<p>"I guess we need an "EC's for Asians" thread since it seems that Asians need different EC's to be considered as equals to non-Asians."</p>
<p>ALL students need to diversify. The ones who get in these days are those who have done some unique and impressive things.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you think the URMs have an unfair advantage, then put down the violin and start a group or support a group that's fighting against affirmative action. Show some guts...run the risk that someone might not like you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is what Li Jian is presently doing. I wholeheartedly support him. Several parents in the Parent's Forum, however, have said some ugly things about him.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The people who have the power define the boundaries, no matter their ethnicity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've got a few gripes with IsleBoy, but that quote is probably the biggest one of all my complaints (barring the straw men).</p>
<p>His posts boil down to an attitude of, "Although you [Asians] aren't treated like a minority, you still are. Hence, you have limited power. Because of that, you should stop fighting against what you think is discrimination and either support the status quo or support a modified version of it."</p>
<p>...which I disagree with.</p>
<p>"Seriously, does nobody else find it ridiculous that a specific race has to do something more/different to get the same attention that an URM gets?"</p>
<p>I don't want to hijack this thread with my own input; I like the lively discussion going on here, but I need to comment on the above, as well as the comments about the "textureless math grind."</p>
<p>I was disgusted when I read Rachel Toor's book. By now, probably everybody on CC knows how I feel about her. I was literally sick to my stomach as I read her book, her stereotypes about Bright Well Rounded Kids (White, non-URM), her utter disregard for the years of hard work they had put in, her dismissive attitude, and mostly -- her refusal to see them as individuals. If she didn't say the word "boring," she might as well have, & maybe 100 times. She ridiculed them. She had an auto-response to every app. that came over her desk if it was Caucasian & middle class. She became so cynical that in the end she actually only wanted to admit those that had some terrible tragedy befall them -- even if that tragedy was of their own making. In a word, she was bored. (She was probably bored with her job, too; she seemed to believe that it was up to the students & their applications to give her a little excitement; so people who had "dramatic" lives were more appealing to her.)</p>
<p>In no way do I condone her disrespectful attitudes toward young people. In no way do I condone her stereotyping. But the fact is that she wasn't the only one to notice, if not a "sameness," at least a very observable pattern & similarity among the bulk of those from that socioeconomic & ethnic group. (One issue was the <em>appearance</em> of sameness; the other issue was her reaction to that appearance, her published attudes about it, & her behavior about it.)</p>
<p>But, regarding the appearance of sameness: In this same group, successive applicants began to figure out that being well-rounded in everything & exceptional in nothing was a losing formula for top college admissions. And it actually didn't take long. One could say that perhaps their parents, "insiders," if you will, & certainly non-immigrants, figured it out because of their communication lines & their aggressive research. Within a few years a distinct "niche" pattern began to emerge among this middle- and upper-middle class group, resulting in much better admissions results.</p>
<p>Ethnic stereotypes (or economic stereotypes) are never acceptable. It's just that the reality of the world is that often one has to work against a tide of expectations in order to be noticed. By no means do I have a stereotypical picture of Asians or Asian students, since I live among so many of them & since I study with them, teach them, interview them, & include them among family friends & both of my daughters' very close friends. But IF one of them does fall into a "pattern," then there may be -- for some colleges in some admission yrs, not every college, not every yr -- a need to differentiate oneself in some way, just to have one's application noticed & read with individual appreciation.</p>
<p>Columbia and Princeton have already admitted this cycle a number of Asians that some would consider falling into a pattern. And many more are to come. Lots of these will be admitted to Harvard, in both rounds. Not all, or even most, of those admitted students will be posting on CC. So be wary of making generalizations based on comparisons you know in your own lives or comparisons from very limited data on CC.</p>
<p>Back to the BWRK's: They fought the stereotype in 2 ways. (1) They stepped out of the pattern. (2) They diversified their college lists. In doing the latter, btw, they discovered how many fabulous opportunities there were for them in schools & locations outside of HYP.</p>
<p>There's not a lot of time to "change the system" once you are a senior in h.s. & have college apps to submit. If you feel the system is just so wrong, then maybe one approach would be to engage in dialogue with your school's college counselor. If you feel that he or she is open to a level of advocacy (I know that our school's is), that might be a route. (I.e., "Students [or segments] from our school believe that you people on admissions committes are ignoring their differences; the perception of stereotyping is out there & some groups feel they need to ovecome more than others.")</p>
<p>The difference between the previous BWRK's and Asians as a whole is that there is a far greater concentration of HYP-only in the latter than in the former. The <em>appearance</em> of "rejection" or "more difficult numbers" or "worse results" or "it's a liability to be an Asian" is due to the ratio of applications to the total freshman college class size, & the University's wish to have a maximally diverse class of excellence.</p>
<p>So the 3rd thing to do, in addition to the above, is possibly to come to terms with the fact that Apocalypse is not around the corner if you do not get accepted to HYP? Lots of stellar white students who can compete with Asians on every level, have had to do it. The BWRK's had to do it: the families had to educate themselves about "ranking" & "reputation," and popularity, vs. excellence, which is more abundant than the former. Even some URM's that I know personally have had to do it: one fabulous, accomplished URM I know was rejected by Stanford over an Asian science major with music e.c.'s, due to stats; that URM is at USC. It's just that you don't see all those acceptances & rejections.</p>
<p>Excellent post, epiphany!</p>
<p>Yes, we get stereotyped, but you can use that to your advantage... I sure did. I made it very clear in my essay that although I love my culture, I have expanded my interests to other (nonstereotypical) activities, and how I don't let my heritage dictate my path in life.</p>
<p>I have shown great achievement (through many awards) and commitment to the classics (Latin/Greek). I also sing, play guitar, bass, and drums, and I write my own songs. I sent a CD with my app. Those two factors, very rare among asians (not to stereotype or anything), are what set me apart, and ultimately got me into Harvard, even with a 2110 on the SAT. So don't lose hope! There are ways to make you stand out! Good luck to all!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've got a few gripes with IsleBoy, but that quote is probably the biggest one of all my complaints (barring the straw men).</p>
<p>His posts boil down to an attitude of, "Although you [Asians] aren't treated like a minority, you still are. Hence, you have limited power. Because of that, you should stop fighting against what you think is discrimination and either support the status quo or support a modified version of it."</p>
<p>...which I disagree with.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Intersting how you can assume and interpret what my attitude is. And you use a debate tool by using the word YOU to indicate that I'm outside the Asian group, when I am not. BTW, the status quo, on this thread at least, is what I'm fighting against. That is the attitude that some Asians take reguarding their fitness for college vs. others, and how there is some kind of quota/celling to admissions brought about by AA.</p>
<p>Fighting against discrimination means gainning more power as a collective, then working on diversification (for Asians and other groups). Do we organise ourselves and our peers to make a change (aside from using the same issues every admissions season)? Not usually. Most of what we do is worry about how unfair the process is, which is great intellectually, but does little, except to make us more stubborn in our beliefs. </p>
<p>It's the idea that some can resurect the stats issue when speaking about college admissions using a book like Golden's as evidence for overt Asian discrimination. Look in the OP. Scroll down. The percentages are there, yet some Asian CC'ers lump Latinos in with African Americans because there is a 3% difference between the Asian acceptance rate and that of Latinos. Notice that Golden reports that the rate for whites is 19%, and there is talk about discrimination of non-URMs.</p>
<p>The point is that Asian (and other URMs) are faced with either identifying with their group (to gain power) or be seen as individuals (which means less power to the collective), since they are in the minority. I'm very aware of how difficult this can be in the Continental US...although I am also aware that I have the choice, just by jumping on a plane and taking an excersion to Hawaii, where the population is mostly Asian to be in power. Does the Asian majority oppress whites (and other URM groups)? Yes, they do. They use terms like "Haole" which means foreigner, when they see non-Asians--even though all populations that settled in Hawaii were/are foreign. That derogatory word, maintains power for the resident population.</p>
<p>It is not a straw man by any stretch of the imagination to see, from a social, political, historic, or economic standpoint that minority groups often need to come together as a group to affect change. The problem with that is that often the individual will be seen as representative of the whole, and lose a sense of him or herself.</p>
<p>The EASIEST thing to do is to divide the minority communities by creating infighting. 'Divide and conquer'. And, it is who has the power that often defines the norm. That is, if we were not competitive, didn't care about getting into a selective college, you'd take power away from the private schools that you disagree with. Ghandi's principle of non-violence and turning anger into a positive would be effective. The problem, however, is that someone may step into the breech and take control, not that I think Asians (or any other groups) would ever give up the competition to get into a top college.</p>
<p>The thing you have the most control over is how you put together your application to college. Fixing the larger macro system of discrimination will not get you into college, or help you change the system from within. I'm pretty sure we're not talking about revolution.</p>
<p>With respect to college admissions, try not to play into what you percieve as the Asian stereotype, unless of course you happen to 'be the stereotype'. Then, use your essays, ECs, recs, and the additional info section to highlight what you love about the issue/subject, etc...pay attention to the details so that you stand out as an individual. Use your Asian status at a few schools that have small Asian populations, as well as your top choices.</p>
<p>If you love Math, Science, CS, etc...then it will show through--give teachers specific instructions for your recs that include your outside interests, ask that they write about 1.5-2 pages, and highlight your personal qualities as well as your achievements. If you don't love it, it may show in little ways on your app, that is when it will start to hurt...because you will be like other qualified but not outstanding applicants from every ethnicity and background.</p>
<p>Students would not have to worry about stereotypes if they were not asked to report their race.</p>
<p>it's racial profiling</p>
<p>and fabrizio</p>
<p>i just wanted to say that well.. a name such as Wei Chang, it isn't hard to tell that person is asian.</p>
<p>I checked teh asian box. so what? if they wanna sterotype me, then let them. it's horrible and unfair. but i'm not going to try and hide my asian pride. don't sell urself for a thick package. even if it is harvard.</p>
<p>idk about u all but i want to study then party, not listen to the asian down the hall crying about a 97 instead of a 100 (true experience). I havnt had that experience with whites/urms but I wouldnt want to be with anyone who has an attitude like that. Id like to go to school with people who think life is measured in more than just a letter or number grade.
for the asians who are an exception to the stereotype;rock on!</p>
<p>Yes, they would have to worry about stereotypes, even without indicating their ethnicity...</p>
<p>Those with Asian surnames would be then at a disadvantage vs. those that do not. There are stereotypes about income, wealth, special talents, geography, EC's, essays, developmental issues, legacy status, etc...anything that requires a judgement call involves a certain amount of stereotyping. Even being in NHS involves stereotyping because it decided who is deserving of membership. The Key Club also makes those decisions,etc...</p>
<p>A holistic admissions process can treat applicants as individuals. The problem is that private colleges can choose a class they feel would be of the most benefit to their current students and alumni, as long as they are not transgressing laws. Again, it is the nature of selective college admissions to look at an applicant in detail. Many different things are considered, but some Asians like to focus on one or two aspect of the process--ethnicity and stats. </p>
<p>Usually, the complaint, here and elsewhere, is about the unfairness of the Asian stereotype--but it sometimes fail to recognize that lumping Latino applicants (at Harvard) with other URMs despite the 1% difference in rates between that group and non-minority applicants, reinforces a Latino stereotype. Why not lump them in with whites or Asians instead? Because it would weaken the point some posters are trying to make about stereotypes.</p>
<p>I don't believe that Asians as a group don't stereotype. All groups stereotype. Individuals can choose to steretype or not as well. The problem is that some people believe that their group is better qualified with respect to selective, private college admissions than others (which can be based on various things like, stats, income, ethnicity, gender, special talent et al.). That is true no matter which ethnicity, gender, region you identify with.</p>
<p>If you want to play the victim, by all means. That's how a victim mentality gets entrenched.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Many different things are considered, but some Asians like to focus on one or two aspect of the process--ethnicity and stats.
[/quote]
</p>
<ol>
<li>Using ethnicity as a factor creates many bad incentives. It encourages some people to lie about their race. It causes others to hide their race. It results in questions like, âWell, my great-grandfather emigrated from Portugal. Do I count as Hispanic?â</li>
</ol>
<p>In addition, it fosters racial tension. By favoring some races, it runs counter to the ideal of equality. It is certainly not desirable in occupations that require mutual trust (e.g. recorded instances of white firefighters calling their black co-workers âquota sergeants.â)</p>
<p>The use of race as a factor creates a sense of entitlement. Some parents in CC have stated that non-Blacks in this nation should be punished for historical sins. Others have supported artificially reducing the stats of certain applicants to benefit others. Thus, the most destructive effect of using race as a factor is the relegation of the meritocratic ideal.
Thereâs no good reason to use race as a factor, even as one of many. I hope the current Supreme Court will definitively rule against its use.</p>
<ol>
<li>While I think that stats are the most important factor, I do not think that they should be the only factor. In fact, the only factor that I have a problem with is race.</li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
1. Using ethnicity as a factor creates many bad incentives. It encourages some people to lie about their race. It causes others to hide their race. It results in questions like, âWell, my great-grandfather emigrated from Portugal. Do I count as Hispanic?â</p>
<p>In addition, it fosters racial tension. By favoring some races, it runs counter to the ideal of equality. It is certainly not desirable in occupations that require mutual trust (e.g. recorded instances of white firefighters calling their black co-workers âquota sergeants.â)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree. If there were no stereotyping of any group in admissions, I'd have a problem with AA in general. That is not the case, as your firefighter analogy shows--through the majority's attitude (current and historically).</p>
<p>
[quote]
The use of race as a factor creates a sense of entitlement. Some parents in CC have stated that non-Blacks in this nation should be punished for historical sins.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Just like others on this board suggest that they should not. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Others have supported artificially reducing the stats of certain applicants to benefit others. Thus, the most destructive effect of using race as a factor is the relegation of the meritocratic ideal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Artificially reducing the stats of certain applicants? What is the source to that claim? You mean like some posters who discount some of the factors that are used in a holistic admissions process like essays, recs, special talents, legacy status, gender, ethnicity, income, and geography?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Thereâs no good reason to use race as a factor, even as one of many.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, there is a good reason to use ethnicity as one of the factors in selective college admissions it's diversity. You may disagree, that is your right. Another is that some groups have suffered much at the hands of the majority (whether in the Continental US or in Hawaii). That cannot be simply ignored as it shapes each individual's interactions with others, the jobs they have, the rates that are charged for life insurance, mortgages, and medical coverage, as well as which schools they can attend. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I hope the current Supreme Court will definitively rule against its use.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>BTW--The Supreme Court did rule that diversity is a social good, which is why they okayed its use, at least for the next 23 years.</p>
<p>Here are two articles (1) about diversity (and the 10% quota) in college admissions and (2) ethnicity with respect to private school admissions at the secondary level...</p>
<p>Adjusting a Formula Devised for Diversity
by Joseph I. Berger
New York Times, 13 December 2006</p>
<p>
[quote]
After a federal appeals court barred Texas from explicitly counting race in admissions to its colleges, the state struggled to find another way to diversify the student body. Nine years ago, it came up with an elegantly simple formula: all students whose grades ranked them in the top 10 percent of their high school classes would automatically be admitted to any campus, including the flagship here. </p>
<p>The formula took advantage of a fact that some Texans are less than proud of â the stateâs schools are so divided by race that a top 10 percent threshold would assure admission to many graduates of predominantly Hispanic and black high schools who once might have been overlooked. California and Florida use similar formulas.</p>
<p>Here in Texas, the 10 percent solution has worked reasonably well in achieving diversity without running into Supreme Court restrictions on affirmative action. Of the freshmen at the flagship campus here, 18.7 percent are Hispanic and 5.2 percent are black, roughly the same proportions as before the 1996 court ruling in Hopwood v. Texas. </p>
<p>But the formula has also had unintended consequences that the Texas Legislature is now wrestling with; it has become the tail that wagged the dog, university officials suggest. Seventy-one percent of the 6,864 Texans in the freshman class are top 10 percenters, compared with 41 percent in the first year the formula was used. That steady growth has frustrated college officials who have seen their flexibility to admit high school class presidents, high SAT scorers, science fair winners, immigrant strivers, artists and the like narrow. </p>
<p>âAt some point you have to ask yourself, do you really want to admit your whole class on a single criteria,â said Bruce Walker, the admissions director at Austin. âIt doesnât give you the opportunity to recognize other kinds of merit.â</p>
<p>The proportion of 10 percenters at Austin has grown as word has spread across the state that anyone in the top tenth of any school can get into a campus whose alumni include James Baker, Laura Bush, Michael Dell, Denton Cooley and Bill Moyers and that is tied for 13th among public universities in U.S. News & World Report rankings.</p>
<p>But officials like Mr. Walker worry that they may not be getting as strong or as interesting a student body as they could assemble with finely tuned reviews of a larger pool of applicants who missed the 10 percent cut. Like painters composing a canvas, admissions officers like to have a rich palette of students to draw from, and they may want to attract, say, poets who fell short. The university also does not want to be seen as provincial.</p>
<p>âWe want to compete in the big leagues,â said William Powers Jr., Austinâs dapper, cigar-chewing president. âWe want to be the best public university in the country, and that means getting the best students.â</p>
<p>THE sledgehammer bluntness of the 10 percent formula, signed into law by George W. Bush when he was governor, is based on an assumption that Texas high schools are roughly equal. Yet some offer 20 Advanced Placement courses and others none, and some boast teachers with doctorates and others are full of uncertified ones. </p>
<p>The 10 percenters have proved to be stalwart students; barely 1 percent are propped up with tutoring. But the formula has unleashed a certain amount of gamesmanship, with more than a few students choosing easier high school courses or schools to strengthen their chances for admission.</p>
<p>More important, the formula has meant that the university may neglect desirable black and Hispanic students, as well as white students, who attend lustrous high schools but may not finish in the top 10. Marcus Price, a black finance major, for example, graduated from the High School for Engineering Professions in Houston, a competitive magnet school, with a 3.4 grade point average that included three A.P. courses. But with so many college-bound students to compete with, he ranked only in the top 20th percentile.</p>
<p>âI thought it was funny that you could go to a less competitive school, score a total of 800 or 900 on your SATs and get into U.T. at Austin as long as you were in the top 10 percent,â said Mr. Price, who scored 1200 on his SATs.</p>
<p>He was fortunate that the university allows strong applicants who miss the plateau to spend a year at a satellite campus â in his case, San Antonio â and transfer to Austin if they achieve a 3.0 average. </p>
<p>But stories like Mr. Priceâs explain why Mr. Powers wants no more than half a freshman class to be selected through a percentage formula. A bill to achieve his aim has been filed in the Legislature. It would let admissions officers tinker with the makeup of a larger portion of the entering class, though it might mean that only the top 6 or 7 percent of high school senior classes would automatically be admitted.</p>
<p>BUT the bill faces the formidable opposition of Royce West, a senator from Dallas who, as chairman of the Senateâs higher education subcommittee, twice blocked efforts to tinker with the 10 percent formula. </p>
<p>âI donât want to see us do away with a system that is working, producing the greatest geographic and ethnic diversity in the history of the University of Texas without sacrificing academic quality,â said Mr. West, who is black.</p>
<p>Mr. West also argued that students should not be penalized because their parents could not afford housing in affluent areas with top-flight schools.</p>
<p>âChildren donât have control over the environment they find themselves in,â he said. âWhat they have control over is their work ethic and the amount of work they can put in into getting into the top 10 percent.â</p>
<p>Mr. West may not be as formidable as he once was â he was not reappointed as chairman â but officials here know he will be adept at horse trading with unexpected allies â white and Hispanic legislators from rural districts who are tickled by how many long-bypassed constituents are now attending Austin.</p>
<p>Even some supporters of Mr. Powersâs cap worry that the lack of a clear 10 percent goal to shoot for will weaken incentives to work hard in high school. It is a reasonable worry. But the trade-off is that an increase in wiggle room could create freshman classes that match the vibrancy of those at top colleges, almost all of which examine applications individually.</p>
<p>If the Legislature revises the formula, top-ranked students will still be admitted, but fewer of them. And Mr. Walker, the admissions director, is confident that he can achieve diversity, in part because a 2003 Supreme Court ruling in two University of Michigan cases allows race as a criterion in selecting a class as long as there is not an ironclad racial point system.</p>
<p>The fact that the Legislature demands diversity may offer a strong chance that he will deliver.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It depends on what people choose to define as necessary to selective college admissions...interesting how the 10% admissions scheme is similar to a quota system...no?!</p>
<p>Hawaii Schoolsâ Racial Enrollment Upheld
By Adam Liptak
NYT 6 December 2006</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Kamehameha Schools in Hawaii, private schools with an endowment of more than $6 billion, are entitled to limit their enrollment to Native Hawaiian children, a federal appeals court panel in San Francisco ruled yesterday by a vote of 8 to 7.</p>
<p>Students may be denied admission based on their race without running afoul of a civil rights law, the majority ruled, citing what it said were unique factors in the history of Hawaii, the plight of Native Hawaiians and the schoolsâ distinctively remedial mission, which Congress has repeatedly endorsed. </p>
<p>The schools are the only beneficiary of the enormous legacy of a 19th-century Hawaiian princess. They have an enrollment of some 5,000 students, from kindergarten through 12th grade, on campuses on three islands. Admission is a great prize, as students pay about $1,800 in annual tuition for an education worth about $20,000.</p>
<p>The schoolsâ admissions policy requires prospective students to prove that at least one ancestor lived on the Hawaiian Islands in 1778, when the British explorer Capt. James Cook arrived.</p>
<p>The suit was brought by a student identified as John Doe. The schools conceded that the student probably would have been admitted had he possessed Hawaiian ancestry. The suit argued that the admission policy ran afoul of a Reconstruction-era law, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The court, splitting almost entirely along partisan lines, ruled that the prohibition did not apply to the schoolsâ admissions program. (The eight judges in the majority were appointed by Democratic presidents. All but one of the dissenters were appointed by Republicans.)</p>
<p>âThe schools are a wholly private K-12 educational establishment, whose preferential admissions policy is meant to counteract the significant, current educational deficits of Native Hawaiian children in Hawaii,â Judge Susan P. Graber wrote for the majority. That fact, coupled with Congressional praise for the schoolsâ mission, she wrote, meant that the admission program did not violate the civil rights law.</p>
<p>The ruling overturned a decision by a divided three-judge panel last year. Judge Graber was in dissent in that decision. Judge Jay S. Bybee, who wrote the principal dissent yesterday, wrote the majority decision last year.</p>
<p>Eric Grant, the plaintiffâs lawyer, said he would ask the United States Supreme Court to hear the case. âWeâre disappointed to be on the seven side rather than the eight,â Mr. Grant said. But the closeness of the vote, he added, made Supreme Court review more likely.</p>
<p>Kathleen M. Sullivan, a lawyer for the schools and a law professor at Stanford, said her clients were elated by the decision and particularly by its unanimity on some points. </p>
<p>âAll of the judges agreed that the Kamehameha School has a noble mission and has had extraordinary success in addressing what all the judges admitted are the continuing disadvantages suffered by Native Hawaiians,â Professor Sullivan said.</p>
<p>The schoolsâ history and mandate is so unusual, she added, that yesterdayâs decision will have âno precedential impact on any other school in the nation.â</p>
<p>In a dissent joined at least in part by six other judges, Judge Bybee said the schoolsâ worthy mission nonetheless violated the law.</p>
<p>âI cannot reconcile its admissions preferences â a racially exclusive policy that operates as a complete bar to all applicants who are not of the preferred race â with the Supreme Courtâs requirements for a valid affirmative action plan,â Judge Bybee wrote. âThe majority exempts an organization with noble goals that seeks to remedy a significant problem in a community that is in great need, but it can do so only because the majority departs from clear principles and established precedent.â </p>
<p>The case from Hawaii is only superficially similar to the ones from Seattle and Louisville, Ky., argued Monday before the United States Supreme Court, Professor Sullivan said. </p>
<p>In contrast to the schools involved in the Supreme Court case, the Kamehameha schools are private, receiving no federal funds; they say their discrimination is remedial, meant to address historical wrongs; the beneficiaries are indigenous peoples; and the program has met with Congressional approval.</p>
<p>The student-assignment programs before the Supreme Court, Professor Sullivan said, involve public schools, mean to achieve racial diversity, are not directed at any particular racial group and come without similar Congressional endorsement.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Here's one from the Federal Courts. I'm sure you will disagree with the court, since you do not see the need for diversity or to correct for past oppression. Maybe the Supreme Court will take the case, maybe not.</p>
<p>Below is a posting I added to another thread in which an African-American student posted her stats after being admitted EA to Stanford and many started complaining about affirmative action. I think it can provide many of you with some insight here...and after reading many of the posts here in this thread, I have one more thing to add: be proud of who you are and your accomplishments!!!! Don't be modest about them! We want all different kinds of students: URMs, white kids, athletes, poets, musicians, rich and poor. And trust that many of us who work in admissions do know that you are all individuals and that's how we evaluate you and all that you do/have achieved!!! We know that stereotypes do not represent individuals. PLEASE, give us a little credit guys - many of us have attended the institutions you're freaking out about getting into and have graduate degrees! </p>
<p>I've read a lot of the posts on here, and it's become clear to me that many of you really do not understand affirmative action and how it works in college admissions or why we even have it in the first place. It really is not used in the way many of you think it is and as often as many of you think it is. This being said, it saddens me, really, to read some of the accusations/assumptions in some of these postings. I say this as someone who has worked at several "most selective" institutions. </p>
<p>In admissions committee and in reading files, we don't really "lower the bar" for "hooked" students - even legacies and athletes. Every student is evaluated based on the context within which they have achieved inside AND outside the classroom. That's what affirmative action protects - the right of different social institutions to include people who have been disadvantaged in different ways or who have achieved in different ways that could benefit the institution. Keep in mind that NO ONE is admitted to highly selective colleges if they can't do the work. Also keep in mind that, academically, the vast majority of students applying to highly selective institutions CAN DO THE WORK. Indeed, your 1450/2200+ SATs and 4.0+ GPAs are not that special in a national applicant pool at highly selective schools. And even if they were, it doesn't mean you'll add anything to the life of the particular campuses you're applying to in the eyes of the institution. We in the admissions office know what we're doing - trust us to make the right decisions!</p>
<p>Also, keep in mind that not all elementary and high schools are created equal! If we all went to the same high school and received the exact same education and had the exact same access to extracurricular activities, SAT prep courses, etc..., it would be easy for me and my colleagues to admit those that "deserve" to be admitted...But we don't live in that world! Many students face prejudice, racism, and classism in their schools, a lack of a stable family life, a lack of good teachers or role models, etc..., and still share the same desire to learn as those who have not faced any of these things. Thus, we have to be as objective as possible in evaluating each student and their achievements. To do this, we have to consider the opportunities each student has - or has not - had and the obstacles they have faced in achieving what they have (or have not) achieved. To deny students access to elite institutions because they don't "measure up" in quantifiable ways like others who have been privileged is, well, unethical in my opinion and perpetuates the inequalities that exist in our culture. </p>
<p>A word about athletes...Keep in mind that the time and devotion it takes to be an athlete talented enough to compete at the collegiate level is huge - even in Division III. Why is it okay to put down a student who has this kind of talent and devotion but not one with, say, musical talent? Or artistic talent? Or a huge committment to community service? I'm not sure I understand how many of you can say with certainly (because many of you do) that college athletes are "weaker" than the average student at highly selective colleges. Perhaps they may have lower testing ON AVERAGE, or even lower GPAs, but considering they are able to achieve academically at places like the Ivies and still commit over 30 hours/week to practices, travel, and competitions is impressive. Many of you are underestimating these students - many of whom have extremely high SAT scores and grades (I've seen several recruited athletes this year with SATs over 1500/2250 and 4.0 GPAs) and other extracurricular involvements. Don't underestimate these students! Sure, there are exceptions to what I've just said, but in general, athletes need to make the grade or they aren't admitted or graduated. Same thing applies to legacies nowadays, too, although there are some institutions that will bend over backwards for these kids. </p>
<p>A final point - there are hundreds of good colleges and universities out there! Those of you who are bitter because you aren't admitted to Stanford or Harvard or Amherst or Brown or Hopkins but who view yourselves as "competitive" for admission to these schools should know that you can still probably get into over 95% of the 4-year colleges and universities in this country. If you truly can't find the right fit for you outside of the US News top 20, then you aren't doing your homework and are severely limiting yourself. What matters most is where you will be happiest academically, socially, activity-wise, etc..., not what sticker is on the back of your parents' car or what your peers think of the college you are attending. If you're happy there and can get all the opportunities you want, then that's all that should matter!</p>
<p>Great post! ^^^^^</p>
<p>"we don't really "lower the bar" for "hooked" students - even legacies and athletes. Every student is evaluated based on the context within which they have achieved inside AND outside the classroom."</p>
<p>Allow me to translate this politically correct bureaucratic Clinton-esque gobblety goo into English: "We lower the bar."</p>
<p>Thank you, AdOfficer!</p>