting admitted is because of a bias against his or her race. It’s not that the adcoms don’t like Asians - it’s that they need to keep diversity in mind.</p>
<p>dis·crim·i·na·tion (d-skrm-nshn)
n.
Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice</p>
Well, that’s the core of the debate, isn’t it?
Interest in diversity is still a partiality. It is not a race-blind approach to evaluating applicants and thus it is still biased.</p>
Slavery in America largely began for logical and practical reasons. It’s the application of its rationale that made it biased, and similarly it’s the means of achieving diversity at top schools that makes it racially prejudiced as well. Top schools could easily be achieving diversity without disadvantaging Asians against white applicants.</p>
<p>caution - we are now entering the next phase of entitled Asian ranting - bashing black folks and re-inventing history. Entitlement knows no limits.</p>
<p>I’m Asian and I personally think AA has its pros and cons but those opinions aside I just wanted to say something that offended and disturbed me somewhat.
Speedo, you have no reason to start bashing asians like this. Your comment about the asian mothers being on their knees weeping and saying “he didn’t get in” really offended me. I hope next time you decide to type something you think it through beforehand - your comments just make you look like an idiot.</p>
<p>Well, not to disparage the seriousness of the above conversation (some of the issues brought up are indeed still very much in need of good evaluation), but let me try to answer the original question. As a current senior at Princeton, I can tell you that the current freshman class had a huge increase in the number of Asians (although these were primarily from international applicants, SE Asians). I (just personal opinion, please no attacks!) think that they only begin to really consider ethnicity/income when it comes to distinguishing between two equally qualified candidates. And, having met a few of the people who will sit on the committee deciding your fate, I know that they try to be as fair as possible in this process. As an Asian from a high income bracket, I feel your pain because it very often does FEEL as if we are being discriminated against since this is a common opinion among Asian applicants. But, best of luck…it is a good thing to be a Tiger =)</p>
<p>It’s unbelievable that people who are supposedly smart enough to get into Princeton don’t understand that Princeton’s decisions are not made on fully objective criteria - therefore, no matter how good anyone’s stats are, no one is “guaranteed” a spot that then gets “taken away” by someone else. Only someone without any sophistication whatsoever would look at an Asian kid with a 2400 and a black kid with a 2100 and claim that the black kid “took the Asian kid’s spot.” No, nimwits, the Asian kid with a 2400 was never guaranteed a spot in Princeton in the first place. Because no one is. This isn’t Asia where we line everyone up based on test scores and go down the list. Capische?</p>
<p>^
Thank you captain obvious, nobody is guaranteed to get in.</p>
<p>Now why don’t you think through what you just said and explain why a candidate with an inferior record is picked over one with a superior record?</p>
<p>so saugus if you haven’t even applied how do you know that you will be rejected? Why not look on the bright side. Perhaps you have a stellar record and will have a better chance than most other apps. Or perhaps things will work out wonderfully and you will have a great college experience elsewhere. Why torture yourself prior to application over something you
can’t control.</p>
<p>^
I really don’t know. I was originally just asking how much of a detriment to my record it would be and whether there was some way to omit my race.</p>