Mismatch caused by racial preferences

Parent Cafe
141

<p>Beliavsky-- the disgruntled bitter asian.</p>

<p>asians and pacific islanders make up 5.8% of the US population.</p>

<p>Pacific islanders are considered URM’s for the purpose of college admissions.</p>

<p>asians are admitted at 21% to both Yale and Harvard last year.</p>

<p>I’m not sure what you want? </p>

<p>You have to understand that no private university is going to go higher than a quarter of the school for a population that is less than 6% of the country. It’s just not going to happen. sorry.</p>

142

<p>^^^ “That says more about the pool than about the schools, sadly.”</p>

<p>Allow me to paraphrase … “Even one is too many.”</p>

143

<p>Huh? What do you mean?</p>

144

<p>I find this sting disturbing. People do not want their children’s “spot” at the college of their choice to be taken by a less academically qualified applicant. And then to use subsidized government loans as a way to complain their tax money should be used on a fair and equal playing field. </p>

<p>We have become such a plutocracy in this country. To better society we try to lend a hand to the under privileged whether it be by loans or in the case of private colleges, admission preference. I see nothing wrong with this policy; in fact I commend it wholeheartedly. Educated underprivileged class will strengthen, not weaken a society and if private colleges choose to adopt this policy, it is their choice. </p>

<p>I have heard that many of the tippy top schools can be filled by near perfect students and colleges choose not to select “perfect applicants” based on some self defined ideal of the student body they desire. I hear no complaints about that and isn’t this just another facet of how they choose to run their school and the student body they want to promote? </p>

<p>If you do not like the ideology of a college, then it is simple, do not apply.</p>

145

<p>Perhaps my prior post was too harsh. Let me try again …</p>

<p>“I don’t want any admitted, and I don’t want to be accused of discrimination. So I’ve developed this handy-dandy metric …”</p>

146

<p>Could you be more clear? Are you saying that I don’t want any african americans accepted into top colleges? Or Harvard doesn’t? Or what?</p>

147

<p>

</p>

<p>For schools listed as “most difficult” in admissions on collegedata.com , the following private schools are over 25% for Asian and Pacific Islander undergraduates:</p>

<p>Caltech
Carnegie Mellon
Emory
MIT
USC (Trojans)</p>

<p>(Once again, there seems to be a difference between “what is” and “what people think is”.)</p>

148

<p>thank you, UCB, I thought about that after I posted. My bad. I was coming back to change it, but you did.</p>

<p>There is no dearth of highly selective colleges going about the business of educating the 5.8%.</p>

149

<p>artrell - I find the narcissism disturbing also. This type of thread appears every couple of years here on CC, and each follows the same predictable pattern. Fortunately, there are a great many colleges and universities in America. Gifted students whose Top 20 slot was “stolen by some under-qualified URM” have plenty of options within the Top 50.</p>

150

<p>

</p>

<p>Race may be an obstacle if average intelligence differs by race. The “Race and Intelligence” article of the Wikipedia discusses this question, citing many sources. Affirmative action in college admissions and the NCLB mandate that schools eliminate the racial academic achievement gap could make sense if we <em>knew</em> that there were no group differences in intelligence. We do not know that. In the absence of this knowledge we should adopt race-neutral policies and let the chips fall where they may.</p>

151

<p>

</p>

<p>Why should the higher qualified applicants have to settle for the second tier-- where is the basic fairness in this?</p>

152

<p>philovitist - Let’s try it this way … What is the PRACTICAL difference between banning URMs outright from the student body, and establishing a system that precludes URMs from being accepted into the student body?</p>

<p>“Honestly Sir, it’s a skin pigmentation test we give to all students. Too dark and you’re out. It’s designed to eliminate overly tanned students, as research has correlated excessive tanning with academic laziness.”</p>

153

<p>“Why should the higher qualified applicants have to settle for the second tier-- where is the basic fairness in this?”</p>

<p>And who decides what constitutes “higher qualified applicants?” Oh, right … you do.</p>

154

<p>

</p>

<p>When an applicant scores HUNDREDS of points higher (not just a few points) on the SAT then one can objectively deem that applicant as being more qualified.</p>

155

<p>That’s still subjective, GMT, but whatever.</p>

<p>NewHope, be straightforward with us. There are so many things around to criticize in this thread, I’m not sure which terrible thing you are talking about.</p>

156

<p>Yes, newhope, more qualified to take the standardized tests that is the curriculum and atmosphere at the Ivies, you know, the athletic league? The eating clubs? the rowing teams, the theater and singing and comedy clubs? the standardized test club. that one. More qualified to be president of the SAT club.</p>

157

<p>I’m protesting the frayed logic that universities exist to domicile good standardized test takers.</p>

158

<p>

</p>

<p>No, universities are not places for academic development. Universities exist to remedy all the social injustices of the last 2 centuries. Kumbaya</p>

159

<p>^ So your position is that the admissions policy of EVERY top college and university is WRONG. Halcyon times my friend.</p>

160

<p>Okay, let’s moderate things a little…</p>