<p>If Afirmative Action and Legacy didn't exist at Ivies and Top Schools, I think we would see more schools like UCI where asians are the majority.</p>
<p>I say this because UC's don't do Legacy and AA.</p>
<p>what about santa barbara, santa cruz, berkeley, ucla, riverside, merced, and ucsd?</p>
<p>It wouldnt be all Asians, but the percentage would go up at most UCs. The US govt wouldnt increase the amount of student visas at all, so the percentage of internationals would remain the same.</p>
<p>AA and legacy doesn't affect UC's.</p>
<p>I would say the percentage of Asians doubles at the most (for non-UCs), which would make it any where from 10-20% of the top University population. Remember, Asians are only 3% of the US population and they are not that significantly far ahead of whites, and not at all ahead of the boarding school crowd.</p>
<p>Don't let your ethnic pride smother logic.</p>
<p>Asians are only three percent of the UNITED STATES population.</p>
<p>They are not three percent in California.</p>
<p>That's another reason why at most of the U.C.s, Asians are the majority, not the minority.</p>
<p>Selective private colleges are always going to quota every group. The number of Asians has nothing at all to do with AA or the admission of legacies. The schools know just how many blacks, whites, asians, athletes and piano players they want. These numbers vary very little year to year at colleges that have strong applicant pools to choose from.</p>
<p>Which Asians are we talking about? Mien folks from Fresno are almost wholly absent among UC students; same is true for upland Hmong. Do you mean first-generation Afghanis? Sixth generation Japanese? U.S. citizens from Guam? Mongolian refugees? Uighurs from China?</p>
<p>Not a useful category.</p>
<p>kirmum: That's the biggest load of bull, I've ever heard. Schools don't have quotas. If they did, how would the account for such things as yield?</p>
<p>David, do you think it's a coincidence that top schools end up with very close to the same percentage of whites/blacks/asians/hispanics/native americans year after year?</p>
<p>they definitely don't have what i'd exactly call quotas. yea, they try to have a certain amount of blacks/asians/hispanics/piano players/athletes every year, but it's not like they have a checklist for set quotas. i guess it all depends on your interpretation of what you would call a quota.</p>
<p>Many "quotas" are unpublished in this world.</p>
<p>Kirmum, consistency from year to year is probably evidence that the applicant pool doesn't change a lot from year to year. Frankly, at many places they can't get as diverse an applicant pool as they like. They don't have the 'control' that you suggest. Quotas aren't a very effective way to manage enrollment.</p>
<p>Note I specified selective. If the top schools did not decide what racial and ethic balance they wanted to maintain, and these factors were blind in the admissions process, you would see a very different mix.Many private schools would look more that the UCs in terms of breakdown. Many more Asians and many fewer minorities.</p>