<p>epiphany, look at the second line of post #37. this is what mythmom is referring to.</p>
<p>Anyway, I totally disagree with the characterization of people who are superstars at school as "grinds." Being strong verbally (i.e., english and the humanities) and being good at the logical reasoning integral to math and physics helps you to be better at the vast majority of jobs. It's not about spitting back equations. To the Ancient Greeks, mathematics and philosophy were intertwined.</p>
<p>^^ then either you, or mythmom, or both, have not compared Post #29 with Post 37 (by the same poster). </p>
<p>The earlier post was expressing distaste for what he/she viewed in fact as stereotyping. You didn't see the "[sarcasm]" comment? </p>
<p>And "a grind" does not describe anyone who is competent in, or a high achiever, in a particular subject. It describes a student focused on a kind of repetitive product, confined mainly to routinized work. There was a very specific reason I brought in my example of a humanities grind. The student in my example was described by other students, and by teachers, as a grind. And she surely wasn't Asian, and the subject definitely was not math (her worst subject). </p>
<p>There are superior math intellectuals of every ethnic group, as well as creative math thinkers. And by the way, places like MIT are quite interested in such students. (More so than "grinds," whatever the ethnicity)</p>
<p>It has to do with the style & academic behavior or pattern of the student, not the academic subject in question.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why is Jian Li complaining? He's damn lucky. My 2400 and extracurriculars didn't get me into a single Ivy or top school. Yale, Caltech...wow, he should be relieved as hell!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>b4nnd20: Duke is a top school.. stop complaining. :p</p>
<p>If it makes you feel better I know of people who got into Columbia & Penn who were rejected by Duke (unless you simply mean HYPSM when it comes to "top schools").</p>
<p>of course...see you in the fall :)</p>
<p>Ah I see.. I'll see you this fall then. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
And he's in-state for Cal Tech.
[/quote]
??? so Massachusetts residents have a better chance at MIT?</p>
<p>Jian Li had a case 'cause he was able to prove that Asian as a group needs higher grades/scores to get into Princeton ... that's discrimination on a racial basis.</p>
<p>"Li came to the decision to file a civil rights complaint against Princeton after reading a study by Princeton researchers[5][6] which claimed that ending affirmative action in university admissions would lead to 80% of placements currently offered to black and Latino students instead being given to Asian Americans.[7][8]" (Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Very interesting...</p>
<p>Jian Li knows no shame.</p>
<p>The fact that he would base the reason he got rejected from several of those schools solely on the fact that AA exists is a testament to his own vanity and lack of introspection. a 2400 tells us nothing about the rest of his transcript. I know of people who got similar scores and did absolutely nothing else of merit. A persons true value is not solely dependent on a standardized test score, and someone as intelligent as that should be able to recognize the truth for what it is. It enrages me in ways I cannot express when someone blames their misfortunes on others who are just as deserving of admission. </p>
<p>That's what happens when someone who has their whole life measured them self on a tangible scale of excellence is unable to mark them self on an intangible scale- college admissions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The fact that he would base the reason he got rejected from several of those schools solely on the fact that AA exists is a testament to his own vanity and lack of introspection.
[/quote]
No, he would have no case if that was his SOLE reason. He based his case on a study by PRINCETON researchers that without AA, 80% of the places currently offered to blacks and Latino students would be taken up by Asian American ... that is, if they were to hide the "race" data from the admission readers, there would be more Asian Americans (not White/Non-Hispanic)admitted to Princeton.</p>
<p>It implies that Asian Americans are held to a higher standards than White/Non-Hispanic in Princeton's admission process. In my opinion, that is discrimination based on race.</p>
<p>If the fact that minorities are getting into schools because of AA is not the sole reason, what is the other reason GoBlue81? The Princeton report is based on AA is it not? What I'm saying is that for him to bring a case for his personal gratification, and to claim that if AA did not exist, he would have been all but guaranteed admission is not only close minded, it is vain and pretentious. And disgusting. </p>
<p>Please don't make this a "discrimination based on race" or AA argument though. I'm only saying that his entire argument is based on a bunch of assumptions that he is pulling out of thin air and the extrapolation of conclusions that are not present in the reports he is using.</p>
<p>It has nothing to do with AA. It's more "reverse" discrimination against Asian American applicants ... similar to the "quota" system practised by the UC system before AA is banned in California.</p>
<p>The Princeton research study concluded that if AA were abolished, 80% of the places currently offered to URMs would be taken up by Asian Americans (not Asian Americans + White/Non-Hispanic). Why is that, you may ask, if there are equally qualified Whites? The only logical conclusion is that Asian Americans are currently held to higher standards than White/Non-Hispanic.</p>
<p>^^ Oh the same old tired, trite and INCOMPLETE argument. The Princeton researchers used faulty research design & had an axe to grind. They limited "qualifications" to those which they personally selected as important, superior, etc., then did a "study" based on those (extremely faulty) assumptions. </p>
<p>SAT scores are an indicator, not a qualifer. (Huge difference.) No serious scientist or science student should use the Princeton "study" as a model, since it is flawed at its core.</p>
<p>Newsflash: You're not more "qualified" if you have a higher SAT score. You're more qualified if the University -- not you -- not the initiators of a "study" -- determine that you are qualified. That is not based on race, but on <em>academic</em> factors other than SAT scores. Once the academic elements (several) of qualification have been determined, a private University often selects a balance of ethnic groups, nationalities, races, geographical regions, and academic, extracurricular interests among that highly qualified subset.</p>
<p>Because it is a choice (and it <em>is</em> a choice) of many Asians to concentrate on obtaining high scores -- including practicing for standardizing tests both formally and informally via earlier childhood timed math rehearsals -- they often do in fact have higher scores than non-Asian counterparts. That is irrespective of what the University states its qualifications for admission are. You will find zero indications on websites or printed material of Elite U's that particular score cut-offs qualify one student more than another. Zero, zip indication. You will find data sets stating ranges from accepted students. </p>
<p>Do not assume that a high scorer is more qualified, or more capable, of the work at an Elite college than one scoring 20 points or 200 points lower. That is arrogant.</p>
<p>You hold <em>yourself</em>, not to a "higher" standard, but to a <em>different</em> standard than Elite U's hold a student to. (Sorry for ending with a preposition, speaking of standards.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're more qualified if the University -- not you -- not the initiators of a "study" -- determine that you are qualified
[/quote]
</p>
<p>LOL!!!!! There are NO politics in admissions, none at all!! Haha, what a joke. And I am not talking affirmative action here at all. There's a lot more politicking that goes on aside from the race issue.</p>
<p>At the risk of being politically incorrect, my personal anecdotal experience regarding asians has been that asian parents push their kids to excel in school at the expense of extracurricular activities. Just as an example (and I have many more), I have seen an asian parent force a kid to drop out of club soccer because he got ONE B in middle school (not even HIGH school mind you, and the kid was a passionate athlete who won the middle school's athlete of the year award). I am hypothesizing that the backlash against asians from school admissions officers is due to the fact that it's difficult to trust which asians are really smart and which ones are already working at their capacities (i.e. being tutored every day after school, studying all weekend, etc.). If a kid can make straight A's AND play sports AND do 100's of hours of community service then perhaps that kid has extra capacity for handling difficult college work. The same backlash is beginning to occur against overmanaged Caucasian kids. How many of these kids truly have a passion for the extracurricular activities they participate in? How many are really putting the hours into what they do? The colleges added essays to the admissions process in an attempt to find out. But it's difficult to say if they can really tell from the essays.</p>
<p>I did not say that they were zero "politics" in admissions. But "politics" per se was not the issue being discussed. The issue being discussed was the faulty belief that a higher score = a greater qualification, per se, for a highly ranked college.</p>
<p>You will find much more politics in the way of accepting celebrities of any race, accepting big donors, accepting certain star athletes, and even, to some degree, accepting "locals" to the Elites. All U's and colleges maintain a Town and Gown policy & various gentlemen's agreements whereby at the very least a great deal of consideration is offered to certain local high schools & residential areas, to maintain positive relationships between the institution and the local region. Universities are business as well as academies.</p>
<p>epiphany: "**All U's **and colleges maintain a Town and Gown policy & various gentlemen's agreements whereby at the very least a great deal of consideration is offered to certain local high schools & residential areas, to maintain positive relationships between the institution and the local region."</p>
<p>MIT and CalTech do not favor local applicants.</p>
<p>A good educational psychology or social science statistics/research design class would go a long way in clarifying the reality that ANY measure is incomplete and flawed in some respect - and the SAT surely is. There's a great deal of data about its inability to predict much of anything. It is not a good measure of merit. There are alternatives existing and ones that could be developed, but they cannot compete with the commercial behemoth that is the College Board.</p>
<p>sorry, collegalum. I should have excluded those 2, and thanks for that correction.</p>
<p>He got into Yale, he definitely isn't doing this for himself. Even if he won the lawsuit, do you think he would go to Princeton - just think of the reputation he would have ... it'd be social suicide. I'm sure even a 'textureless math nerd' knows this.</p>
<p>I also find it amusing that having a passion for math is negative. He had a fairy high HS GPA ... last i checked english, history, and science were requirements for consideration at most schools. So he wasn't just a math nerd, he was intelligent, or a hard worker. Both of which are terrible, terrible qualities ... its no wonder he got rejected from all those colleges</p>
<p>Why would he assume that he would get into every highly selective school to which he applied? Given the reality of college admissions, isn't that a flawed assumption?</p>