<p>No. that was Shaw's interpretation. Being merely in the top 20% would not get her into HYPSM. Being a val would give her a better chance. I see no evidence of racism here, except for Shaw's.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No. that was Shaw's interpretation. Being merely in the top 20% would not get her into HYPSM. Being a val would give her a better chance. I see no evidence of racism here, except for Shaw's.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Will you concede that all things being equal, Asian-Americans have a more difficult time getting into top schools? And that Asian-American applicants are better off if their activities are less stereotypically Asian-American, such as playing the violin?</p>
<p>If Asian Americans engage in "stereotypically Asian-American" activities, then they lessen their chances of getting in. How many violinists can a college accommodate? Should H Y P become math/science schools? This has nothing to do with ethnicity per se but with the kind of vibrant community a college wants.</p>
<p>Getting back to the young woman, she did herself a favor by becoming val without necessarily working any harder. There is not a scintilla of evidence that she was admitted because of or in spite of her ECs, stereotypical or not.</p>
<p>I have a mathy kid. He purposely did not apply to schools such as Caltech or MIT because he wanted to be surrounded by students with interests, academic as well as extra-curricular other than his own. Nothing to do with ethnic stereotypes. In fact, unless I actually meet his friends, I do not know what their ethnicity is, because it is not important to him (Names can be extremely misleading).</p>
<p>If Asian Americans engage in "stereotypically Asian-American" activities, then they lessen their chances of getting in. How many violinists can a college accommodate? Should H Y P become math/science schools? This has nothing to do with ethnicity per se but with the kind of vibrant community a college wants.</p>
<p>Getting back to the young woman, she did herself a favor by becoming val without necessarily working any harder. There is not a scintilla of evidence that she was admitted because of or in spite of her ECs, stereotypical or not.</p>
<p>I have a mathy kid. He purposely did not apply to schools such as Caltech or MIT because he wanted to be surrounded by students with interests, academic as well as extra-curricular other than his own. Nothing to do with ethnic stereotypes. In fact, unless I actually meet his friends, I do not know what their ethnicity is, because it is not important to him (Names can be extremely misleading). </p>
<p>With outfits like Shaw's let's remember that success has many fathers but failure is an orphan. Shaw would claim paternity for the success of students he got money from (and apparently keep the money of students for whom he did no work, either).</p>
<p>
[quote]
If Asian Americans engage in "stereotypically Asian-American" activities, then they lessen their chances of getting in.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Right. And I would guess that if a Black kid plays violin, it's a positive.</p>
<p>That, friends, is racism.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Getting back to the young woman, she did herself a favor by becoming val without necessarily working any harder. There is not a scintilla of evidence that she was admitted because of or in spite of her ECs, stereotypical or not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And there is not a scintilla of evidence that she was admitted because she was valedictorian.</p>
<p>Do you think that is she had done all the ECs she did at Shaw's suggestion but stayed in her old school where she was in the top 20% she would have gotten in? She would have ditched the "Asian-American stereotype" but I have trouble believing that being in the top 20% would have been an advantage.</p>
<p>I have no idea whether a black kid playing the violin is more likely to be accepted. Do you have evidence that this is so?</p>
<p>On second thought, don't bother responding.
I am bemused that a thread on the lack of ethics of some college counselors has morphed into a thread on AA. This is a discussion I prefer not to engage in. So, here, again, ciao.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you think that is she had done all the ECs she did at Shaw's suggestion but stayed in her old school where she was in the top 20% she would have gotten in?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know. She probably would have been better off.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have no idea whether a black kid playing the violin is more likely to be accepted. Do you have evidence that this is so?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Just my common sense. </p>
<p>Anyway, do you seriously believe that violin playing as an EC would be viewed the same by a top college admissions officer as between a Black and Asian applicant? </p>
<p>Because if so, there's a bridge I know of that connects Kings County with lower Manhattan. I can get it for you really really cheap.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So, here, again, ciao.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Buh-bye.</p>
<p>epiphany: thank you!</p>
<p><a href="xiggi:">quote</a>
Using the stratagem of moving from a well-to-do community to a blue worker helped build a need-basis file; the fact that the student moved from being in the top 20% of her class to being a valedictorian did not change the student. It changed the entire world of peers to whom she is compared in a holistic process. Because Shaw's suggestions were exploitative of the "tradition" to support an underdog in highly selective admissions, its tactics are unethical. Not illegal but definitely unethical.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How is this different from the umpteen tens of thousands of people who opt for a "big fish in small pond" strategy for their children's school enrollment and, yes, college (or graduate or professional school) admission?</p>
<p>The kid most likely got into GS, which isnt incredibly competitive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Will you concede that all things being equal, Asian-Americans have a more difficult time getting into top schools? And that Asian-American applicants are better off if their activities are less stereotypically Asian-American, such as playing the violin?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The argument was that if one accepts the "building a class" method of admissions, then any group (racial or not, Asian or not) that does not diversify the profile of its applicants reduces its chances of admissions. </p>
<p>For example, if all of the black applicants that might be helped by athletics are in just one or two sports, that limits the number that can get the benefit, and the overall admission of blacks is lower than had they spread their athletic interests among golf, rowing, karate, etc.</p>
<p>If too many applicants (Asian or not) play violin, the value of that credential is reduced for any given applicant, black included, who plays violin. Asian musicians are disproportionately punished by this devaluation because they disproportionately concentrate on violin. One assumes that a black student will get more points for violin in the sense that it is "contrarian" (just as the beauty pageant or rock band might distinguish an Asian applicant more than a white one). But the orchestra conductor will not be fighting to admit the black violinist student when there are 50 better violinists in the pool. So the oversupply of Asian violins depresses the value of violin for non-Asians as well, it's just that more Asians feel the effect.</p>
<p>It should also be noted that in absolute number, there are probably more "extra" Asians in the class admitted for violin, piano (or math competitions, tae kwon do, etc) than members of other groups, simply because more Asians have those credentials. The use of violin etc as credentials increases the number of Asians, on the whole, so on a groupwide basis it is a successful admissions strategy of Asian applicants.</p>
<p>In short, race-neutral supply and demand can have "disparate impact" on different racial groups. Those ostensibly neutral criteria may or may not explain the full scope of Asian disadvantage in admissions, and may be open to legal challenge, especially the athletic and legacy preferences.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The argument was that if one accepts the "building a class" method of admissions, then any group (racial or not, Asian or not) that does not diversify the profile of its applicants reduces its chances of admissions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Does that mean "yes" or "no"?</p>
<p>Yes or no to what question? Your query about the black violinist appears to have been answered.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes or no to what question?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The question (actually questions) that you quoted in post # 72:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Will you concede that all things being equal, Asian-Americans have a more difficult time getting into top schools? And that Asian-American applicants are better off if their activities are less stereotypically Asian-American, such as playing the violin?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow, siserune, a typical CCer who would off the bat assume the black applicant is "less qualified." Thus, you analysis is a piece of garbage.</p>
<p>lskinner - the flaw in your insistent argument is the "all things being equal" part. There is a perception - based at least in part in reality, if the repeated posts by Asian students here on CC are to be believed - that Asian parents push their kids into certain activities, and essentially force them to continue them until they achieve a certain level of proficiency. As a result, there are a lot of Asian kids who achieve a certain level of proficiency in those activities. If that perception is valid in a given case, that proficiency is not a testament to the interest, talent, or drive of the student, but rather his or her compliance with parental authority. I wouldn't think that evidence of a demonstrated willingness to do what Mom or Dad tells him to do is a really strong bonus for a college admissions committee considering a student's application. I suspect that's why Shaw encouraged the girl to pretend to have an interest in things that didn't look like she was being pushed into them by her parents - although, as it turned out, that is exactly what they were. </p>
<p>I suspect that adcoms can detect a "doing what mom told me to do" applicant pretty easily by now.</p>
<p>
[quote]
lskinner - the flaw in your insistent argument is the "all things being equal" part. There is a perception - based at least in part in reality, if the repeated posts by Asian students here on CC are to be believed - that Asian parents push their kids into certain activities, and essentially force them to continue them until they achieve a certain level of proficiency. As a result, there are a lot of Asian kids who achieve a certain level of proficiency in those activities. If that perception is valid in a given case, that proficiency is not a testament to the interest, talent, or drive of the student, but rather his or her compliance with parental authority.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not sure what your point is, but it sounds like you are saying that colleges may discount certain extracuricular activities of Asian applicants on the assumption that their parents are more likely to have pushed them into those activities.</p>
<p>Assuming that's true, it's still racism on the part of college admissions officers. Maybe it's justified, and maybe it's based on generalizations that have some truth to them, but it's still racism.</p>
<p>JMHO.</p>
<p>lskinner, I think it's more that the pattern of activities cries out "Momma's boy" rather than the fact that it is common in Asian families. I mean, what are the odds that all those kids would just naturally be drawn to piano, violin, tennis, track and math club? Just as a random factor, wouldn't you expect some to be interested in saxophone, bass, wrestling and drama club? I'm sure there are kids of other ethnicities who pay the price for the stereotype as well. (Incidentally - I know lots of Asian kids who don't fit the stereotype; what we're addressing is whether kids who do fit it are discriminated against. Obviously Shaw thinks that they are; I don't have a reason to question that.) And why do all those parents make their kids learn piano and violin, anyway?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not sure what your point is, but it sounds like you are saying that colleges may discount certain extracuricular activities of Asian applicants on the assumption that their parents are more likely to have pushed them into those activities.</p>
<p>Assuming that's true, it's still racism on the part of college admissions officers. Maybe it's justified, and maybe it's based on generalizations that have some truth to them, but it's still racism.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Isn't it possible that the "discounting" (after years of superlative recognition) of certain extracurricular activities is based on learning from experience, including the incredible attrition in the number of "passionate" participants as soon as the "prize" has been bagged. </p>
<p>The world of admissions is not static. The admissions-by-the-numbers that worked very well for many of the model-minority development years has slowly but surely eroded, and the late Suzuki Academy "gamers" are simply too late. But, heck all hope is not lost ... there is time to learn about non-solitary activities that extol the values of team spirit, true leadership, and selfishness. The best part about it is that there is no racist admission policies involved in those activities.</p>