<p>There are several articles out there which argue that Asians are "expected" to be extremely smart and talented, so colleges set higher standards for them, thus making it harder for them to get accepted, even though they are qualified candidates. I've also been hearing rumors around school about how colleges base admissions partly on race.
How much of this is true? Are good grades really a "prerequisite" for admissions (i.e. you must have a 4.0 GPA, but they don't give you more qualifications)? And do colleges place more emphasis on "unique" extracurriculars and leadership experience when one's Asian?
Thank you!</p>
<p>All you ever wanted to know and more:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/1366406-race-college-admission-faq-discussion-10-a.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/1366406-race-college-admission-faq-discussion-10-a.html</a></p>
<p>All the hype is generally self perpetuated by Asians. E.G. If you are Asian then you’ve just done your part in perpetuating the Hype. Good job, I guess.</p>
<p>As an entire subset of the US population, Asians attend college at or among the highest rates. The answer to your meta question is NO.</p>
<p>But of course, you’re probably focused on the narrow universe of rarefied schools oft-discussed here on College Confidential, no doubt. How do they compare? They STILL are populated at a much higher proportional degree than in the gen’l population. So the answer again is NO.</p>
<p>As for race-based admissions, colleges are allowed to seek diversity as a legitimate component of their educational mission (cf. Fisher v. Texas, Bakke v. California, Gratz v Bollinger) . Thus if you have a school that disproportionately has under-represented ethnicities within its student body, they can devote resources to recruitment/retention. In theory, quotas are forbidden. However, it appears (among top schools) that soft quotas exist. Applicants to these sub-groups vie for slots among themselves (i.e. the highly recruited soccer player takes the spot of the less-wanted soccer player. She doesn’t take YOUR spot. That spot was never yours to begin with).</p>
<p>Unless you can fit into one of the preferrred sub-groups (not all are based on race/ethnicity – such as science genius, recruited athlete, “celebrity”, development case, etc.), you’ll be considered in the “general” pool and be compared with similar applicants.</p>
<p>Your hurdle will be to stand out and be unique among that group. If you’re one among hundreds of piano/tennis/karate/math team/spelling Bee/saturday language school kids who wants to major in STEM – you’ll just blend in. You’ll get admitted to a wide number of colleges and have among the highest probabilities of actually completing your degree — but you can see why you might not catch the attn of a reader in Stanford’s admissions offices or other schools that have admit rates at 30% or below.</p>
<p>But let me re-emphasize my initial point: if you’re Asian, and living in the USA, the chances you’ll have a college degree are multiple times several other ethnicities in this country. Your HS grad rate, your eventual median household income, your life-expectancy, the likelihood of having kids attend college – all are among or at the top. You’re not missing out. Might you not go to Columbia? Maybe. But don’t buy into that myth that our ethnicity is being tread upon. We aren’t. Haven’t been for a long time.</p>
<p>@bluebird9079, it will depend on which type of colleges you are talking about. If general college education, the answer is NO. you have too many choices in this country for your education. However, if you are talking about the top/selective schools, such as ivies, the answer is YES. Read Espenshade and Radford 's book “No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life”</p>
<p>In the 2009 study of more than 9,000 students who applied to selective universities, the Princeton sociologists Thomas J. Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford found that white students were three times more likely to be admitted than Asians with the same academic record. There are many detailed statistics and studies documented in the book.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Arcane studies and questionable statistics aside, here’s the thing that many students of all nationalities do not get. Admissions is not black or white. Just because you have an SAT 100 points higher or a GPA - .20 percentage points higher, that does not make you the best candidate for the school. Schools try to factor in courage and heart and the ability to make society a better place. A lot of the students whom you favor don’t have the courage to tell a TigerMom no, let alone change society. </p>
<p>BTW your quote indicates Asian favoritism not visa versa.</p>
<p>@sosomenza</p>
<p>I don’t understand how that quote indicates Asian favoritism. It says that it is 3 times harder for Asians than Whites with the same academic record to be admitted. </p>
<p>I also don’t understand how these studies are arcane when there have been tons of these studies conducted by reputable sources, and they all come to the same conclusion. </p>
<p>Also you are perpetuating a stereotype that Asian Americans are book wormish drones, who can’t function in society.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Could you cite a few of them?</p>
<p>Read </p>
<p>The Price of Admission by Daniel Golden, and </p>
<p>No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life by Thomas J. Espenshade</p>
<p>I have read them, and they contain a lot of good studies conducted by academics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are many more white candidates than Asian candidates probably 10-1. So all things considered a 3:1 ratio is pretty darn favorable. Theoretically the ratio could be as high as 10-1. Bottom line-Asians get preferences, not the other way around.</p>
<p>^ The point isn’t about general population ratio between White and Asian. It is white students were three times more likely to be admitted than Asians with the same academic record.</p>
<p>Another words, your argument is wrong in that you are looking at the general population pool while the study was looking at the same qualification pool - students with the same academic record.</p>
<p>The study is saying that for an Asian applying to college, it is 3 times harder to get into college than a White person applying to college with the same academic record. This has nothing to do with the general population percentages of each race. </p>
<p>You might want to read the study again.</p>
<p>Or alternatively do a search on CC for the study title … and then read the 10,000 posts on the topic that already exist … as 10+ year member of CC I can pretty much guarantee that this thread will not raise any arguments that have not already been beat into submission on CC without changing anyone’s position on the topic.</p>
<p>I dont think broad categories such as Asian or white are very helpful. The terms conceal too much information. Some years ago a local school board decided to look through all students in the system and found the top performers were Koreans, Jewish, and Chinese in that order.</p>
<p>Since I do not believe things are that much different in the States, I expect these three groups to dominate in the elite colleges. </p>
<p>A difference in admissions rate among groups in the same qualification pool is a different story. I see it as a reflection of political power differential, pure and simple.</p>
<p>totally agree with Pirates0301</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So wrong! The general population number is of prime consideration to Adcom. Especially in light that the applicants are essentially the same, and that Asians are shooting themselves in the foot by flooding the prestigious schools with applications (knowing the Adcom will try to fairly represents all sections of the population-If you didn’t know it consider yourself educated). As admitted the qualifications of the applicants are the same. A 3:1 allocation is very generous! Are you saying it should be 1:1 or maybe you’re saying Asians should get all the open spots? </p>
<p>By the way, Epenshade bases his conclusions on questionable statistics within a certain confidence level and never a 100% certainty. His conclusions are always pro Asian and within a database that he feels certain that he can master. E.G. Has he ever ventured into the poor Asian communities and sampled education and IQ? No, his studies are always based on a proven population of smart Asian kids so he can say Asian’s are smart. But the truth is that his population has already been stratified as smart, actually making his conclusions nothing but a firm grasp of the obvious.</p>
<p>Lots of things factor. It’s not all about stats. Your application is your only vehicle to present yourself. All the Common App schools agree to use holistic. That means, you are reviewed in whole, based on what is presented. Adcoms are strangers and not your teachers or hs peers. Flub it because you and many others are convinced “it’s all about stats” and pay the price.</p>
<p>I nearly always say, the issue of geographic diversity needs is far more threatening. For the top privates, with very few exceptions, they only take so many from a hs, community or area. </p>
<p>And, Espenshade, himself, said don’t jump to conclusions based on my study. (I am so tired of saying this- if you like any work, google it and its author(s) for further info about its reception. Duh.)</p>
<p>@bluebird9079, if you are a smart kid, you should have changed nothing in terms of what you do everyday after reading this board. Focus on the things really important to you - excel academically, develop leadership skill, find your own passion and interest where you can really shine, build confidence and good character, etc. Don’t let spin doctors (trust me there are many in CC) impair your sense of reality. You can’t really change any person other than yourself …hopefully for the better.</p>
<p>@sosomenza</p>
<p>“By the way, Epenshade bases his conclusions on questionable statistics within a certain confidence level and never a 100% certainty”</p>
<p>This quote indicates to me that you have no idea how statistics work. Most statisticians use 90, or 95 % confidence interval depending on the field. The 100% confidence interval goes from minus to plus infinity for all data, which means it is useless for a statistician. </p>
<p>Also regarding that 3 times thing, I am not even going to argue with you anymore. I don’t think anyone else comes the same conclusion as you do about it.</p>
<p>I have long retired from arguing with people who talk about stats but don’t understand the statistical concepts such as standard deviation, probability density, confidence interval, statistical population and sampling. I mean what else can you say? Tell them to go back to school and retake Stats 101?</p>