<p>In fact, I just want to skip that whole section on my application and keep admissions officers wondering.</p>
<p>Is it better to check that you're an over-represented ethnic group, like caucasian/asian etc., or is it better to leave it blank?</p>
<p>I'm leaving it blank. If you have an Asian sounding last name, you may as well check it - they can usually tell and will just see that you're trying to bypass AA...</p>
<p>I have a clearly white last name, but am not checking any boxes. Whether they care or not, I want to keep them wondering and convey the message that my race shouldn't matter.</p>
<p>If you're white, check that, it's neither going to help nor hurt.
If you're Asian... you can leave it blank, but it only makes sense if e.g. your name does not sound Asian.</p>
<p>chances are that they assume you're white if you leave it blank, especially if you have a white sounding name. If you have an asian sounding name, they'll probably be able to figure that out as well whether or not you leave it blank. So I doubt it will really make much of a difference, and you're ethnicity most likely will never be the deciding factor between admission and rejection.</p>
<p>If you're Asian with an Asian sounding name (like me), just CHECK THE BOX. I mentioned my Asian-ness in my essays, my teacher recs mentioned that I was Asian, there was a picture of me looking very Asian... and I was tired of being admissions insecure about my ethnicity. </p>
<p>Same thing if you're white.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
So I doubt it will really make much of a difference, and you're ethnicity most likely will never be the deciding factor between admission and rejection.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Then why are Asians worried? Are you really sure that the ADCOMs will not bypass an Asian if there is a non-Asian candidate with same stats and supporting stuff (recs, ECs, etc) of similar caliber?</p>
<p>you could always click unclassified or other...they're not going to hunt you down, unless you put NAmer and you're asian, or put you're black when you're white, ect ect...</p>
<p>"you're ethnicity most likely will never be the deciding factor between admission and rejection." </p>
<p>Correct. No <em>one</em> thing is overly weighted one way or another for admissions. If you're not accepted, it won't be <em>because</em> you are Asian. And if anyone has told you differently, they frankly don't know what they're talking about.</p>
<p>The whole profile of the student is looked at, with diversity one of the secondary factors, not the primary. Non-acceptance of any student is due either to not meeting GPA/score/e.c./essay/application/interview standards, OR for being quite similar (including regionally) in a whole variety of ways, to the pool of applicants.</p>
<p>I am starting to hope there will be a trend for kids with this issue to move somewhere else where they ARE a minority. sheesh.</p>
<p>Or, better yet, to apply to schools other than the same old TOP 20 in USNWR...</p>
<p>I have a friend who's 100% black and her last name is Lee.
thank god she didn't leave it blank,:P</p>
<p>I saw something that says if your Asian they take 50 points off your SAT, if your white its nothing, if your hispanic you get 170, if your black you get 230, and if your legacy you get 180 points.</p>
<p>I really think asians get it the worst, they are by far the hardest working, but because others arent smart enough or dont have the grades the smart ones get penalized for it.</p>
<p>You saw/heard wrong.</p>
<p>Pure nonsense.</p>
<p>Not to mention, there's no monopoly on hard work, by any race. Your post is full of stereotypes & misinformation.</p>
<p>I don't think it's nonsense, it's true at top universities
<a href="http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/tje/espenshadessqptii.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/tje/espenshadessqptii.pdf</a></p>
<p>it's affirmative action implementation in university admission
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States</a></p>
<p>"You saw/heard wrong.</p>
<p>Pure nonsense."</p>
<p>Ummmm, you're wrong, dead wrong.</p>
<p>Thanks you for brigning that up chaoses, let me just c&p the text since some might not glean the info from the links you provided.</p>
<p>***A 2005 study by Princeton sociologists Thomas J. Espenshade and Chang Y. Chung compared the effects of affirmative action on racial and special groups at three highly selective private research universities. The data from the study represent admissions disadvantage and advantage in terms of SAT points (on the old 1600-point scale):</p>
<p>Blacks: +230
Hispanics: +185
Asians: –50
Recruited athletes: +200
Legacies (children of alumni): +160***</p>
<p>
[quote]
***A 2005 study by Princeton sociologists Thomas J. Espenshade and Chang Y. Chung compared the effects of affirmative action on racial and special groups at three highly selective private research universities. The data from the study represent admissions disadvantage and advantage in terms of SAT points (on the old 1600-point scale):</p>
<p>Blacks: +230
Hispanics: +185
Asians: –50
Recruited athletes: +200
Legacies (children of alumni): +160***
[/quote]
</p>
<p>haha wow. That's like implying that white people are the normal standard and ranking the other races on the level of intelligence based off of that.</p>
<p>::sigh:: With my non-Asian sounding last name, I shouldn't have checked off that box, but too late now :]</p>
<p>Anyone who thinks that race isn't a factor in college admissions is in denial.</p>
<p>anyone who thinks that race isn't a factor in college admissions is either ignorant, or just trying to spread misinformation.</p>
<p>Anyone who thinks that citing a provenly unscientific "study" is "evidence" of racial bias in admissions, is perhaps not ready for college-level science. As has been demonstrated by many posters in the sciences on CC, the "study" proved nothing. It extracted actual scores, by racial group, limited only to accepted students. There was no "requirement" that students actually present with a certain score level in order to gain admission. The study was self-serving & tautological at its core. With limited data (including zero data about statistics for rejected students, by race), no conclusion could be drawn except one: the range & averages of scores, by racial group, among those accepted.</p>
<p>Claims of "bias" are fabrications which distort the fact that standardized test scores are not the most important application ingredient for U.S. colleges. The subject has been debated to death on CC. Most elite universiities are underwhelmed by high -- & perfect-- scores -- unless accompanied by commensurate evidence of exceptional academics in many
different ways. And the evidence of <em>that</em> are the many non-Asian perfect scorers rejected every admission cycle by those same Elite U's.</p>
<p>the study may not be clear evidence but it is definitely not bias and it represents very well since it was taken from 124,374 applicants based on SAT scores, race, athletic, legacies, ** and other variables**. What makes a research study by Princeton professors unscientific? </p>
<p>CNN calls 10,000 households to see how many people are watching a certain tv show and used that as a representation of the nation (with + - certain (very low) percentage). How can 124,374 not enough for the # of college applicants (which is less than the nation's population)? BTW they did not use the ones they didn't call to determine who's watching who's not.</p>