<p>The study is badly phrased so as to mislead. People at top universities aren't adding or subtracting ANYTHING to ANYONE'S SATs. They are saying its an equivolency, but they only created that equivolency to support their anti-affirmative-action viewpoint.</p>
<p>Yes, its no new information that African-Americans, Latinos and Native Americans are given a bump in admissions for the purposes of creating diversity. </p>
<p>What else is new?</p>
<p>it's not about new or old, some people wanna know if it is true, i just point that out. It might be old to you, it might be new to others. This might or might not hurt asians in admission but it helped other minorities. what the study says is affirmative action takes spots from one segment of minority to give to the other segments, in general. In my opinion, affirmative action should be applied to low income families or immigrants without as much opportunities, and not based on race.</p>
<p>yes i've that there are people (non-asian) with really high scores who get rejected at top schools. But i have never seen any real cases (that doesn't mean it doesn't exist)</p>
<p>"What makes a research study by Princeton professors unscientific?"</p>
<p>When the design of the study is not scientifically authentic. When the data (esp., reciprocal, comparative data -- a key important element in the outcome of the above study) is incomplete, missing, etc.</p>
<p>maybe epiphany just knows about science/research/studies much much more than all those professors/experts from Princeton University!</p>
<p>epiphany
[quote]
"What makes a research study by Princeton professors unscientific?"</p>
<p>When the design of the study is not scientifically authentic. When the data (esp., reciprocal, comparative data -- a key important element in the outcome of the above study) is incomplete, missing, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First you said that there's not such thing, pure nonsense. Then when I gave you data, you said there's not enough. Chances are if you already don't believe in something, you tend to think that way and don't want to accept it. I'm not trying to convince you or change your way of thinking, you have your own, which is good.</p>
<p>All i'm saying is those are not nonsense, those are not bias, if the studies are nonsense they would not last very long up in wikipedia (where people can be educated). There IS, in fact, enough data about those who got rejected. If you look at the pdf link back on page 1. In there, it says there are 124,374 applicants in this experiment. That is more than enough. Also there are tables showing the numbers of students (by race/athletic/legacy) applied and the numbers of those who got accepted. By doing the math, you will obviously know the numbers who got rejected (from each race and overall).</p>
<p>Directly from the pdf file: a real-world "experiment" shows correlation with the Princeton professors experiments.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A final test comes from a real-world "natural experiment". The Board of Regents for the University of California system voted in 1995 to eliminate affirmative action in higher education. This decision was reinforced in November 1996 by a statewide vote in favor for Proposition 209. Impacts on graduate programs took effect with the fall of 1997 entering classes. Effects on admission to undergrad programs were delayed until the fall of 1998. The impacts are striking. Compared to the fall of 1996, the number of underrepresented minority students admitted to Berkeley Boalt Hall Law School for fall 1997 dropped 66 percent. African-American applicants were particularly affected as their admission numbers declined by 81 percent from 75 to 14, but acceptances of Hispanics also fell by 50%. None of the 14 admitted African-American students chose to enroll. Of the 55 minority students admitted, only 7 enrolled. Similar impacts were felt at law schools at UCLA and UC-Davis.</p>
<p>Numbers at the undergrad level mirrored those in graduate programs. At Berkeley, just 10% of undergrad students admitted for fall of 1998 were underrepresented minority students compared with 23 percent admitted in previous year. The largest declines occurred among African Americans, whose admission numbers fell by 66% between 1997 and 1998. Admission to the undergrad College of Letters and Science at UCLA was similarly affected. Acceptance rates for African American fell from 57% in 1997 to 31% in 1998. Those for Hispanics declined from 51 to 30%. These declines were offset by small increases in admission rates for Asian Americans. In general, our simulation results are in very good agreement with the CA experience.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In my opinion I think affirmative action should be applied for low income families or poor immigrants (regardless of race). Unfortunately college admission takes race into account. Suck it up and live!</p>
<p>
[quote]
maybe epiphany just knows about science/research/studies much much more than all those professors/experts from Princeton University!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>maybe ur right, maybe i should not argue and ignore him/her.</p>
<p>Race is a factor due to AA, but there are so many other variables involved that no person can say "I was rejected because I was Asian" or "He only got in because he was black."</p>
<p>124,374 applications were not read. Admissions decisions are qualitatitvely determined, ultimately, and have been for quite some time. This is not a new development, let alone a conspiracy against Asians. Quantitative <em>elements</em> of an application are considered in the overall qualitative determinations, and scores themselves are not the only aspect of quantatitve factors.</p>
<p>The "authors" of the study did not have access to the confidential records that are critical in making these admissions decisions. The data was incomplete, AND the manner used to extract the information that was supposedly so "conclusive", was inappropriate & insufficient.</p>
<p>Plenty of profesors of renown institutions, as well as plenty of authors of scientific articles, have engaged in ill-conceived exercises and poor experimental design. This is also nothing new. Have an agenda? Hey, create an artificial "study." </p>
<p>Oh, and we all know that internet sources like wikipedia & others are infallible. </p>
<p>This is called The Big Lie. (Repeat it enough, make it outrageous enough, and it's believed.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
First you said that there's not such thing, pure nonsense. Then when I gave you data, you said there's not enough.
[/quote]
You never showed any data to support the claim. Here is the claim you are trying to support:</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>Again, you did not support this claim at all – not even in the least. What you did was post a link to a study that extended the Espenshade and Chang study. That study by no means supports the initial assertion. That is why epiphany said “You saw/heard wrong. Pure nonsense.” It is indeed wrong, and pure nonsense.</p>
<p>Read the study closely if you have to. No one is taking or adding points to anyone’s SAT. The study tries to quantify the amount of selection pressure placed on certain groups of applicants at a few schools. It even states plainly that such a study is inherently difficult because American college admissions is not based on raw numbers (which are limited in discovering how well a student speaks, paints, loves, hates, or any of thousands of factors that can be picked up in an interview or essay). Also, it claims the study is inherently difficult because the factors that control the makeup of an entering class can themselves be affected by the assumptions the study requires in order to create its simulations. Now, I know that last sentence was all hard and stuff. But if you folks are honest, you’ll just decipher it and realize that the point is critical and that it does away with all this ridiculous mess about wanting to change your ethnicity. If an American college admission process is great enough to cause you to want to actually change your race, then you have a much bigger problem than getting into a school.</p>
<p>The study is not trying to say that the schools are taking unqualified students and then adding points to their SAT scores to make them qualified. What the study is trying to do is show what we already know, that some groups are getting more focus than others when it comes to students who are already qualified. It is saying something like this:</p>
<p>‘These few schools in our study are searching a lot harder for qualified students of some groups than they are for others. To compare how much their efforts vary by group, let’s try to covert the effort to SAT points (we’ll call it the SForce). The schools are searching for qualified blacks with an SForce of 230. The effort for athletes is 200. For Hispanics it is 185. For legacies it is 160. The effort for whites is marginal because qualified whites abound. And when it comes to Asians, the Sforce is –50 because they get so many qualified Asians they don’t have to search at all. If we remove the Sforce, the effect will be that colleges will almost completely overlook the qualified blacks and hispanics who enter the applicant pool. Asian numbers will go up about 5% because there are so many of them entering the pool. White numbers will basically remain stagnant.'</p>
<p>I personally don’t like what is happening to UC Berkeley. I don’t like it for the same reason I don’t like what has happened at Howard U (though, of course the history is different and understandable here. Even Howard is now trying to diversify its student body. Which is a fine thing). I think a school that is so overrun by students of one race that it leaves no room for a substantial presence of other races, makes for a pretty dull school. Overall, I think the educational experience at such schools is inferior.</p>
<p>I think we should keep the Sforce because without it, the schools will lose qualified blacks and hispanics. Since the blacks and hispanics are already qualified, academic quality does not suffer because the only thing the Sforce does is hunt down qualified people from the least represented groups. It takes race into account, but not only race. It could work for Asian Idahoans as well as it could for black New Yorkers. That the required Sforce is so high for blacks relative to Asians is a measure of how much of a problem education is for some groups compared to others. Where blacks are concerned, the problem is deeply rooted in history.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh, and we all know that internet sources like wikipedia & others are infallible.
[/quote]
Oh. It isn't? I mean, it has its own domain and everything! And it looks pretty good too. Are you sure you're right here? :)</p>
<p>Quote:"The "authors" of the study did not have access to the confidential records that are critical in making these admissions decisions. The data was incomplete, AND the manner used to extract the information that was supposedly so "conclusive", was inappropriate & insufficient.</p>
<p>Plenty of profesors of renown institutions, as well as plenty of authors of scientific articles, have engaged in ill-conceived exercises and poor experimental design. This is also nothing new. Have an agenda? Hey, create an artificial "study." "</p>
<p>Exactly, epiphany!</p>
<p>we all know you're much smarter and know more than the professors/experts from Princeton University, one of the top universities in the world!</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You keep implying that Asian-Am applicants have nothing on their applications except for high grades/scores - when studies have shown that the extracurricular activities of Asian applicants are NO different from that of their white counterparts.</p>
<p>
[quote]
124,374 applications were not read. Admissions decisions are qualitatitvely determined, ultimately, and have been for quite some time. This is not a new development, let alone a conspiracy against Asians. Quantitative <em>elements</em> of an application are considered in the overall qualitative determinations, and scores themselves are not the only aspect of quantatitve factors.</p>
<p>The "authors" of the study did not have access to the confidential records that are critical in making these admissions decisions. The data was incomplete, AND the manner used to extract the information that was supposedly so "conclusive", was inappropriate & insufficient.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So researchers need to analyze every single criminal case file in order to come to a "scientific conclusion" that there is a bias against BMs in the criminal justice system - rather than "simply" just looking at the data which shows that BM defendants, overall, are given longer prison sentences than WM defendants, who have been found guilty of committing the same type of crime? Please.</p>
<p>Otoh, there have been "scientific" studies which have shown people's inherent biases against Asians - like the study which showed that individuals performing an interview/questionnaire via online - when shown a photo of an Asian person as the interviewee - believed that the person had less social skills and fluency with English (as opposed to when shown a photo of a black person), even though all the interviewees were white.</p>
<p>What makes you think college admissions officers are so "special" that they are immune from these type of social biases?</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is called The Big Lie. (Repeat it enough, make it outrageous enough, and it's believed.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The Big Lie is that you keep assuming that Asian-Am applicants aren't "well-rounded" applicants and only have their high scores/grades going for them - despite the fact that studies have shown that Asian-Am applicants have the SAME type of extracurricular activities as white students. Nevermind what the Justice Dept. had found and the fact that schools like Stanford and Cal had admitted to as much.</p>
<p>Btw, I guess the bias (and "quotas") against Jews during the middle of the 20th century was also a "Big Lie" and that universities were only looking for "well-rounded" students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I personally don?t like what is happening to UC Berkeley. I don?t like it for the same reason I don?t like what has happened at Howard U (though, of course the history is different and understandable here. Even Howard is now trying to diversify its student body. Which is a fine thing). I think a school that is so overrun by students of one race that it leaves no room for a substantial presence of other races, makes for a pretty dull school. Overall, I think the educational experience at such schools is inferior.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So schools that have a student body where whites make up 70%+ are any better (btw, the Asians are still a "minority" at Berkeley at 41% and they are much more diverse than many other groups)?</p>
<p>It has nothing to do with race; rather it's immigrant status. In general, the asians who have been "white-washed" and are essentially white on the inside, asian on the outside tend to have lower grades (by a small margin) than the asians who are first-generation. Not that it matters, because the whole thing is so stupid, and if a college sees an asian applicant with a 2200 SAT and a black applicant with the same score, although they both may be good applicants vying for one space, the black one will be chosen.</p>
<p>No one's saying that AA is what determines whether one is in or not, but it's what certainly bumps people from the deferred pile to the acceptances, or in RD, from the wait-list to the acceptances.</p>
<p>k&s, you continue to misrepesent my statements, & grossly so. I have never made any such "assumption" about Asian-American students. You are either confusing me with someone else (possibly whatever you think of the general public, or supposedly biased admissions committees, etc.?) I said that Elites want exceptionally capable students in a variety of measures, some of those quantitative measures, many of those qualitative. I made no statement or implication about any "groups" possessing greater or lesser varieties of all of these qualities. My arguments have been against those posters who claim that quantitative measures are the only, or the most important, aspects of an applications, & the aspects that determine just how "qualified" a student is. (Definitely not the way Elite U's make their decisions.) My arguments (including one you quoted) have also been against those who claimed that only the Asian perfect scorers were ever, or were recently, not accepted to Elites. Some of the evidence of this is on CC from the last several cycles: Anglo Caucasians with perfect scores, perfect GPA's, & usually very little else, or with weakness in some aspect, such as e.c.'s or the effort required for a persuasive application (by their own "guess," as requested by the thread-starter). And they were rejected or waitlisted from HYP. Yes, they could be lying about their perfect scores. But it's doubtful that dozens of them come on CC and lie for the hell of it. And given that there was a big empty in the non-quantitative dep't, that may very well have included the general sphere of "personal qualities." </p>
<p>It is YOU who stereotype, apparently, YOU who draw inappropriate conclusions based on bias.</p>
<p>"studies have shown that Asian-Am applicants have the SAME type of extracurricular activities as white students. "</p>
<p>Colleges don't care about this. They care rather about the role and possibly the difference you've made, & about the degree of commitment, & about whether the interest is sincere or posed. They care about that whether you are Caucasian, Asian, Black, Hispanic, whatever. </p>
<p>They don't care about "having" the extracurricular activity. In fact, this is one area where colleges have stated that they care much less about quantity than quality.</p>
<p>"They care about that whether you are Caucasian, Asian, Black, Hispanic, whatever. "</p>
<p>isn't that what we're trying to prove?????????</p>
<p>"Colleges don't care about this. They care rather about the role and possibly the difference you've made, & about the degree of commitment, & about whether the interest is sincere or posed. They care about that whether you are Caucasian, Asian, Black, Hispanic, whatever. </p>
<p>They don't care about "having" the extracurricular activity. In fact, this is one area where colleges have stated that they care much less about quantity than quality."</p>
<hr>
<p>So basically you are saying that Asian-Am applicants generally don't have the same degree of commitment, and are insincere about their interests, as compared to other (mostly white) applicants (gee, this isn't stereotyping at all - and btw, nice attempt at squiriming out of your previous postion that Asian-Am applicants only had high scores/grades and weren't "well-rounded" students).</p>
<p>How nice of you generalize and indict a whole group of people - and yeah, college admissions officers can totally tell by looking at pieces of paper whether an applicant is a "poser."</p>
<p>Once again - you show your ignorance, not to mention your true colors - which makes your DENIALS laughable.</p>
<p>Nowhere, in post #34 (either!) did I say that colleges only don't care when <em>Asian</em> applicants (merely) "have" e.c.'s (versus making a difference in the e.c.), but do care if applicants from other groups pile up quantitative hours in e.c.'s. Nor did I say or imply that Asians rack up meaningless hours in e.c.'s whereas other applicants do not. Once again, it is YOU drawing that inappropriate conclusion.</p>
<p>Your (previous) statement: Asian-Americans have the same e.c.'s as whites. My statement: Colleges don't care about whether you "have" e.c.'s. In fact, I specifically included all racial groups in that category, for which colleges scrutizinize quality rather than quantity. Whites who have mere tally lists are ignored every bit as much as other applicants. Read Rachel Toor's book (about white applicants). </p>
<p>You're on a witch-hunt. Go find another scapegoat. This will not work. There is no basis to your claims.</p>
<p>And actually, admissions officers can read a lot more into applications than you, and many other posters, believe. It comes from experience, it comes from verifying certain things, from cross-referencing, from interviews, & from a whole variety of instruments. There is no racial monopoly on phoniness, superficiality, or outright manipulation/dishonesty. Again, occasionally someone games the system so successfully that he or she scams it. But this is the exception.</p>
<p>Re Post 36:</p>
<p>I never once said or implied that Asian-Americans as a group or individually were not well-rounded. Not once. You cannot find such a post from me. You can find posts that describe other-than-quantitative qualities sought by colleges, in response to debates, discussions brought up by OTHER posters about how supposedly reprehensible it is for colleges to look at "personal qualities." (When "personal qualities" stretches across a wide berth, & include aspects of being a person that are cross-cultural, such as the ability to be generous. I hardly think requiring generosity is some kind of cultural bias against Asians, buy hey, maybe you do?)</p>
<p>You have a lot of anger -- very, very inappropriately misdirected at me. It is very obvious to me that you are looking for scapegoats. I think if you are so enraged about the college application process, you should, as I suggested earlier, bring this up with the colleges. They are the ones setting the requirements & standards, not me. </p>
<p>You need to calm down & read accurately. I never said any of the things you accuse me of, & I'm a little tired of your very immature name-calling.</p>
<p>Can we say DENIAL?</p>
<p>Yes - you never outright stated as such - but you certainly DID imply it in your statements.</p>
<p>Btw, I see that you have given up in giving any solid basis for refuting my position and started on "attacking the messenger" - which is the oldest trick in the book for people who don't have a solid ground to stand on.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of the 55 minority students admitted, only 7 enrolled.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's why getting rid of affirmative action is bad. Not only does it lower the number accepted, it also lowers the number who attend.</p>