I wish I weren't Asian

College Confidential Community
421

<p>I'm so glad you guys are debating this stuff more rationally than I think you were earlier...</p>

<p>I think what is scary about the whole UC System and what will happen in Michigan and other states that adopt "merit-based" admissions practices is that they completely ignore the social factors that impact a student's achievements; they also ignore the financial factors that impact a student's achievements. Regardless of the "holistic approach" Berkeley, for example, claims, and the "local context" parameters, the UCs are really ignoring a lot of kids with potential in lieu of others with high stats. Learning and intelligence is probably the most difficult thing to quantify, yet educational institutions - including some of the best flagships in the country - are starting to ignore this. Education is, at its heart, a social science - I just don't see how ignoring problems based on socially-contructs like race is going to help solve anything more than trying to at least level the playing field on a macro level, which is what affirmative action attempts to do. I know the sociologist in me is coming out here, but I really fear for what is going to happen in states like California and Michigan in the next few decades...</p>

422

<p>epiphany,</p>

<p>If you think the candidates for admission to elite universities are competitive now, then why support the use of race as a factor? Why are you so afraid that campuses won't be "diverse" if race is not considered? Could it possibly be because some candidates are not as academically strong as others and need to evaluated based on their "spark"? Their "charm"? Their "leadership potential"?</p>

<p>To answer your first question, no. I don't know where you got that.</p>

<p>Do I think all qualified minorities would get in? Assuming that there are a lot of minorities in this nation and that they were all highly qualified, of course not. There are limited spaces. But, at the very least, in this example, everyone can be admitted by virtue of merit. There is no stigma that "he only got in because of his race."</p>

<p>
[quote]
...So, my last post was just another way of saying that the Asian acceptance level would more likely <em>decrease</em>, not increase, if non-Asian minorities became "more competitive for college" (among the Privates) than they are now.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In case it hasn't occurred to you, this does not bother me, at all. Why would you think so? Because fewer Asians are admitted? If Asians lose out to stronger candidates, that's motivation for us to better ourselves, not to whine about "missed opportunities," "denied chances," "lack of inclusion," "uneven playing field," [insert lame redemptive liberal / grievance elite excuse here].</p>

<p>With respect to your penultimate paragraph, we have no disagreement barring perhaps the definition of "high but imperfect."</p>

423

<p>"Could it possibly be because some candidates are not as academically strong as others and need to evaluated based on their "spark"? Their "charm"? Their "leadership potential"?"</p>

<p>fabrizio, what do you mean when you say that "some candidates are not as academicaly strong"? Are you talking about some URMs who are admitted with slighly lower stats, or are you talking about anyone who could be admitted with sub par stats, but great personalities?</p>

424

<p>fab,</p>

<p>"If you think the candidates for admission to elite universities are competitive now, then why support the use of race as a factor?" </p>

<p>(Answer: <em>because</em> the qualifications, among a variety of races, are strong & apparent.)</p>

<p>Are you implying that Elites are dipping into the 10% of non-qualified applicants, in order to achieve diversity? (Yes, I thought that's what you were implying.) They're not! That's the whole point. Don't take my word for it: ask AdOfficer, who actually has already stated that, probably more than once. </p>

<p>And also as I thought, you are reverting to an extinct concept: the "stigma." It's you who seem to believe that under-represented minorities get in based on race AS OPPOSED TO academic factors, not in addition to academic factors.</p>

<p>"everyone can be admitted by virtue of merit."</p>

<p>Everyone <em>is</em> (now) being admitted by virtue of merit. Exceptions (e.g., major donors) are overwhelmingly Caucasian. Even recruited athletes -- AdOfficer & other people in that role have noted -- which include a variety of races -- have become increasingly competitive vs. admitted non-athletes.</p>

<p>What part of "high but imperfect" does not agree with you? A score is only high if it is also perfect?</p>

425

<p>venkater,</p>

<p>Define "slightly lower." If it's 100 points across three sections, that's insignificant. If it's 100 points per section across three, then that's not insignificant.</p>

<p>Like I said, I view stats as an important factor, not the only factor. Essays, extracurriculars, and actual leadership should be considered.</p>

<p>epiphany,</p>

<p>In order to achieve "diversity" as many universities define it, yes - some students would have to be admitted with noticeably weaker stats. The data from 1995 (yes, I know that's twelve years ago) shows that there simply were not enough Black students with SAT sectional scores of 700 or higher to satisfy each top school's diversity goal.</p>

<p>The stigma is nonexistent? Really? OK, whatever you say. I guess you're one of those people who don't view racial preferences as an implicit assertion that "under-represented" minorities need help.</p>

<p>As long as racial preferences exist, the stigma exists.</p>

<p>So you say that everyone is being admitted by their merits. Then, the good students automatically bring diversity. All the more reason to abandon racial preferences.</p>

<p>I mean, since you clearly believe that 90% of the applicant pool is qualified, then there will automatically be a diverse campus even if race is not considered.</p>

<p>Going back to what I said to venkater, a 300 point deficit is not "high but imperfect" to me. 100 points, however, is.</p>

426

<p>"I guess you're one of those people who don't view racial preferences as an implicit assertion that "under-represented" minorities need help."</p>

<p>Let me rephrase that for you:
I guess I'm one of those people who don't view racial * balance * -- (preferences implies one is better than the other; Asians would be preferred in a heavily non-Asian campus, depending on how vigorous the inclusion policy was) as an implicit assertion that under-represented minorities need help.</p>

<p>That's correct. Admissions committees, and other college administrators, have said that they're not selecting from the 10% of unqualified applicants to build a diversified class.</p>

<p>And I may not be a mathematician, but even I understand that diversity is not "automatic" among a 90% qualified pool.</p>

427

<p>I'm just going to say, I watched the episode of 20/20 (or Dateline, Primetime whatever it was) on college admissions where they interviewed the guy who was pegged as a "textureless math grind" I must say he was indeed textureless and a math grind. He had no personality, delivered his answers in a montonic shy sounding voice and was interested solely in math. If he was white he would have received the same treatment. I'm sorry but the discrimination Asians face is somewhat founded, how many scientists, doctors and mathematicians can colleges produce? The world needs other professions. Also, colleges seek for accurate population representation in the population of their schools so the fact that the United States consists of about 10% asians but colleges consist of roughly 20% should tell you that there is no discrimination. If your asian and you get rejected from HYPS then you know what, that sucks, but close your mouth, face the truth, and go to Berkeley.</p>

428

<p>Having parsed through the responses here - I'm disappointed by many of the responses (altho, frankly, I'm not surprised).</p>

<p>There seems to be a contingent here who seem to think that Asian-Am applicants do not face a bias in college admissions due to the "holistic" approach in finding the best applicants, and "explain away" the lower admissions rates using the very same reasons that were used with Jewish-Ams applicants decades ago.</p>

<p>Let's see - Jewish-Ams make up about 25% of the student body at Ivy League colleges, while Asian-Ams make up about 17%, despite the fact that the Asian-Am pop. is more than DOUBLE that of the Jewish-Am pop.</p>

<p>Some have "explained away" such a large discrepancy by stating that college admissions boards are looking for "well-rounded" applicants (basically implying that Asian-Am applicants aren't as well-rounded as white applicants).</p>

<p>Now - are there Asian-Am applicants who fit the stereotype? Sure, but there are plenty others who do not.</p>

<p>As others have pointed out - the Asian-Am community is the most assimilated minority group. </p>

<p>At the very least, HALF of the Asian-Am applicant pool constitutes Asian-Ams who socially are no different from whites (hence the wide-spread usage of terms such as "white-washed", "banana", "twinkie", "egg", etc.) - and engage in all the "holistic" activities that a "well-rounded" student would engage in.</p>

<p>This group of "well-rounded", "whitewashed" Asians-Am applicants is roughly the SAME size of that of the pool of Jewish-Am applicants, and yet Asian-Ams (without even factoring in non-"whitewashed" Asian-Am applicants) significantly lag behind in the % make-up of the student body that Jews have at Ivy League colleges.</p>

<p>And despite naive assertions from AdOfficer that stereotypes (Asian or otherwise) don't come into play - studies have some that stereotypes do affect how people view others, whether they are aware of them or not.</p>

<p>In one study, 2 groups conducted interviews with a 3rd group - one via e-mail and one via the telephone. Although all those that were interviewed were white, the researchers, after the interviews ended, showed the interviewers photos of those that they had interviewed - either Asian-Am or African-Am.</p>

<p>E-mail interviewers who thought the sender was Asian rated their subject's social skills to be POOR, while those who believed the sender was black rated their subject's social skills to be EXCELLENT. In stark contrast, the difference in perceived sociability almost completely disappeared when interviewer and subject had talked on the phone. </p>

<p>So excuse me if I have a hard time believing that stereotypes don't come into play, or that an admissions officer can tell, simply by looking at pieces of paper, whether an Asian-Am applicant is a "well-rounded", "whitewashed" applicant or a stereotypical Asian-Am applicant (btw, there are also Asian-Ams who aren't "whitewashed" who are also "well-rounded").</p>

<p>Another study showed that names can shape or distort identity. The chances are - an Asian-Am applicant with an anglicized name (i.e. - Jennifer Park) is going to be seen in different light than an Asian-Am with a non-anglicized Asian name (i.e. - Hsui-Jiang Zhang) - all things being equal.</p>

<p>AdOfficer, btw, is totally disingenuous in stating that colleges and universities do not have what basically constitutes "quotas" with regard to URMs or other minorities. Yeah, it's illegal for them to have "quotas", but that's why they cover it up under the guise of the "holistic" approach.</p>

<p>As for the assertion that Asian-Ams do not attend LACs - Asian-Ams , for example, comprise 15% of the student body at Pomona, 27% at Wellesley, 13% at Haverford.</p>

<p>As for the assertion that Asian-Ams only apply to Ivy League schools - Asian-Ams comprise of 22%, 22%, 24% and 17% of the student body at universities such as SUNY-Stony Brook, Rutgers, UIC and UoT (Austin).</p>

<p>As for the assertion that Asian-Ams only study the sciences, engineering or medicine - 14% of the student body at FIT (fashion) and 11% of the student body at the Art Institute of Chicago are Asian-Am - not to mention the percentages of Asian-Ams who go to law school, b-school, j-school, etc.</p>

<p>As for the assetion that Asian-Ams don't play sports - Havard, for example, currently has 25 Asian-Ams on its male sports teams (including 3 football, 1 basketball, 2 lax, 3 track and field, 1 hockey, 1 wrestling, etc.).</p>

<p>Momwaitingfornew is horribly ignorant about Asians in Asia. In reality, it is BETTER to be a white person in Japan than an Asian who isn't Japanese (Korean, Chinese, Viet, Fil, etc.) - same goes in other Asian countries as well.</p>

<p>The treatment of non-white "foreigners" that Momwaiting alludes to also applies to Asian foreigners.</p>

<p>An interesting note - altho Hawaii is a majority API state - most of the male faces on the local news are white (plus, note how, in contrast to Asian males, there are multitudes of Asian females who have made it to the anchor chair on local and national news broadcasts - one sees the same disparity in Hollywood and Madison Ave. as well).</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm just going to say, I watched the episode of 20/20 (or Dateline, Primetime whatever it was) on college admissions where they interviewed the guy who was pegged as a "textureless math grind" I must say he was indeed textureless and a math grind.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wow - you're basing it on one example - how intelligent (and btw, the "textureless math grind" comment wasn't about the guy depicted on the show - but rather applicants that Golden referred to in his book).</p>

<p>The rest of your commentary is lacking in facts and intelligence as well.</p>

429

<p>epiphany,</p>

<p>Preference has no such connotations for me. I define it as "ceteris paribus, choosing a person of one race over another person of different race simply because the former is a certain race."</p>

<p>Of course, actual usage varies, depending on how politicized the inclusion policy is.</p>

<p>So, diversity is not "automatic" among a 90% qualified pool. Doesn't that necessarily mean that students would have to be admitted from the 10% group, and that without these students, the campus would be "less diverse"?</p>

<p>TheGrouch,</p>

<p>You say if this student were White, then he would have received the same treatment. I ask you, would you describe him in a such a manner if he were Black or Hispanic? Personally, I don't think you'd dare because if you did, you'd get pegged as a racist.</p>

<p>Discrimination against Asians is somewhat founded? Would you even think about saying something like that against Blacks or Hispanics?</p>

<p>Asians only choose to major in science, medicine, and math? Does the word stereotype mean anything to you?</p>

<p>Accurate population representation? Two words - quota = illegal.</p>

<p>"Close your mouth and face the truth?" What truth? You mean the fact that racial preferences are unjust, a step backward from the Civil Rights Movement, and completely against our nation's best principles?</p>

<p>The same statements were said by reactionaries when people tried to fight segregation. The reactionaries lost.</p>

<p>The same statements were said by reactionaries when people sought sovereignty. The reactionaries lost.</p>

<p>The same statements were said by reactionaries when people fought against apartheid. The reactionaries lost.</p>

<p>The same statements are being said by reactionaries when people are fighting against racial discrimination. The reactionaries will lose.</p>

430

<p>k&s,</p>

<p>Amen.</p>

431

<p>No, it does not mean that (post 429).</p>

<p>The qualified applicant pool could consist of 45%Asians, 45% Caucasian Anglos, 5% African-Americans, 5% Hispanics. Or 40/40/10/10. Or many other variations. I'll tell you what it does not mean:
80/20/0/0.</p>

<p>Lots of people on this thread have an astounding level of racial assumptions, related to qualification & ability. It seems that those who accuse others of stereotyping have an abundance of it themselves. </p>

<p>And that in itself ain't a bad reason for promoting greater racial balance at Elite Universities.</p>

<p>(Sigh.)</p>

432

<p>epiphany,</p>

<p>Drosselmeier at least clearly stated that there currently aren't enough qualified Black candidates to compete for admissions at elite schools under race-blind standards. You've frequently hinted at this but have never openly stated it.</p>

<p>I see this a problem, and that is precisely why I support programs that encourage "average" students to take more challenging coursework by giving them the support they need. AVID is but one example.</p>

<p>While Drosselmeier and I have several disagreements, I thank him for at least recognizing my support for such programs. Several other parents seem to completely zone out whenever I express my approval for aggressive nondiscrimination and outreach.</p>

<p>I pose an open question to supporters of racial preferences.</p>

<p>Are you interested in truly bettering the lives of "under-represented" minorities ?</p>

<p>Because if you are, then you'd support aggressive nondiscrimination, not racial preferences.</p>

433

<p>Am I just nieve for thinking that there is no way there are that many Asians graduating high school every year to make up 40% of qualifed applicants to top colleges? I mean, we make up 4% of the population, and most of us don't bother applying to top colleges (forget about being qualified for them).</p>

434

<p>fabrizio,
I think that was not exactly Drossel's meaning (as you interpreted it), but we can ask him.</p>

<p>I thought he meant that in a contest centered on "numbers," with an exclusionary standard, that in that respect Blacks could not equally compete. However, the same is true of most poor whites & poor Latinos & some other groups. </p>

<p>This is the way you seem to define "qualified." It is not the way elite U's define "qualified." </p>

<p>Also, I doubt he meant there were no qualified blacks. I'm sure he meant there were not enough very high-scoring candidates to make proportional diversity in admissions a reality, if scores are valued more than many other measures of ability. </p>

<p>AdOfficer has already explained the many factors contributing to qualification. And I've encouraged you to look at the evidence of results, which demonstrate how these U's appreciate non-numerical components of qualification, and how they often weight such components more heavily for admission. Examples just this cycle were a B+ Asian female who got accepted to Columbia, a Caucasian male who got accepted to Princeton, etc.</p>

<p>Those doing the selecting are the determiners of qualification, whenever those aspects cannot be quantified.</p>

435

<p>It's really annoying how stereotypical that statement is. I am not asian, but that is still very mean. However, you should just prove those stereotypes wrong. Prove to them that you are not just some "textureless math grind".</p>

436

<p>K&S...
My comments are disingenuine? My comments are naive? Do you work in admissions? Do you have an advanced degree in higher education, sociology, or public policy? Please substantiate your comment for me...
Also, where are you getting your numbers from? I've notice your comments in this (and other posts) and you seem to be spouting a lot of numbers and they aren't correct...you may have read a few studies, but you're way off-base.</p>

437

<p>there is nothing wrong about asians. but they are very science and math oriented. I am not a racist, and please dont label me as so, but i feel like asians, despite there abilities, are not, how you would say, intellectuals. i find thats asians lack creativity opposed to thier western counterparts. how many socrates and platos are in asian history? yes, there are some but not many. Asisans lack certain things. there view of the world is based more on numbers. i know this is a dumb stereotype, agian im not a rasict, this is just what i feel. i am pretty sure i have some credence in what i stated.</p>

438

<p>
[quote]
Drosselmeier at least clearly stated that there currently aren't enough qualified Black candidates to compete for admissions at elite schools under race-blind standards. You've frequently hinted at this but have never openly stated it.

[/quote]
I am talking of the numbers of high scoring black applicants relative to the numbers of high scoring applicants within other groups. As far as individuals go, there are many black individuals who are pulling down some seriously fabulous numbers. I know a kid who pulled down a 2380/800/800/780/etc. That is higher than the vast majority of Asians in the entire world. It is higher than the vast majority of whites on this planet. Moreover, his schoolwork is superior and he writes wonderfully. Even so, should we take black kids like this kid and then throw them in a race blind situation, the odds are quite good they will be lost in the mix at the elite schools (where blacks do best) because there are still a ton of Asians and whites scoring near or above them. There are even plenty of poor whites scoring near them-- whites who donā€™t have anywhere near the racial pressure bearing down on them that these kids have. In a by-the-numbers situation, the Asians and whites could quite easily swamp the group of stellar black kids, though those kids quite possibly have a LOT more intelligence, self-motivation, and just plain old-fashioned heart about them. Many black kids may merit a place at elite schools, even more than many of the other students, but because the statistical odds are against their ever getting chosen, the schools would find themselves with hardly any blacks under a race-blind policy.</p>

<p>I think this could be happening at Berkeley. I also think the idea of Berkeley getting branded an Asian school has already happened, and it is decreasing the number of blacks (and possibly will deter others in the future). I personally know some high scoring non-Asian students who have deliberately ignored the UC system because they thought its upper schools were too lopsided toward Asians, and therefore unable to offer the same sort of cultural variety and dynamism available at other schools. I am not saying it is in fact true that Berkeley is culturally dry (I donā€™t know much about the school), but that in my experience it is getting this reputation.</p>

<p>Fortunately, the ivies offer top notch education to high performing blacks, and those blacks are doing fine at them, despite the stereotype threat. I know for a fact that many of these schools have fantastic cultural variety. Should the ivies be barred from using race-sensitive policies, then it will add yet another downward pressure against blacks. There is a reason why the Klan pushes so hard against Affirmative Action (and its not because it loves Asians - LOL).</p>

<p>A policy that allows admission officers to take a look at the entire candidate, including his race, his geographic location, his socio-economic status, his sex, his orientation, and everything else that influences who he is, is simply a fairer policy than some strict robotic policy that ignores almost all the factors that define us in this country. It allows officers to see the applicantā€™s accomplishments in context of the pressures bearing down upon him (or not). It makes no sense to ignore race and yet pay attention to geographic location, gender and everything else. When race becomes insignificant so that it has little or no influence on people (like hair-color), then it can be ignored. Until then, ignoring it makes no sense.</p>

439

<p>"Momwaitingfornew is horribly ignorant about Asians in Asia. In reality, it is BETTER to be a white person in Japan than an Asian who isn't Japanese (Korean, Chinese, Viet, Fil, etc.) - same goes in other Asian countries as well."</p>

<p>You're twisting my words. I said I would rather be an Asian in the US than a Caucasian in an Asian country. I made no comment whatsever about racial politics/bigotry nor about Asian on Asian bias in my statements -- nor did I say that being Asian in this country was ideal. I was talking about opportunities available to minorities. Despite its shortcomings, the US offers these to people of all races and heritages <em>compared</em> to many other countries. I am not saying that racism does not exist in this country, only that it's better to be a minority in this country than it would be to be one in many others.</p>

<p>That part of the discussion has long faded, however, into one about Affirmative Action.</p>

440

<p>Drosselmeier,</p>

<p>The student you mentioned has better stats than I do (much better, in fact).</p>

<p>If you think he'd get lost in a race-blind system (because there are "tens of thousands" of qualified Whites and Asians), then that tells me that you think there aren't enough students who are as qualified as he is.</p>

<p>Programs like AVID do not target the student you mentioned. I would guess that he's very motivated and chooses to take challenging coursework of his own accord. AVID focuses on students who normally shy away from advanced coursework. Similar programs can increase the number of strong, competitive students from "under-represented" groups.</p>

<p>"In a by-the-numbers situation, the Asians and whites could quite easily swamp the group of stellar black kids, though those kids quite possibly have a LOT more intelligence, self-motivation, and just plain old-fashioned heart about them."</p>

<p>I didn't really like that statement. I've never said that Asians are "better." Several, and I mean several, people have straw manned me, but never have I made such remarks. I note that you used the word 'possibly,' but the statement as a whole is very afrocentric.</p>

<p>Drosselmeier, your last paragraph opens the door for all sorts of discrimination. Should I pick an atheist because I think he has respect for science? Or, should I pick a fundamentalist Christian because I know he is "committed"? Should I pick a person who has Algerian ancestry because I know he will be perseverant?</p>

<p>You see where I'm getting at. Where does the line stop?</p>