<p>Actually, in California at some of the U.C.'s, they have had bake sales where they charge 1.25 for cookies to whites and Asians, but 75 cents to hispanics, and 50 cents to blacks & American Indians,(or something close to this). Anyway, they are usually asked to shut down their booths that offer non-violent protest. Unfortunately, we have been living in a politically correct world for the last decade or so, with liberal professors and media. So there is resentment from both asians and whites, but it is not the Al Sharpton type of showboating that gets much attention.</p>
<p>I hope you realize the people selling the cookies, were protesting affirmative action policies, in case I didn't make myself clear.</p>
<p>I live in Arizona. I've never seen any of these things. I just dont understand why students dont say something more. I'm a junior in high school and I've never heard of this issue until recently. Do you think that since Asians dont always get into ivy league schools but get into schools that are very qualified to give a wonderful education is what causes them to not talk openly about the issue? (most students anyways)</p>
<p>I wrote this on the College Admissions forum but it bears repeating:</p>
<p>Mystic221, I would not worry about who is "overqualified" and who is "underqualified." Adcoms at elite schools are in the business of building a COMMUNITY. I am not a URM, but I am very happy that my children's schools have chosen to look beyond mere stats to provide a wonderful class of diverse and fascinating peole of all colors, races, religions, etc. God, can you imagine if top schools just let (for example) top-stat valedictorians in? The past several years our school's valedictorians have been extremely boring grade-grubbers (THIS COMES FROM THE TEACHERS!), while many kids behind them in GPA have been creative and passionate kids, all of whom did or are doing fantastically well in college. </p>
<p>Schools and also businesses in the US have many, MANY reasons for wanting URMs.
You need to get over the illusion that college admissions are - or should be - strictly NUMBERS driven rather than COMMUNITY driven - not only in creating a community, but providing people who can go OUT into diverse communities after college.</p>
<p>BTW, SAT scores predict very little.</p>
<p>The solution for this problem is to make admissions race neutral or race and ethnic group blind.</p>
<p>I wholeheartedly agree. About fifteen years ago, when I attended university, there were many students there who didn't have the basic skills required for higher education. As a result, the general quality of education declined.</p>
<p>Thank you vonrowe. I wanted to mention that last night, but was too tired to type it:)
I think there ar some dangerous assumptions and generalities being made in this thread and I'm sure that's why many of our more outspoken posters aren't touching it (they've been led down this slippery slope before). </p>
<p>Remom said :"URM's and others that have had parents that didn't do well financially, don't need to worry as much about the cost of college. "</p>
<p>Remom, are the Ivies giving out need-based aid according to race or ethnicity? Or, are they strictly doing it based on the numbers? Based on what I know (since my son is an Ivy applicant AND black) it's based on numbers. I don't expect to see more money because he's black. Is your impression different? If you and I have the same income, I would expect YOU to receive a similar aid package. So, I don''t get your point here.</p>
<p>Rattle, you have repeatedly made the point that Asians are overrepresented in college. If you're overrepresented (% of Asian students in college is greater than % in US population) thne how can you claim that you're being discriminated against? I'm not tryiong to debate this issue...just trying to understand your point. </p>
<p>I also think, back to vonrowe's point, that you need to consider that colleges WANT more blacks to attend for reasons that you don't seem to value.....Someone in a position of decision-making ,who is very well aware of the "wholistic" view of this, has made a decision that there is great value in increasing the population of blacks on campus, even when those blacks don't have 1600 SATs. If you don't agree with the view of that college and what they want for their campus, that might not be the right college for you (collective you). </p>
<p>Again, some of the generalizations about races are concerning here. I can't go back and quote all of the comments because there were too many. But, let's not assume that all blacks are on aid and coming in with lower scores, my son doesn't fit that mold and I resent the broad brush being used here.</p>
<p>I agree with Momsdream.<br>
My S went to an event recently and came back commenting on the lack of diversity among the students from other teams. He was so glad that his school is diverse; he sees value in it.<br>
When colleges began heavily recruiting among minorities some 40 years ago, they sometimes recruited under-prepared students and many dropped out. But currently, at elite colleges, it would be impossible to distinguish the performance of minorities from that of non-minorities.
There are plenty of students who benefit from hooks or tips at colleges. I don't see why URMs are singled out, on no evidence at all, as underperformers.</p>
<p>"Rattle, you have repeatedly made the point that Asians are overrepresented in college. If you're overrepresented (% of Asian students in college is greater than % in US population) thne how can you claim that you're being discriminated against? I'm not tryiong to debate this issue...just trying to understand your point." </p>
<p>Just because a race isn't UR does't mean they are not being discriminated against. At the ivies with AA an equally qualified Asian is around 2/3 less likely than a white student to be admited, and less than 1/4 as likley as a black student to be admited. When Asian make up 30% of a college application but only 15% of those admited while blacks make up 6% of applicants and 9% of those admited even though the average qualification for the Asians rejected far exceeded blacks who were accepted. That is discrimination.</p>
<p>"I also think, back to vonrowe's point, that you need to consider that colleges WANT more blacks to attend for reasons that you don't seem to value.....Someone in a position of decision-making ,who is very well aware of the "wholistic" view of this, has made a decision that there is great value in increasing the population of blacks on campus, even when those blacks don't have 1600 SATs. If you don't agree with the view of that college and what they want for their campus, that might not be the right college for you (collective you)."</p>
<p>Increasing diversity is one thing, but doing it at the expense of another race is not the way to do it. Rejected someone because of their race isn't something that I think should be part of a "wholistic" view point. That is what AA does rejected someone because of their race. The sad thing is if any school rejected an Afirican American because of his race, you would be outraged but due it to an Asian and White and you think it is good.</p>
<p>"I agree with Momsdream.
My S went to an event recently and came back commenting on the lack of diversity among the students from other teams. He was so glad that his school is diverse; he sees value in it.
When colleges began heavily recruiting among minorities some 40 years ago, they sometimes recruited under-prepared students and many dropped out. But currently, at elite colleges, it would be impossible to distinguish the performance of minorities from that of non-minorities.
There are plenty of students who benefit from hooks or tips at colleges. I don't see why URMs are singled out, on no evidence at all, as underperformers."</p>
<p>Highly untrue the average college stats of non URM is significantly higher than it is for URM. Whites and Asians on averge have higher GPA in college, and they tend to score higher on graduate entrance exams like the GRE, MCAT, DAT, and LSAT. However it is true that their graduate rate is similar to those of whites and asians, but they have lower GPAs on average during graduation.</p>
<p>The sad thing is if any school rejected an Afirican American because of his race, you would be outraged but do it to an Asian and White and you think it is good.</p>
<p>That's when equal rights become superior rights. Discrimination is wrong, regardless of which group it is.</p>
<p>The answer to the OP's query is that Asians are not considered URMs and get no preferential treatment for being Asian in the schools he has mentioned. They are also NOT tagged for special pools as Hispanics, African Americans and American Indians are, along with other special pools such as athletes, developement cases, celebrities, and legacies where the assessment process is such that the applicants are assessed differently. In some schools, Asian are given a tip factor as are kids from certain underrepresent geographic areas, unusual backgrounds, disadvantaged families, and those kids fortunate enough to have a hook of some sort that the college wants at that particular time. </p>
<p>I do want to point out that when we are talking about admissions to elite colleges, the test scores and academic transcript become only half the equation for admittance. It is the first hurdle, as kids who do not fall into special categories are very quickly culled if they do not demonstrate high stats in the academic end. But once the applicant has passed the academic review, his resume is combed in other areas. The extracurriculars, the personality, character,leadership "serendipity" become important along with what the student has to offer the university community. Voronwe put it quite well. A student who is a "10" academically, may only come as an average "5" in this assessment, and may well not make the cut for elite college much to the consternation and outrage of the students, families and communities who look only at that academic "10". Even the tech schools like MIT are now scrutinizing this part of the student after the application has passed the academic review. In this regard, many Asian student do not make the final cut. This part of the application process is very different from how elite schools outside of this country pick their students and is often under fire, as there the process is holistic and not easily translated into statistics. A 1600 SAT is clear cut. Leadership and creativity are more difficult to assess. </p>
<p>Many students find themselves discriminated against in the college process. If you go to school in certain geographic areas, you are over represented. Males going for engineering programs are discriminated against versus females. Females applying to Vassar, Goucher, and other schools where the ratio is disproportionate are going to find their review more difficult. Kids needing financial aid applying to non need blind schools. If you are applying for an overprescribed program, you may find yourself denied whereas some applying for a program in the same school that needs the bodies will get in with a less impressive profile. My experience with Asian kids has been that they do tend to cluster at the same schools, come from clusters geographically, and cluster in ECs and intended fields of study creating a natural bottleneck. I have not noticed greater discrimination towards Asians when comparing them with non Asians with similar records, ECs, college choices and intended fields of study. I don't know if any statistical study has been done in this regard on a large scale. I will also say that the figures for Asians is terribly distorted and a quick count of Asians in the "face books" of elite colleges will confirm that. I have done this. Many non URMs do not bother to complete the optional ethicity portions of the university records and that is the data used to count Asians. Schools are not permitted to fill in the race or ethnic group based on the student's name or appearance. I will also mention that when I was at Harvard a few weeks ago, I noticed many "mixed" families, and I do not know if they consider themselves Asians--many of the kids do not "look" Asian nor do they have Asian names. There are also a number of Asian children adopted by non Asian families in the equation.</p>
<p>The URM situation is a controversy in itself. The fact that the elite colleges want a range of URMs in the student body and the current situation is that URMs do not have the statistics, particularly in the testing part of the academic profile, in the numbers necessary to naturally yield that range, puts URMs in their own category. Whether you agree with this affirmative action policy or not, it exists, and anytime a range of spots are reserved for any group of students, it negatively affects the admission stats of those students not in that group. In a small school like Columbia, for instance, when you consider that it fields a full slate of Division 1 sports, wants a national distribution of students, has a strong engineering school, wants a range of URMs; a white male from Long Island or Westchester County is going to find the admissions gauntlet very difficult if he does not fall into any special categories and has no hook. So will the many, many Asian applicants. I know that when I worked in PIttsburgh and Cleveland, most of the Asian kids I knew who applied to Columbia with a strong profile got in. Here,as in New York, that is not the case. In my son's school this year, there will be kids denied by Tufts that may well get in if they were going to another school. Ain't no way Tufts is going to take the majority of the 30 kids applying there, and many of those kids are well qualified. In fact, kids with stronger resumes than those who got in last year will probably be denied. Discrimination? Yes. Unfair? Yes. Reality? Yes. To mitagate this problem, we can made admisions race neutral or race and ethnic group blind, to eliminate it completely we go purely by test scores which then gets rid of all other fuzzy factors as well. The colleges are in strong agreement that they do not want to do this, and as it stands now, the courts agree that they may continue giving preference in factors other than the academic profile.</p>
<p>Remom, </p>
<p>Thank you for your agreement. It is more than interesting. It is damning to those in denial of the truth, especially the politically correct, who refuse to acknowledge the fact that Asian Americans are the one who paid the heaviest price in limiting their numbers with de facto quotas and racial "diversity". Asian Americans are the most qualified group, in terms of the objective factors used for admissions, such as having the highest GPAs and SATs, as well as the subjective or holistic factors used, such as motivation, special talents, creativity, and,of course, the overcoming of obstabcles such as poverty (15% of Asian Ams live under poverty, same as latinos), culture and language differences. One of the smallest minorities, Asian Americans also suffer from prejudice, ignorance, and racial stereotyping from adcoms for being one-dimensional students with no other qualities except for music. This racist stereotype of Asian American applicants have been proven incorrect in previous internal studies done at Stanford and Brown Universities, when charges of racial bias against Asian Ams were leveled against these two schools. After the studies, Brown admitted to racial stereotyping and "cultural bias", explaining the Asian Ams' lowest admit rates. Stanford admitted the facts, but did not admit bias, but its Asian American % went from 15% to another quota of 25% for Asian Americans. The Asian American applicant group is just as qualified or more qualified as the white applicant group according to ALL CRITERIA and standards used in admissions, yet the Asian Americans applicants are admitted at 2/3 the white acceptance rate at Stanford, Brown, most of the Ivies and the elite colleges.</p>
<p>Initially, you had said, "I also detect from some postings some resentment towards whites. I believe whites and asians both suffer from affirmative action policies. I believe diversity should have nothing to do with skin color, but on differences in opinions."</p>
<p>Yes, you are also partially correct, but as I had shown, Asian Americans suffer the most in this zero-sum game of admissions to the Ivies and elite colleges. They suffer more than whites because Asian Americans are admitted at the lowest rates, lower than for any other group, including blacks, latinos, native americans and ESPECIALLY WHITES. In fact when race was removed as a factor for admission at the U.of Texas-Austin, the group that gained was the Asian Americans, not the whites. Obviously, when race was removed, black numbers dropped. So, at the U.of Texas, when race-based AA was abolished, Asian Americans gained and white numbers remained unchanged, proving that this demeted, unfair and unjust policy of racial prefrerences affected Asian amerocans the most. The same was true at the U.of California. If you want, I will back my last point with references.</p>
<p>The only group that suffers in this race-based AA system of admissions is the Asian American group. Asian Americans are admitted at the lowest rates than any other racial or ethnic group, including whites. Blacks and latinos are admitted at the highest rates with lowered standards and racial and ethnic group preferences of AA. It is all relative. Again, it is all relative. One has to look at this issue carefully to understand my point. </p>
<p>Again, </p>
<p>From the 2/22/01 and 4/3/01 Brown Daily Herald</p>
<p>Brown University Class of '05</p>
<p>16,500 applicants</p>
<p>Asian Americans: 20.3% of the applicants, 16% of the acceptances
African Americans: 6% of the applicants, 9% of the acceptances
Latino Americans: 7.1% of the applicants, 9% of the acceptances
Whites and others: 66.6% of the applicants, 66% of the acceptances</p>
<p>From the 2/12/01 The Daily Pennsylvanian (<a href="http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com%5B/url%5D):">www.dailypennsylvanian.com):</a> </p>
<p>Asian American applicants represent 31% of the 19,086 applicants for the University of Pennsylvanias Class of 2005 but only about 23% of the acceptances. UPenn accepts Asian Americans at a lower rate than any other group. </p>
<p>Therefore Asian Americans are admitted at 60 to 70% of the white admit rate, or MUCH LESS than the white admit rate, while blacks and latinos are admitted at MUCH HIGHER than the white admit rate. At Brown, as you can see, whites are 66% of the applicants and are 66% of the acceptances, where as the Asian Americans are 20.3% of the applicants and only 16% of the acceptances. In this case at Brown for the Class of 2005, Asian Americans are admitted at 78% of the white acceptance rate, despite being just as qualified or even more qualified than whites according to ALL the standards and holistic criteria used for admissions. Admitted Asian Ams have higher GPAs and test scores on average than all the admitted groups, including whites, in addition to meeting the holistic criteria admission. In other words, Brown, Stanford, the rest of the Ivies and elite colleges were admitting white students, while rejecting Asian Americans with exactly the same standards or even higher standards. That's my point.</p>
<p>VTBoy Wrote:"Increasing diversity is one thing, but doing it at the expense of another race is not the way to do it. Rejected someone because of their race isn't something that I think should be part of a "wholistic" view point. That is what AA does rejected someone because of their race. The sad thing is if any school rejected an Afirican American because of his race, you would be outraged but due it to an Asian and White and you think it is good."</p>
<p>I don't know that Asians are being rejected based on race. Perhaps there is eveidence to show that blacks are coming from more diverse backgrounds, with greater ability to contribute to the diversity of the campus environment (not diverse based on race, but on life experiences). Maybe the stories of the black student are found to be more interesting. IO'm saying maybe because I don't KNOW this to be the case. But, isn't it possible?</p>
<p>Blacks have historically not placed a very high value on education, as a whole. There are many, many blacks who intensely value education (W.E.B DuBois "The Talented Tenth"). But, most haven't. Conversely, Asians have historically placed education at the top of the priority list, forsaking all else (Parachute kids). Based on previous posts, I think you'll agree on this. That being the case, which student do you think might be more intersting on an Ivy ap? (being of similar qualifications). Now, these are generalities and don't apply to many of the cases. But, I think you see my point.</p>
<p>Also, Brown rejected 76% of their black applicants. Doesn't sound too biased to me:)</p>
<p>Jamimom said,</p>
<p>"Yes. Unfair? Yes. Reality? Yes. To mitagate this problem, we can made admisions race neutral or race and ethnic group blind, to eliminate it completely we go purely by test scores which then gets rid of all other fuzzy factors as well. The colleges are in strong agreement that they do not want to do this, and as it stands now, the courts agree that they may continue giving preference in factors other than the academic profile."</p>
<p>No advocated admitting students on GPAs and test scores. That's the biggest mistake. Again, you are sterotyping Asian American applicants by inferring that Asian American applicants are only admitted on that basis, but that is the furtest from the truth with your anecdotes in your last post. Internal studies have proven otherwise, in that Asian Americans, not only have the highest test scores and GPAs and take the most advanced courses, but also meet or exceed the other holistic criteria for admissions which include creativity, motivition, high work ethic, special talents including sports (especially non-contact sports where Asians are well represented among the 41 varsity sports at Haravard), and the overcoming of obstacles such as poverty, culture and language differences and prejudice, stereotyping and even racism from the majority population.</p>
<p>I think I have explained the racist sterotyping of the "one-demensional Asian stellar student with no other qualities other than music". This has no basis in fact and has been been proven FALSE with studies of whole applicant pools at Brown and Stanford. Brown admitted that there was "stereotyping" as well as "cultural" bias against Asian American applicants. </p>
<p>The same exact kind of biases and racist stereotyping existed against Jews pre-WW II with the anti-Jewish quota in the Ivies. Today, with the abolishment of Jewish quotas, and the elimination of the classification of "Jew" on the application form as an ethnic and religious destination, Jews have become 1/3 of Harvard and as much as 35% of UPenn. I have absolutely no problem with this for this most talented group, as long as they are admitted or rejected without racial and ethnic group preferences. This should be true for ALL ethnic, racial and religious applicant groups. Eliminate race and ethnicity in admissions. It should be race blind. The Asian American, a similar most talented group, are rejected at the highest rates simply because of their race and "overrrepresentation", not because they are not qualified under all admissions criteria used. Eliminate race, but keep all other factors for admission, and you will most assuredly see Asian Americans' numbers go up at the Ivies, even exceeding Jewish numbers. </p>
<p>Do you have a problem with Harvard being 35% Jewish? I do not. Do you have a problem with Harvard being 35% Asian Am or even 42% Asian Am as it is is at UC Berkeley, a MOST DIVERSE university and academically excellent, because it admits its students without using race.</p>
<p>The adcom can use any standards they want to use, especially holistic criteria, but eliminate race and ethnicity. All other criteria transcend race and ethnicity. Race is immutable. An Asian or white cannot be black, and vice versa. However, a black, white or Asian can be a legacy, a rich vip, a special talent, or come from any part of the country, be involved in varsity sports, or have overcome any obstacles or economic disadvantage. All these characteristics transcend race and ethnitcity.</p>
<p>As an example, the legacy factor has been much discussed. The little known fact is that blacks comprise of 6% of Harvard's legacy admits. These are the chidren of the black beneficiaries of race based AA since the late 1960s. These black have the preference of being a legacy in admissions, but they also have a racial preference from being black on admissions, giving a double preference, providing this black legacy a better than even chance of admission with lowered standards, while the rest the applicant pool is admitted at 10% rate with higher standards.</p>
<p>Why should a black upper-middle class legacy be admitted at a better than even chance with relatively lower standards, while the higher performing and more talented poorer Asian American, living in a Black ghetto, is rejected simply because of race/ goals/quotas/ diversity and Asian American "overrepresentation"??</p>
<p>This black upper-middle class black legacy had all the advantafes of his affluence, with endless opportunities of travel, private or suburban schools, test prep, etc. and he is given preferential treatment admitted with lowered standards, based on race and legacy. Why is the higher performing White or Asian Am rejected?</p>
<p>The beneficiarcies of race based AA at Harvard are lower performing middle and upper-middle class blacks admitted with lowered standards, 2/3s of whom are not even descendants of black American slaves, but of Carribbean and African immigrants.</p>
<p>Why should these blacks deserve preference over poor whites and Asians? Why?</p>
<p>Again, please reread my previous statement.</p>
<p>[Race-based AA discriminates against Asians Americans
with de facto quotas limiting their numbers, not increasing their numbers,
no matter what criteria or standards are used for admission EVEN EXCLUDING
SAT SCORES AND GPAs. Asian Americans have all the characteristics necessary
for admission, including sports, special talents, motivation, hard work,
creativity and the overcoming of hardships and economic disadvantage.</p>
<p>Of course if you factor in SAT scores and GPAs Asian Americans will win
hands down without considering other criteria for admissions. What I am
saying is that even if you FACTOR OUT SAT scores and GPAs and use holistic
criteria only, leaving race out as a factor for admissions, Asian Americans
are also disproporrtionately qualified. THEY ARE NOT ONE-DIMENSIONAL
PRE-MED VIOLINIISTS, according to the RACIST stereotypes used by some,
because they are in every field of study and endeavor and in every field of
extracurricular activities on the college campus.There is no truth to this
stereotype. For instance, just look at the writers for the Harvard Crimson
or any other college newspaper. The are Asian Americans on staff. There are hardly ANY Blacks or Latinos as writers on the college newspaper staffs.Students at Brown even bemoaned this fact. Look at Harvard's 41 varsity sports teams which are
non-contact, such as tennis or gymnastics. Asians are well represented. The
Yale women's team in gymnastics won the Ivy Championship last year with
their best NATIONALLY ranked female gymnast, Ms. Fong, a Chinese American,and a graduate of St. Ann's School in Brooklyn, NYC, a prestigious day prep ranked as a top feeder for the Ivies by Worth Magazine and the Wall Street Journal. The best tennis player on the Exeter's New England Prep League Championship team was a Chinese American last year, who enabled the team to dominate in its league. Andover's best female swimmer on their women's League championship team this year is a Korean born swimmer who qualified for the summer Olympics and enabled the Andover team to dominate female swimming. I could go on and on to break these racist stereotypes of Asian American students.</p>
<p>We must eliminate race-based admissions. Admissions must be race-neutral.]</p>
<p>Sigh. Some people just don't understand how admissions work. "The Gatekeepers" is pretty accurate on this kind of issue. A girl who was a URM (Hispanic) was fought for even though she had C's and a low SAT, while an Asian with much higher SATs was rejected outright. The point was that much more was expected of someone from an affluent family - she had (at least as far as the app went - she didn't mention everything she had done) done very little in comparison to others in her extremely high-achieving, affluent cohort. She (the Asian girl) even described herself as "lazy," though she had numbers many kids would die for. BUT FOR HER ABILITY LEVEL SHE <strong>WAS</strong> LAZY. The Hispanic girl, on the other hand, had even as a little girl in 3rd grade exhibited REAL drive to excel - she got HERSELF into a "Prep for Prep" program and as the book said, "a fish swimming so far from her home waters" in a pretty much all-white prep school <strong>got elected president of the student body!</strong>* This kid was a LEADER. Though she didn't, finally, get into Wesleyan, they loved her at Muhlenberg.</p>
<p>I am speaking from years of experience in this area. When you see a girl like this Hispanic one, and then compare her to hundreds, even thousands, of affluent applicants (white or Asian) from great homes with PhD parents, or parents pushing education, you can see why she stands out.</p>
<p>Some people simply <em>cannot</em> get over the MISTAKEN impression THAT COLLEGE ADMISSIONS TO ELITES ARE NUMBERS DRIVEN. I don't know how I can make this any clearer. Many, many, MANY valedictorians and kids "dialing toll-free" (with 800/800) scores are rejected. </p>
<p>Once again: private, elite, selective schools ARE BUILDING COMMUNITIES and the fact that they are private means they can build those communities any way they see fit. Because there are thousands upon thousands of high scorers, SCORES ARE NOT THAT IMPORTANT -- one assumes that everyone who applies can do the work, BUT WHO WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE is the true question.</p>
<p>There are not "Asian quotas." There IS the expectation that a student from a privileged background who is white or Asian - since there are so many of them as compared with students who are Black, Native American, or Hispanic - will be held to a higher standard. So? That's life. It's supply and demand.</p>
<p>And once again - I thank heaven that my son's school reaches out to Black students (yes, even from middle-class families - their perspectives are STILL different from whites) and Hispanic ones and Native Americans and international students. I would NOT send him to a school that was lily-white/Asian with nothing but people with 1600s and 4.0s. I live in a suburb that is loaded with Asian and white high schievers, and many of them are as cookie-cutter dull as the McMansions they live in, excellent at getting the grades (which, by the way, is often a matter of sucking up and playing the game - and I speak as someone whose son did phenomenally well, but knew the score) but sorely lacking in many, many other areas. Thank God my son's school isn't full of THEM!</p>
<p>And PLEASE - the constant repetition that Asians are better than anyone on the planet in creativity, ECs, etc. etc. just plays into the exact same problem. The whites and Asians in our school all do THE SAME THINGS - team captain, volunteer work, winning prizes etc. BUT THEY ARE STILL THE SAME! There is no difference in PERSPECTIVE -- NO QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCE -- just the quantitative one of "I have more awards, more numbers, more ECs, more this, more that" than anyone else. </p>
<p>Yeah, and there are 100 radio stations, but it's the same music playing on all of them! That's why I look for underground Internet radio stations - to get a DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE - to hear some world music, or weird folk songs, or ANYTHING but the infinite permutations of the same three guitar chords and the same playlist!</p>
<p>FULL DISCLOSURE: I was an Ivy interviewer and I gave MANY Asians top marks. There is no "prejudice" here.</p>
<p>Monsdream said,</p>
<p>"Also, Brown rejected 76% of their black applicants. Doesn't sound too biased to me"</p>
<p>Absolutely not, because even with the admitted blacks, who are admitted with lowered standards, they are admitted with higher rates than any other group. </p>
<p>Again, the relative quality of each applicant group is NOT THE SAME, according to all standards of admissions. Not all applicants groups are EQUALLY QUALIFIED. Blacks are the least qualified, yet they have the highest admit rates. Even if the blacks are EQUALLY QUALIFIED, which they are not as an applicant group, they should not have the highest rate of acceptance. But they are least qualified, as an applicant group, yet they have the highest rate of acceptance. By all accounts, the black applicant group should have the LOWEST acceptance rate. It's simple to understand.
Blacks have the highest acceptance rates, admitted with lowered standards, because of race-based AA, given preferential treatment admissions, tipping admissions the most in their favor.</p>
<p>Among ALL the factors used for admission or rejection, race is the biggest tipping factor. It is for the admitted black as well as the rejected Asian American. It is all RELATIVE!</p>
<p>Rattle1, as I said on the other board, if a private college wants to build their community with all gay oboe players from Ndew Mexico, what's it to you? It's their school. </p>
<p>If racial diversity is important to the private school for whatever reason - such as because corporations REPEATEDLY come down on the side of diversity (even sending courts briefs DEFENDING racial tipping factors), because they know that in today's world a diverse work force is necessary, what's it to you? </p>
<p>If a school thinks society needs more black doctors to serve as role models to the black community, what's it to you if they come from wealthy backgrounds?</p>
<p>If a school wants to decide for itself what a "qualification" is, then you should be just as upset that (eg) Dartmouth took a top-rated equestrian over a kid in our school with HIGHER SATs, more ECs, and a higher GPA and class rank. Dartmouth WANTED an equestrian. So again - it's a private school, and what's it to you?</p>
<p>Jeesh --- so many people crying "It's not fair!!!!" must not be parents. It's the number one lesson we all have to teach our kids --- NOT that "the world isn't fair" because that would just mean we have to fight for fairness; instead the lesson is "The world doesn't always define FAIR the way you do!"</p>
<p>You know what? The New York Times had to shut down an education bulletin board because of the hysteria about this issue, and the infinite number of long, repeating-themselves posts on the question.</p>
<p>Maybe it is time to realize that you just can't convince everyone, and let it go. As they used to say on the Internet in the pre-World Wide Web days:</p>
<p>"Game over."</p>
<p>rattle-</p>
<p>If you're going to continue to generalize that blacks are always admitted with lower scores then there isn't much point in me attempting to discuss this with you. You don't seem to understand the point of building communities and the value of diversity. Brown admitted twice as many Asians as blacks last year. Less than 250 blacks were admitted. Is this that much of a problem for you? You say it's all relative, and it is. Based on the very small number of blacks going to college, I would hesitate to think that blacks are the crux of your problems with college admissions. But, if I was an adcom and I read this as your viewpoint, I'd reject you too.</p>
<p>You have a narrow viewpoint and aren't even trying to understand my point of view. So, good luck with your plight.</p>