I wish I weren't Asian

College Confidential Community
221

<p>...I meant "in that entire applicant group" would be hundreds of ties with the admitted students. </p>

<p>There would also be equivalencies: i.e., a fractionally lower GPA but proportionally higher SAT than another student (with reversed numbers), and where both have equivalent awards, equivalent non-academic accomplishments. Your model only works when the number of "Elite"-quality applicants is equal to or fewer than available seats in the school. This is the essential finite, mathematical reality you have not dealt with.</p>

222

<p>Fab:</p>

<p>
[quote]
It's a term devised by supporters of race-based affirmative action to reconcile their beliefs when Asians make up over 20% of a campus WITHOUT racial preferences.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The term is used when any minority group at a particular public college has a larger percentage representation on campus than it does in the state as a whole. As for the term being devised...what is the source of that claim? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Its usage implies tacit support for a quota system.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, quotas, except for top-10% ones have been deemed unconstitutional. See UMichigan case. As for support of a quota system, I'd have to disagree. Support for diversity, sure. The two are not the same. See, again, the UMichigan case. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Asians are treated like all other minority groups? Is that so? Then, why aren't they included in the "under-represented" category?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Some East Asians are considered under-represented in higher education, although it depends on the state, it's laws, and it's public college system. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Is it because they're, gasp, "over-represented?" Quotas, quotas, quotas, that's all "under-represented" and "over-represented" mean.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Both terms need to be taken in context. They rely on a mode of comparison, without which, there would be no disagreement. The word quota, under-represented, and over-represented do not mean the same. Different derivatives. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Asians are definitely NOT treated like all other minority groups.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Since minority groups have little power, Asians, like other URMs are marginalized in different areas.</p>

<p>
[quote]
What point are you trying to make by using Hawaii, anyway?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The point of using Hawaii (where Asians are the majority) is that power (no matter the majority's ethnicity) is important to the establishment of the norms that other non-majority groups must cowtow to. The point is that Asians have the power in Hawaii (micro), which is in stark contrast to the US Asian population as a whole (macro). </p>

<p>The UHawaii student population is ethnically Asian--the majority. However, test and grade averages for UH fall far short when compared to the UC system (which has a fair number of Asians). The Asian stereotype (including assumptions made by some) does not explain what is takes place in Hawaii(micro level) versus the mainland as a whole (macro). </p>

<p>
[quote]
If Whites are the victims of discrimination in Hawaii and can prove so, then they should sue.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If Asians feel discriminated against, then they can sue as well. If what you're saying is that Asian discrimination takes place, then by all means, use the court system. Just remember that the Federal and Supreme Courts define diversity (and the use of gender, ethnicity, et al.) to be a social good for the present and near future. </p>

<p>The Federal Court in the Kamehameha School case--where a white applicant sued to be admitted because he felt discriminated agains--maintained that the school could deny entry to the student (in part, based on his ethnicity). </p>

<p>The upshot is that depending on how one defines bad treatment, whether in college admissions, work, loans, insurance, etc..., all minority groups can be marginalized if they are not careful. Marginalization occurs in different areas for different groups, and unsavory treatment is not always even across the groups. For that to be the case, everyone would need to have the same experiences. </p>

<p>That is why, a holistic approach to college admissions, that considers more information about an applicants background is preferable, at least to me, than one that seeks to standardize the process by weighing test scores more heavily and not considering gender, income, ethnicity, et al. </p>

<p>Is the outcome always fair? No. There are those who a talented on the field, that have relatives with ties to the school, kids who are developmental candidates, those that have high scores, applicants from a different (under-represented) geographical area, kids who are socially conscious, those who are involved, etc... No practice is or can be perfect. If science cannot prove itself because a more complete explaination maybe around the corner, then how is it that one can be sure that without looking at the individual applicant holistically that less inequity will result?</p>

<p>See ALL the articles previously posted.</p>

223

<p>So I was qoting out of context, huh. Let see what I quoted:</p>

<p>“Interestingly, according to several sources of educational research (including my own original research from graduate school), a higher proportion of wealthier African-American and Latino students are represented in "elite" colleges than their poorer peers (meaning there are more wealthier black and Latino students at these schools than poorer black and Latino students)”</p>

<p>And the original is
"SBG - your comment was "URMs do tend to be, on average, socioeconomically disadvantaged" is an overgeneralization. Statistically, simple income averages by racial group don't tell us exactly what I think you are trying to suggest...</p>

<p>For example, according to the 2005 Census, over 8.5% of Caucasian-Americans live below the poverty line; for African-Americans, it is about 24%; for Latinos, it is about 20%. These are glaring disparities, obviously. However, when one looks at the total American population and crunches the numbers, you find that the largest percentage/proportion of Americans living below the poverty line are caucasian (as they represent over 70% of the American population who identify as one race, while African-Americans are only about 13% and Latinos are about the same...see the Census's official site for these statistics). Thus, "on average," there are more caucasians living below the poverty line in this country than any other racial group. </p>

<p>Interestingly, according to several sources of educational research (including my own original research from graduate school), a higher proportion of wealthier African-American and Latino students are represented in "elite" colleges than their poorer peers (meaning there are more wealthier black and Latino students at these schools than poorer black and Latino students)...when one looks at the COFHE schools and their financial aid data, the disparities intra-racially are evident, although the disparities are being improved upon. "</p>

<p>And a few hours later, Ad Officer added:
"SGB - I understand your point...However, the demographics I am talking about concern higher education and, more specifically, most selective college admissions. Looking at the kids who apply to these schools, research (including that which I have done) has found that there are a lot more poorer white kids in the pool as a proportion of their race in the total applicant pool than there are poorer black and latino kids in the pool as a proportion of their races in the total applicant pool. It is in this context that I'm telling you that URMs are not necessarily disadvantaged to the extent you imply. In greater American society, yes, but in the applicant pools of these schools, no - more wealthier black and Latino students tend to apply to these schools than do their poorer peers. The income distribution of applicants at these schools tends to show a greater disparity in income intra-racially amongst black and Latino students than that which exists amongst white and Asian-American applicants. I hope that is clearer. </p>

<p>Your second point is a valid one and tells me that you should go into education and public policy! Your suggestion of class-based affirmative action has been explored and suggested to politicians and lobbyists. In fact, it was a major chapter in my masters thesis (which talked about how it wouldn't increase diversity)! Today, many researchers are trying to figure out if there is a socioeconomic-based affirmative action policy that could be used instead of race-based affirmative action that would promote diversity. However, when various simulations of different socioeconomic affirmative action models were run (by Bill Bowen and Gary Orfield of the Harvard Graduate School of Education; another by Carnevale and Rose in "Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions," 2003, for example), it was found that the number of URMs would actually decrease at highly selective colleges because many URMs who apply are not necessarily in the bottom quintile of the income distribution and would thus not be included in the body of students being "helped" by the policy. There would instead be an increase in the number of caucasian students at these schools because of their concentration in the bottom income quintile. See Maria Cancian's 1998 "Race-based versus class-based affirmative action in college admissions" study if you want more detail...it's fascinating. But the point is that class-based affirmative action would actually decrease racial diversity in our colleges and thus the diversity of ideas, perspectives, and opinions we value"</p>

<p>Anyone can see my quote was not taking a few words or phrases and spin it like others do.</p>

224

<p>epiphany,</p>

<p>To clarify, my argument is as follows: no racial group should be treated differently than others as doing so violates equality.</p>

<p>I don't think that I presuppose that every group of applicants has an internally conforming profile. In fact, to me, that's one of the problems of using race as a factor. You've mentioned about how Ms. Toor instantly downgraded White applicants who fit a certain mold (ie. background and income level, academics, extracurriculars). I think you talked about how once she saw the race (White) and accomplishments ("same as 'everyone else'"), she dismissed the applicants. I believe that is wrong and unfair to the students. Likewise, I believe it is wrong for people in her former occupation to brand Asian applicants as "textureless math grinds" and to consistently rate them lower on "personal qualities."</p>

<p>I agree with you that an Asian who lists sports is not any more advantaged than other Asians unless he is a candidate for recruitment.</p>

<p>I say that Asians are treated differently than other minorities. I point out the suggestions that we should look beyond the Ivy Leagues as there are many great colleges out there. Yet, when I agree with this statement, I am rebuked because "THE college" matters (AdOfficer). This is a double standard. Why are Asians told that there is life beyond New England but other minorities are told that they can only "make it" if they attend an Ivy League?</p>

<p>Under the current system, there are already hundreds of students tied with those among the entire admitted group. Removing race as a factor would remove the "he only got in because he is 'under-represented'" mentality. This train of thought is very detrimental to those students who were admitted by their academic strengths (ie. they did not need preference to be accepted).</p>

<p>I think a university has every right to recruit a student to feel a need. For example, if a university needs to replace its star quarterback, then I have no problems if they aggressively seek a student-athlete. If a university seeks diversity, then I believe that they can do so without considering race. Geographical balance is a great way in my opinion to achieve diversity without looking at race.</p>

<p>I simply think that race should not be a factor. There is no need for it to be one. Extending preference to some groups does not make students in those groups any stronger. I have never understood how preferring someone based on his skin color "levels" the playing field. Diversity can be achieved without looking at race. Even though Black enrollment dropped at Berkeley and LA following the civil rights initiative, across the entire UC system Black enrollment actually increased.</p>

225

<p>One thing I have to agree with IsleBoy: Asians as a whole, in the US, do not have much power. I am reading The Chosen by Jerome Karabel, aned One thing I learn is that what HYP wants most is not the best students, but future leaders of the country. They want Roosevelt, Rockefeller, Kennedy, Bush, Frist, Gore etc. Which ethnic group is least likely to have a president or senator? The Asians. And it is a safe bet that anyone with a perfect SAT and GPA will never become president. </p>

<p>So can Asian become leaders, yes if they are in Asia. So Asian tycoon’s son has no problem getting into HYP (In Asia, CEO’s son is the future CEO). Ferdinand Macros’ daughter Imee had no problem accepted to Princeton.</p>

<p>You can get into HYP by merit, but you are the first choice and you are in a limited pool.</p>

226

<p>IsleBoy,</p>

<p>I'll freely admit that I cannot provide the source you ask. Perhaps I should do some research on the etymology of "under-represented." I'd be surprised if it originated anywhere other than the fingers of a supporter of race-based affirmative action who felt a need to reconcile his beliefs with UC data.</p>

<p>Does the word tacit mean anything to you? When you propose enrollment that is proportional to a state's demographics, that's a quota. Given your use of the term "over-represented" to describe Asian students in the UC system, you tacitly support quotas.</p>

<p>There are very few Asians at liberal arts colleges. I'll give you that one, even though you didn't mention it.</p>

<p>These derivatives you speak of differ by constants and come from the same indefinite integral. Over-represented is a ridiculous term. Its use implies support for a restriction, which is a QUOTA!</p>

<p>If Asians are treated like all other minority groups, then why do you brand them and them only as "over-represented" in the UC system?</p>

<p>As far as I know, the Kamehameha Schools are private and cater to Native Hawaiians. Princeton is private and does not cater to any one group.</p>

<p>Holistic is great as long as race isn't considered. When it is considered in a "holistic" fashion, a judgment must be made. How do people "know" that a student started studying for the SAT in seventh grade every Saturday? How do people "know" that another student grew up in a broken family from birth? They knew by looking at the races of these students? If so, then I need to learn their secrets so I can work for the NSA.</p>

<p>Did you even bother to read that Washington Post article? Reaching out to "average" students by encouraging them to enroll in AP classes and giving them support along the way can make them stronger candidates for admission to universities. Telling them that they're members of a preferred group does not encourage them to work harder. On the contrary, it tells them that it's OK to slack off because they're preferred.</p>

227

<p>fabrizio,</p>

<p>I have read the numerous threads in which you make the same tired arguments.</p>

<p>You must accept the fact that most institutions of higher learning in America place a value on a racially diverse student body. Furthermore, seeking diversity is NOT the equivalent of quotas. (Do your legal research).</p>

<p>Although it is seemingly unlikely that YOU are able to accept and appreciate the value of diversity, most universities and government/political/judicial institutions in America will support and promote it. That said, universities WILL FIND A WAY to achieve that goal, whether you like it or not.</p>

<p>OBVIOUSLY, focusing only on test scores/grades will not achieve that goal, so other considerations are given weight in order to INCREASE DIVERSITY, not to discriminate based on race.</p>

228

<p>No, fabrizio, I did not say that Ms. Toor examined the race, examined the activities, linked them together, & then promptly dismissed the apps. To my memory, she wasn't examining their race specifically. However, those of us with knowledge of the pattern she described, could easily identify those students as overwhelmingly (or possibly exclusively) Caucasian. She might even have incidentally made reference in passing to their race, directly or by inference. She was dismissing them for how indistinguishable they were from one another in non-ethnic matters of contribution to the college.</p>

<p>That's the entire point I have made in several posts now: It was NOT their race that made them "the same." And I further illustrated a similar example in a recent post. Were an Asian to follow OTHER common e.c.'s that were not a stringed instrument but a popular sport that students of many ethnicities list routinely on college apps, that Asian would be no more likely to "stand out" as unusual, special, etc. than if he or she were to list e.c.'s common to his or her identifying group. It's the ACTIVITIES that are seen (by Admissions) as common or uncommon, over-represented or under-represented for the campus & the freshman class, and that is a separate factor to consider from the ethnic balance itself. </p>

<p>That's why it's a particular problem for Asians. Since Rachel Toor wrote her book, Caucasian h.s. students have considerably diversified in the area of "specialty" e.c.'s for college apps. Perhaps Asians have diversified somewhat, & especially more recently, but it seems that there's a long way to go in that dept. An Asian student who is extremely strong academically but lives a suburban existence in one of those States I mentioned, AND who participates in e.c.'s common to h.s. students AS WELL AS common to his or her group of belonging, faces a more difficult task of admission because of the likelihood of duplication of the activity AND the race AND (possibly) favored subjects/majors in one candidate. It is duplication several times over, & the colleges have shown that they are avoiding duplication (just as Rachel Toor was avoiding it). As I said earlier, many of those will nevertheless be accepted. But there will not be an acceptance rate of 100%.</p>

229

<p>
[quote]
Not more racist, chaoses, but more ethnocentric - and I speak only of my experiences in Japan and Taiwan, and of conversations I've had with Chinese nationals. Those societies are simply not as diverse as America's, and therefore non-Asians have a difficult time breaking into mainstream society.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's not just non-Asians who have a difficult time. It's also Asians from another Asian country who also have difficulty. For example, endemic discrimination of people of Korean and Chinese origin has been reported in Japan. China and Korea don't particularly like the Japanese either, especially because of the atrocities committed during the age of Japanese imperialism.</p>

230

<p>
[quote]
Although it is seemingly unlikely that YOU are able to accept and appreciate the value of diversity, most universities and government/political/judicial institutions in America will support and promote it. That said, universities WILL FIND A WAY to achieve that goal, whether you like it or not.</p>

<p>OBVIOUSLY, focusing only on test scores/grades will not achieve that goal, so other considerations are given weight in order to INCREASE DIVERSITY, not to discriminate based on race.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yet, I have always found it to be a historical irony that focusing less on test scores/grades and more on other considerations was actually used PRECISELY to discriminate on race, as chronicled in the book "The Chosen" by Jerome Karabel. For example, in the old days, admissions to the top schools, including Harvard, were based on an admissions exam - where if you got a certain score, you were in. And, yes, even if you didn't get that score but came from a privileged family, you might be admitted anyway. But regardless, if you got that score, you were in, simple as that. The "problem" with that was that too many "undesirable" students were getting admitted via the admissions exam, where 'undesirable' usually denoted Jews, but sometimes also included African-Americans, Catholics (especially Irish Catholics), and other minorities. Hence, many universities began to implement 'reforms' in their admissions to examine a wide range of criteria, but generally as a perfect excuse to reject any 'undesirable' person. For example, no matter how well a Jewish applicant performed, the school could always say that the applicant was simply not well-rounded enough as an excuse to not admit him. Furthermore, coming from a rich WASP background became a mark of 'well-roundedness'. Hence, this notion of "holistic admissions" came from, basically, a desire to freely discriminate, because holistic admissions means that you are now free to admit or reject anybody you want, and if you just didn't like a particular group of people, you could reject any candidates from that group by using the 'well-roundedness' excuse. That became the basis for the Numerus Clausus, or the so-called Jewish quotas, which were not limited to Jews. For example, for a period of time, Columbia refused to admit any African-Americans. And of course the flagship public universities in the South all refused to admit any African-Americans before the Civil Rights movement.</p>

<p>That's why I am also rather uncomfortable about having universities do whatever they want to do, whether we like it or not. After all, historically speaking, universities have utilized many retrograde policies in defiance of public opinion. Flagship state universities in the South had to be dragged kicking and screaming to desegregate even though the majority of Americans did not support segregation (although, granted, the majority of people in those states probably supported segregation). However, in general, universities, along with government/judicial/political institutions in the country have, frankly, been among some of the most racist institutions throughout US history. Again, numerous governmental/political institutions before the 1950's routinely refused to hire Jews, African-Americans, or members or any other minority. Reports have chronicled how Jewish doctors were routinely refused employment at city hospitals, and so had to work in private clinics. Government monopolies such as the Postal Service hired very few minorities. And of course, obviously, you wouldn't find a single African-American working in a position of authority in state government in the South during the days of Jim Crow.</p>

231

<p>Yes, Sakky,</p>

<p>We have heard AD NAUSEUM about "The Chosen" and historical wrongs done to minorities. Let's focus on the present, shall we?</p>

<p>Most major universities today have AT LEAST 30% minority enrollment. Hardly evidence of racial discrimination. In fact, I believe you will be hard-pressed to find an elite university that has a majority student population of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants.</p>

<p>If universities were to base admissions soley on gpas/test scores, and end up being mostly Asian (or White), I GUARANTEE YOU such admissions practices would be struck down as racist IN EFFECT.</p>

<p>How about offering up an alternative to the "holistic" idea?</p>

232

<p>Bay,</p>

<p>For what reason do most universities place that value? Hmm? Are there benefits for White students to sit with each other while Black students to sit together at lunch? Are there?</p>

<p>This "value" comes from fear of political backlash.</p>

<p>Seeking diversity is most certainly not the equivalent of quotas, especially since diversity can be sought without looking at race, in my opinion.</p>

<p>It is not "seemingly unlikely" that I will be able to accept and appreciate the value of extending preference based on race. Indeed, it is impossible for me to ever support such an idea or policy. Repeat, I will never, ever tolerate the discrimination of any race. It was wrong, it is wrong, and it will always be wrong.</p>

<p>Once more, never in my life will I ever support any policy that favors certain racial groups over others. NEVER.</p>

<p>Other considerations can be given weight in the holistic fashion you speak of in order to increase "diversity." Race doesn't have to be one.</p>

<p>Also, it surprises me that the ideal of racial equality is a tired argument. I guess once you support legalized discrimination, it's hard to turn back. Props to George Wallace.</p>

<p>And that better not be taken out of context.</p>

233

<p>Bay,</p>

<ol>
<li>Focus on the present, huh? You mean how Asian applicants are consistently rated lower on "personal qualities" than their peers at Harvard? You mean how Asian applicants are advised to look beyond Ivy Leagues since there are many great colleges in our nation while other minorities are told that it does matter which college they attend? You mean how Asian applicants are labeled as "over-represented"?</li>
</ol>

<p>Ignoring the past cost us billions of dollars in Iraq and thousands of lives. I think learning from the past is pretty important, although you may disagree.</p>

<ol>
<li>An alternative to the "holistic" idea? How about a policy that doesn't make judgments based on race?</li>
</ol>

<p>I find it laughable how a race blind policy discourages "under-represented" minorities from applying because they'd feel "unwanted." I wonder if I can still find that blurb from sybbie...</p>

234

<p>fabrizio,
What strikes me about the theme of your posts is that they are very "vintage AA," meaning not only are the arguments vintage arguments. That would be fine if college selection & de-selection were mostly about AA right now. It is not. Where private colleges are concerned (& it seems most publics, too), Early AA is an era long gone. If you follow the Accepted Threads on CC, as well as recent Accepted histories of a wide variety of the public (if your acquaintances include quite a diversity of groups & regions, or if your reading includes such breadth), you will see that where the "Action" is right now in Admissions is in geographical breadth, in attention to economic disadvantage of all races & ethnicities, & in unusual e.c.'s. If there is a favoritism or a "forgiveness" of "lower" stats, it is to accommodate these 3 areas (usually), often without inclusion of any URM status whatsoever. I do not see a dramatic increase in URM admissions (of any stat level) vs. 3-5 yrs. ago. Northstarmom (or anyone else!) can correct me on this, but I see URM admissions at Elites as remaining pretty stable over the last several yrs. Middle-class East Asians do not appear to be "losing out" to URMs in significant quantity.</p>

<p>Just as is expected for Asians & Caucasians, URM’s are expected to “bring something to the table,” too. They are expected to do more than say, “look,look, my race,” every bit as much as others are expected to do more than say, “look,look my scores” or “look, look my Daddy’s legacy/donations.” Due to the supply of excellence out there, private colleges generally are in the position now of selecting among individual <em>packages</em> of excellence + contribution + balance, versus trading one person’s single hook for some other student’s multi-layered excellence. There will be the occasional huge donor or star athlete that will be admitted (<em>sometimes</em>, not always,with somewhat “lower” stats), but this is much less prevalent -- & the gap of achievement so much less now – than previously (for example, when AA was first introduced). People like AdOfficer & I think Dean J & others on CC have mentioned how much more academically competitive athletes now are within the total applicant pool.</p>

<p>And I will caution you again about the Snapshot perspective that lacks the depth & panorama that Admissions Committees enjoy, & that we here on CC might assume (from student posts or from limited personal experience). People in a position to look at “the whole student” -- such as admissions people, such as those of us in an education role – make it a habit of reading between the lines & not setting up hierarchies of quantity vs. quality. (We judge the quantity within the context of quality WHERE THAT STUDENT HAS EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATED THAT QUALITY.) </p>

<p>There were a couple of students who posted on the Early accepted threads this year that I particularly remember. They were either both accepted to Columbia ED, or one to C, one to Princeton. Both of them were very surprised (& obviously very thrilled). I was not surprised; that is not meant as a smug or superior statement, because I think I respond the way most other adults do, looking at such students. What characterized these 2 students especially was vibrancy. These 2 people just came alive, as full human beings (for their age!). They were vibrant AND unusual AND accomplished and self-disclosing and self-aware/socially aware. By the latter I mean that they were humble in a realistic sense; they had a sense of proportion about their limitations as well as their assets. And by the way, one of the students was in the sciences, the other in humanities. (Neither in the arts; being vibrant or expressive is by no means limited to those in the literary, performing, or visual arts.)</p>

<p>Achievement + “excitement” (bad word; creativity might be better) + personal attributes: What more could a college want? But it also does not mean that this is the only category of student admitted. There are hundreds of students admitted to Elites that are not as exciting or communicate as well, but are promising in other ways. And that variety is really important to a college.</p>

<p>And CC students who post about themselves often overlook or underestimate aspects or qualities that Admissions finds more significant (positively). People who state that they believe their legacy got them in can be wrong about that. There have been CC’ers who stated that (including recently) but also at one point listed the elements of their app, & it was obvious to me that admission was based on much more than legacy. (So it was a tip in their case, not a hook.)</p>

235

<p>epiphany,</p>

<p>It's quite possible that my complaints and arguments reflect a bygone era.</p>

<p>I'm just a high school student who thinks that racial preferences are wrong. The only way I can change what I view as a flawed policy is learn how to start a civil rights initiative later on.</p>

<p>I have not participated in the accepted threads here to any great extent, and thus I am not familiar with where the action was in the past few months.</p>

<p>I don't know whether middle-class Asians are "losing out" to 'under-represented' minorities. All I know is that Asian applicants have been typecast as quiet and shy students who like / have been forced to like math and science. I fear that there is a self-fulfilling prophecy where an Asian applicant who does not conform to this stereotype is derided for "just trying to be different." I believe that such judgments would not occur in a race-blind system.</p>

<p>I have no problems with demonstrated achievement and creativity, but I do have problems with personal qualities. I find it grossly unfair that Asians are consistently rated lower in that category by Harvard admissions officers. Some may disagree, but to me, it's very reminiscent of the ways Jews were treated not too long ago.</p>

<p>I don't like the idea that a person can bring diversity simply because he is of a certain race. It promotes the idea that races are not equal. While I highly support standardized test scores (), I don't think that they should be the *only factor. Holistic is fine as long as there isn't judgment based on race.</p>

<p>Based on the posts that I've read, it looks like the only benefit of race-based affirmative action is a campus that contains a higher percentage of certain preferred groups.</p>

<p>Extending preference based on race does not create a "level" playing field. I completely fail to see how it creates stronger, more competitive students.</p>

<p>(*)</p>

<p>I've read statements before on this subforum that emphasized the importance of the AP class over the AP test. I've never agreed with this. I don't have a source with me, but I remember reading on the Post about an AP Calculus classroom that had about 26 students. 2 students made As and the rest made Bs. When the scores came back, 2 students made 2s and the rest made 1s. Did they really demonstrate mastery of Calculus concepts to warrant such grades given their performance on the exam? IsleBoy has refuted my example by stating that some teachers do not "teach the test." I give my own example. My AP Calculus teacher taught the material based on the exam. Everyone in my class earned an A. When the scores came back, five of us made 4 or higher, and the other three made 2 or lower. The test demonstrated whether or not we truly understood the material. In this sense, I am a traditionalist, yes. Especially in the case of math, I do not believe that the material can be mastered without testing.</p>

236

<p>
[quote]
If universities were to base admissions soley on gpas/test scores, and end up being mostly Asian (or White), I GUARANTEE YOU such admissions practices would be struck down as racist IN EFFECT.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree that given the political climate, it probably would be. But from a theoretical standpoint, just because a certain screening factor creates differential success rates among various groups does not, a priori, make the factor 'racist'. </p>

<p>I think the problem hinges on what we mean by 'racist' or 'prejudice'. As Thomas Sowell once said, if groups of people are treated differently based on true differences in characteristics, he would not call that racism. Neither would I. To give you a simple example, smokers tend to die at a younger age. Hence, when life insurance companies charge higher premiums to smokers, that's not really 'prejudice', but rather differential treatment based on an actual observed characteristic - that because smokers tend to die young, insurance companies have to collect higher upfront premiums from them in order to fund their coverage. Now obviously not ALL smokers die young, and it is true that those particular smokers who don't die young and yet are charged high premiums anyway are subject to a windfall loss, just like a nonsmoker that dies young yet paid low premiums earned a windfall gain. But these windfall gains and losses are also not really 'prejuice', but rather a consequence of the uncertainty of statistical sampling. </p>

<p>You can apply the same thing to gender. Let's face it. Men's bodies and women's bodies are different, and so are their tastes in fashion. Hence, a man's pair of jeans are going to be cut differently from a woman's jeans. I would hardly call it 'sexist' for the garment industry to offer different designs to men and women. Similarly, the cosmetics industry advertises primarily to women, because the vast majority of cosmetics are obviously worn by women, not men. When I walk into a boutique with my girlfriend and the makeup lady wants to talk to her, but not me, is that sexist? No, I think that's exactly what should happen, because I don't want to buy makeup and so I don't want to talk to a makeup lady.</p>

<p>Now, getting to race, again, certain races tend to perform better at certain things, mostly due to inherent interest in the activity. Let's face it. Most NBA players are African-American. That may reflect some genetic component, but also reflects strong cultural predilictions as well - as numerous African-American young boys will spend hours and hours practicing basketball. When all these kids are honing their skills, you will inevitably come up with a few who are NBA-worthy. In contrast, Asian-American kids almost never emphasize basketball to that extreme. Similarly, if you look at world soccer, far far more Brazilians are playing in the top professional leagues than there are Chinese or Indians, despite the fact that there are more than 10 times of Chinese/Indians in the world than there are Brazilians. In fact, heck, I don't even think there is a single Chinese or Indian player in any of the world's top pro soccer leagues. Indian athletes, on the other hand, are extremely strong in professional cricket, yet very few Brazilians are. Again, it all reflects the particular cultural attitudes of a group of people. Brazilians as a culture greatly prize soccer skills, and many young Brazilians practice soccer day in, day out. I'm sure if the Chinese and Indians were to prize soccer as much as Brazil does, then they would also have plenty of top pro players. But they don't. So that doesn't mean that when FC Barcelona or Arsenal or Manchester United offers contracts to Brazilian players but not Chinese players, that that is evidence of 'racism' against the Chinese. </p>

<p>So let's take it to the realm of academics. The top-scoring ethnic group in US standardized tests are not whites, they are Asian-Americans, and especially Chinese-Americans. So does that mean that those tests are 'racist' against whites? How could that be? Chinese-Americans don't hold significant political power, and certainly don't have the power to enforce a 'racist' standard. And it's not just Chinese-Americans we're talking about. Chinese-Canadians, Chinese-Australians, Chinese-British, Chinese-Malaysians, Chinese-Thais, and most other Chinese expatriate groups tend to perform better than the native population in whatever academic exam is used in those particular countries. So does that mean that all of these national exams are biased against their own native people and in favor of the Chinese? How could that be? With the exception of Singapore, none of the Chinese expatriate groups hold ruling political power in any of the countries they are in. The Malays have always held dominant political power in Malaysia ever since independence, yet the Chinese have always tended to perform better academically than the Malays have. So does that mean that the educational system of Malaysia is 'racist' against Malays? How is that possible when it is the Malays themselves who hold ultimate power over that system? Why would the Malays want to be racist against themselves? </p>

<p>The truth is, the Chinese expatriate community is one that highly prizes education and academic achievement. Hence, I would hardly call it 'racist' when you note that children of Chinese immigrants tend to perform well academically. In fact, any exam SHOULD reflect this, to the point that it would actually be racist for the exam NOT to reflect it. I think anybody who has observed American education has noted the high performance levels of Chinese-Americans.</p>

<p>But the point is, differential performances amongst different groups has been a fact of life throughout world history. I doubt there has been a single time in history when all groups in a particular society performed at the same level in all activities. For example, if you want to study ancient Western philosophy, you inevitably end up talking about a lot of Greek philosophers. There was no great philosophy being created in, say, the British Isles in ancient times. If you want to talk about ancient Eastern philosophy, you inevitably end up talking about a bunch of Chinese and Indian philosophers like Confucius and Buddha. There were no great philosophers coming out of, say, Southeast Asia, in ancient times. </p>

<p>What should make you feel better is that the locus of strength changes. Ancient Greek philosophy was momentous, but frankly, Greece produced few great philosophers since ancient times. During the 1700's, the the top Western philosophy group were the French (when,before, France was never really known for philosophy) and then, in modern times, the Germans. Sure, you also had some Dutch, some Brits, some Central Europeans, and even a few Americans. But the point is, the locus of performance can change through time. The peak of Greek intellectual life was around 400 BC, and Greece has never been able to approach that pinnacle since.</p>

237

<p>True, true. If the NBA started adding on "virtual" height to Asian players to give them an advantage in the drafting process, people would become very angry. If Yao Ming can become a pro basketball player or Eminem can become a rapper, then I think that minorities can gain entrance to college without any outside handicap boost.</p>

238

<p>sakky,</p>

<p>That was a pretty complete post and very well-written.</p>

239

<p>Sakky,</p>

<p>I like your post, too. However, I don't think elite universities are only looking for high-academic achievers. That's the problem with your argument. They are looking for students who are likely to do well in the world in many areas. This may include art, music, athletics, and politics (which those connected legacies, etc may excel at!), among others.</p>

240

<p>"It's quite possible that my complaints and arguments reflect a bygone era."</p>

<p>"I have not participated in the accepted threads here to any great extent, and thus I am not familiar with where the action was in the past few months."</p>

<p>fabrizio, this is a critical point. There are very different priorities now among the very U's that have been discussed on threads dealing with this topic.</p>

<p>And it's not just "the past few months." It is the past few years that the change has been noticeable.</p>

<p>Thus, your arguments have tended to be attacking a straw man.</p>

<p>As to your resentment of the "personal qualities" category, I'm not sure why that should disturb you, UNLESS this is a universal judgment about Asian applicants, AND that judgment were proven to eliminate them from admission. It would be very hard to prove that such a general comment has resulted in compromised admissions -- at one or at several Elites. (And indeed, if it <em>were</em> a comprehensive statement, then the relatively high admission rate of Asians would invalidate the importance of such a theoretical judgment.) Many Asians accepted to Y or P are also accepted to H; those accepted also to H are among the cross-acceptees of all races who tend to choose H over the others. If someone at H made that statement, it apparently hasn't had much of an impact on the high-admit rate of Asians at H.</p>

<p>As I mentioned in my previous post, the kinds of personal attributes apparent in those acceptees are indeed important to the Elites. Are you saying that Asians can't compete with such personal attributes? Or are you saying that personal attributes should not be considered? If it's the latter, you're not going to win that one, nor is that "civil rights" material. Further, people without great personal attributes get accepted right & left by Ivies -- people of all racial & ethnic groups. But when a college notices such qualities, they often take a second look.</p>

<p>By contrast, I know a couple of Caucasians whose abundance of Attitude, despite otherwise well-presented qualifications, got them rejected from most of their first-choice schools. Some students & parents on CC have posted about other examples (for example, rescinding admission due to arrogant behavior, & these examples also were not Asian). "Personal qualities" covers a multitude of virtues & vices. I do not seriously think that such a category includes cultural awkwardness, etc. I have had many a PM conversation on CC with immigrants or First Generation students who acknowledged some social awkwardness, some difficulty expressing themselves, etc., (& they worried about that for interviews). However, it took this adult no more than a few seconds to discern that they expressed themselves honestly & sincerely, so surely they did & will on interviews & in applications, if allowed to be self-expressive. Admissions Committees are simply not that petty & biased. I'm sure that one will find one or two with undeveloped awareness or a tendency to make snap judgments, but that's why there's usually a range of age/experience on most committees.</p>