<p>It’s easy to look at a CC thread and see that an 2350 was declined, while an 1890 got the admit. But that’s just looking at the superficials that show on a thread. Or some example we know of, locally. Then our imaginations take off. </p>
<p>Generic apps are also unappealing- the Bates article mentioned the “Why Us?” and how, but for one paragraph, the kid could be applying anywhere. Happens more than one would think. What would folks propose be done with kids who, in multiple respects, are not “appealing,” other than stats? The kids who achieved impressively in academics, but it ends there? Or the kids who reveal some convoluted thinking or judgment?</p>
<p>I just don’t know what to say to you argbargy.</p>
<p>Let’s look at it this way: 94% of those who want to go to Harvard are not going to be admitted. I don’t think this is a particularly anti asian stance on their part, though I could be wrong.</p>
<p>For me, the lottery system levels the playing field. No one is advantaged because of their race; nor because they had the resources to hire a college consultant to paint a desired picture on the application; nor because their mom was friends with the teacher recommender; nor because their heavily edited quirky essay was especially appealing to an adcom; etc… Everyone has an equal chance of getting in because they are more than qualified.</p>
<p>FWIW, my kids did not apply to Harvard nor Yale nor Princeton. They are both happily attending their first choice schools so I have no dog in this fight.</p>
The facts on the ground suggest that Harvard isn’t profoundly anti-Asian, because it admits Asians at a rate far greater than their proportion of the population. It is possible, though, based on the same facts, that authorities at Harvard, either deliberately or unconsciously, believe that there is some proportion of Asians that would be “too many,” and that they keep the level below that. We know that they in fact did this with Jews in the past, and we pretty much know that they do this with women now to maintain gender balance. [Please note that this is DIFFERENT from trying to get more of some underrepresented group.] But as noted above, there is really no evidence that Harvard is doing this beyond the admissions numbers and stats, and there are some pretty good explanations based on demographics for some of those numbers that don’t require any bias.</p>
<p>So what do you do? The Jian Li investigation went nowhere, so apparently they weren’t able to find any evidence against Princeton.</p>
<p>Harvard had another similar lawsuit in early 2012. As fast as it got publicity, the plaintiff rescinded it. The Fisher case is interesting because UTA does take the top % and only looks to other factors for that outer ring. That’s apparently where Fisher fell-?</p>
<p>This isn’t a popular stance, but ime each kid is initially only contending against himself. A lot can be forgiven, but how the kid chooses to present himself is a matter of his choices, what he tells and shows, whether he can determine what’s relevant and what’s TMI.</p>
<p>If the hs years are the first ring of fire, the CA is then the next. What a kid sends is what he sends. Adcoms can’t reinterpret in the way a hs teacher might, based on knowing the kid, over time. They get what they get.</p>
<p>We saw similar attitudes here yesterday. The asian kids surely wouldnt want to go to an institution full of Asians would they? We are saving them from themselves.</p>
<p>90 years ago. Another world. Different consciousnesses, different definitions of competition. Far less desire for diversity. Far more easy labels.</p>
<p>argbargy, again the difference is that there is clear evidence that Harvard specifically wanted to limit the number of Jews because it thought too many Jews would taint Harvard. Where is the evidence that anybody at Harvard thinks that about Asians? Granted, they might think that. But the only evidence of it is that Asians are admitted at “only” four times their proportion of the population, instead of something higher. That, as far as I know, is the only evidence.</p>
<p>But the playing field can never be truly leveled. The kid who is the product of a single mother and who attends a poor urban school and can’t participate in EC’s because he’s got to babysit his younger siblings simply isn’t on the same playing field as the kid who attends an elite private school and has parents who have the money and discretionary income to hire coaches, counselors, drive him around to EC’s and so forth. Adcoms are more than aware than that, so they judge the kids in the context of what they were handed. Which sometimes leads to 2000’s getting into where 2350’s don’t. It’s as simple as that.</p>
<p>Moreover, wanting a broader diversity than the extracurriculars that some Asian parents tend to desire their children pursuing (the stereotypical math / science / tennis / violin) is not inherently an anti-Asian stance, either. It is also not anti-Asian that they want kids from South Dakota and Wyoming where not a lot of Asian students tend to live. Not a lot of Jewish students live in those places either, but you don’t see them complaining that it’s anti-Jewish.</p>
<p>The missing pieces are what causes the suspicion. If Harvard does not disclose the numbers to plug into the formula that PG set out, Harvard’s decisions have no checks and balances.</p>
<p>Those arguments may be a substitute for “the white kids surely wouldn’t want to go to a majority-minority school” (or more like their parents would not let them go there) or “the [mostly white, older, and probably more socially conservative] donors wouldn’t want to donate to a majority-minority school”, which are probably not arguments that would receive a favorable reaction politically if mentioned in public.</p>
<p>And all of the Ivies just happen to admit them at exactly the same rate, +/- a couple of percent. And that number has been converged at over the past decade at a time when the Asian population among the rising seniors has been growing. Its all counter intuitive.</p>
<p>The thing that gets me is this assumption that there is something undesirable about Asians. Something so awful that it makes them a target. These schools cannot accommodate every Asian, every white, orange, purple. What’s so wrong with Asians, in particular? Nothing. It all starts with- each kid reviewed his own package of merits, what he chose to do with his life and how he presents it.</p>
<p>I need to clarify my experience: these stereotypical low SES kids who have to babysit, etc- there are plenty who do do the EC’s, take the bus to a better school or to DE, get involved intheir communities on a substantial level, are in hs activities, have hs leadership roles, etc. They are touchingly great kids- and achievers. Even in the worst of circumstances. It’s tricky to assume all the diversity kids are empathy admits.</p>
This is a sensible argument–but the lack of a “smoking gun” at any selective college in the U.S. really weakens it. Indeed, your theory almost requires there to be a conspiracy among the Ivies–something that’s awfully hard to maintain these days.</p>
<p>To the topic title question which in all these posts hasn’t been directly addressed as far as I’ve read:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d answer, Ivy League admissions are not at all corrupt…unless there is some evidence that individual counselors are taking money or favors (personally) to let in certain kids.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you are addressing me I’d refer you back to my post which posed a question, didn’t promote an attitude. And that led to a few pages of discussion about HBCs and schools full of white kids and and colleges with few women. None of that is evidence that Ivies are deliberately limiting Asian enrollment, it is evidence that CC folks like to type a lot.</p>
<p>But there IS no formula. And the very existence of a formula would mean that you’d now have a gazillion kids being “pushed” into what they thought the formula meant – student government, lead in the school play, editor of the newspaper, etc. Isn’t it abundantly clear that what the Ivies DON’T want are kids who explicitly molded their lives around trying to guess what the Ivies wanted and contorting themselves to fit those characteristics come hell or high water?</p>