Must See Video:College Admissions For The Elite--Still Not Fair

<p>Don't ask them the obvious, momfromme. There's an underlying assumption, not acknowledged, that every good, or very good, or excellent, or hardworking student, should be accepted to specific universities of that student's wish. If there were space for every excellent student at every excellent u, then Li would have been admitted as well. This is called absolute admissions. By contrast, American universities operate by relative admission, by which some of the qualified get admitted, and some of the qualified do not get admitted. </p>

<p>P.S. Lurker, no poster here said that "math is a negative." Again, I get tired of repeating myself. The comment from the admissions rep pertained more to <em>grind</em> than to math, and to lacking distinction (<em>textureless</em>) than to math. Please read my post about the textureless humanities grind.</p>

<p>On a second thought, maybe his applied major had an effect? .. or not</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]

I have not read the Princeton study and have no intention to do so. If you say the Princeton researchers used "faulty design & had an axe to grind" against Princeton admission, I believe you 'cause you said so. But do you really believe that Princeton has no quota (to cap % of Asian American enrollment)?</p>

<p>It is well known that quota like this exists at some selective universities ... like UC-Berkeley, where the % Asian American jumped to 41% after AA was banned. Perhaps the Princeton researchers might have a point.</p>

<p>so, they all get into other amazing schools?</p>

<p>GoBlue,</p>

<p>Princeton Admissions would readily admit that IF they used the primarily stats-driven criteria for admission that Berkeley does, then Princeton freshman classes would be more Asian in composition. That is not the same thing as saying that their classes would be more qualified. That is the equation that cannot be substantiated or even evaluated. </p>

<p>A private U one-sixth the size of UC Berkeley, and not having a State mandate to educate their residents (of which about a third in CA are Asian, I believe), has the opportunity & time to look in-depth at aspects like recommendations (which don't exist for U.C's), etc. U.C does not have the luxury to evaluate on a high school by high school basis, comparing standards, curricula with each other. There is a narrower range on which to evaluate applicants.</p>

<p>The focus that many Asian students have, on & off CC, is not the focus that many of the private Elites have. For those colleges, standardized testing is but one indicator in a long list posted on the cds, as to what is considered for admission.</p>

<p>For example, a student who does not actually have a 4.0 UW GPA, because he or she has gone to such a rigorous school (here or overseas), where the grading standards and the unusual course contents are such that precious few 4.0's are attainable, may be a student seen by Princeton to be actually far more qualified than a student with 8 or 10 AP's in standard AP courses, & who has attended a school where 50% of the senior class has a 4.0 UW GPA. </p>

<p>Or a student with a 2200 SAT but with way more personal commendations (awards, etc.) than possibly Jian Li had, may be considered more qualified, not to mention more valuable, to P -- whatever the ethnicity. (And there are such comparisons between Asian students regularly, btw.)</p>

<p>The problem is, as has been said so many times on CC that it should be a Stickie by now, neither the Princeton self-styled "researchers," nor the general public, had access to the application PACKAGES of the competing students during the Li round of application. They don't have access <em>any</em> year. So they have zero authority to talk about "qualifications."</p>

<p>Princeton doesn't want the narrow SES makeup of the incoming freshman classes at U.C. Berkeley. (Overwhelmingly middle class, about half-Asian, & over 90% Californian.) They also know that their applicants don't come to Princeton to duplicate the same range of exposure they would get at their in-State flagship. Therefore, Princeton, a <em>private</em> University, driven by its own mission, wants a maximum range & mix. But the point is that they're choosing that maximum range within a huge group of prime qualified candidates, not among some qualified, some not qualified. They don't have to make such either/or choices. They can choose both/and because of the glut of qualified candidates.</p>

<p>Finally, once again: Li was not rejected. He was waitlisted. A waitlist decision is a message that you are equally qualified with those that we accepted. However, there is no compelling reason to admit you <em>over</em> the current acceptees. Unqualified students do not get waitlisted. </p>

<p>The tone of many of the posts by Asians on CC is the part that I think bothers me the most -- not even the part about supposedly higher scorers are "more qualified," which is so uninformed & such a narrow world view. There is a "persecution" attitude, as if Asians have been singled out as more rejected & more waitlisted than whites. Well, if proportionally speaking you apply more exclusively to top-tier Universities, with fewer non-top-tier U's included than your Caucasian peers with similar qualifications, you can expect that the mathematics will bear out such results. But not nearly as many whites come on CC whining about their superior qualifications for HYPMSC + MIT/CIT, & how unjust their waitlist or rejection was. Yet a way larger group of highly qualified whites are rejected every year from the same colleges that their Asian peers are rejected from. The difference is in expectations, and in the way the rejection is perceived & handled (overall). Proportionally speaking, way fewer whites see these results as catastrophic, or as some grand cosmic injustice. It speaks to a very rigid understanding of just how many opportunities there are to succeed in this country outside of specific, particular institutions.</p>

<p>I wonder if some of the top schools deliberately reject a certain portion of superqualified applicants to help to maintain their yield rate. Assuming they don't have a conspiracy to do this, it could just be random. So a guy like Li, even if he really is superqualified, is not going to get into all of the top Ivies, because if they all admitted him, it would affect all of their yield rates. Or, maybe somebody at Harvard looked at his package and said, "I'm sure this guy applied to MIT, and MIT will take him. Let's reject...or waitlist."</p>

<p>^They might do that. But there ARE people who get into all schools. It's more likely that colleges are not colluding--they compete for the best applicants. I do know someone who got waitlisted just about everywhere though (Harvard, Princeton, Northwestern, Rice, Reed, Rochester, Georgetown, Brown, Stanford)</p>

<p><a href="epiphany%20wrote:">quote</a> The Princeton researchers used faulty research design & had an axe to grind.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's funny, considering that even the study's academic critics do not contest the validity of the research design. They assume that the model is solid and criticize the authors for not making some further computations using that model (isolating the Asian versus White admissions differential without comparison to Black and Latino).</p>

<p>If you know of some specific "faulty design" of the Princeton article, there's no need to conceal it from CC readers. It would be a first in any medium to see this study demolished, so please do publicize any deadly flaws. Disliking the results doesn't count, though.</p>

<p>
[quote]
They limited "qualifications" to those which they personally selected as important, superior, etc., then did a "study" based on those (extremely faulty) assumptions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Completely false. They did not privilege any "qualifications" as being important or superior. They did develop a model with certain predictor variables, and that model turned out to be remarkably accurate. The only claim they make is that this model is predictive enough (given its accuracy) to draw some conclusions. It would have been just as significant if the model had come out at that level of accuracy using applicants' shoe color, computer manufacturer, and phone number as the variables.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Princeton Admissions would readily admit that IF they used the primarily stats-driven criteria for admission that Berkeley does, then Princeton freshman classes would be more Asian in composition. That is not the same thing as saying that their classes would be more qualified. That is the equation that cannot be substantiated or even evaluated.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I do have to say that holistic admissions does allow colleges to add in their own discrimination but never be called on it.</p>

<p>After all, the primary instigation of our current "holistic" system was the influx of the "undesirable" Jewish students that were "threatening the integrity of American higher education" with their high test scores and "greedy, immoral personalities".</p>

<p>While I personally believe that stats aren't king, it should be acknowledged that such system can be used to persecute and have been used to in the past in this very manner.</p>

<p>At this point, the Jewish student denials have been seen as racial discrimination, and in hindsight, some might label the current situation similarly.</p>

<p>Having said that, though, to compete on the basis of purely numbers tends to make the college bodies unbalanced and unable to take students that would contribute greatly. There's no silver bullet for this particular problem.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Princeton doesn't want the narrow SES makeup of the incoming freshman classes at U.C. Berkeley. (Overwhelmingly middle class, about half-Asian, & over 90% Californian.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Asian and Californian are hardly monolithic categories though.
The variety between most groups is quite great and different regions of California have radically different cultures.</p>

<p>Having admitted that, I do have to acknowledge that within the finer ethnic groups (Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, etc) there are great similarities, as well as between geographic locations.
This is, however, not that different from most ethnic groups and geographic locations. So Berkeley isn't exactly THAT narrow.</p>

<p>It's narrower than would be preferred, yes, but not stiflingly so.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The tone of many of the posts by Asians on CC is the part that I think bothers me the most -- not even the part about supposedly higher scorers are "more qualified," which is so uninformed & such a narrow world view. There is a "persecution" attitude, as if Asians have been singled out as more rejected & more waitlisted than whites. Well, if proportionally speaking you apply more exclusively to top-tier Universities, with fewer non-top-tier U's included than your Caucasian peers with similar qualifications, you can expect that the mathematics will bear out such results. But not nearly as many whites come on CC whining about their superior qualifications for HYPMSC + MIT/CIT, & how unjust their waitlist or rejection was. Yet a way larger group of highly qualified whites are rejected every year from the same colleges that their Asian peers are rejected from. The difference is in expectations, and in the way the rejection is perceived & handled (overall). Proportionally speaking, way fewer whites see these results as catastrophic, or as some grand cosmic injustice. It speaks to a very rigid understanding of just how many opportunities there are to succeed in this country outside of specific, particular institutions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ah, however, specific particular institutions continue to influence success in this country remarkably. Who can argue that Harvard and Yale have names that can make doors not only open, but practically fall away? Why is it that so many presidents are from those institutions, and so many executives are members of the same clubs, organizations, etc?</p>

<p>Part of the problem is that while you mention that many more whites are rejected, realize that quotas have almost never touched the white proportions. Reshuffling occurs within minority groups.</p>

<p>A Black would replace a Hispanic who replaces an Asian, in a sense.
Caucasians aren't part of this equation.</p>

<p>One Wong doesn't equal a White.
For that matter, neither do two, in terms of admissions quotas.</p>

<p><em>shrug</em> You are right that there is a far more ingrained attitude in Asian culture based on academic institutions, but that's true of most of the rest of the world. "Public schools" in Britain, for instance (not--mind you--public schools in the American sense).</p>

<p>And as said, even to a point, America has that with its most elite institutions.</p>

<p>It's good to question, though. It could very well be discrimination, considering history, and airing it out to light wouldn't hurt, even for colleges, unless they truly have a policy that is discriminatory.</p>

<p>I must admit that the entitlement of some posters is extremely obnoxious, but I find that quality tends to cross ethnic lines.</p>

<p>I know this thread is old, but I found this video to be hilarious. </p>

<p>Some of you watch it again, and look closely when the reporter is asking how Jian feels about being called a "textureless math grind." Initially, it seems that Jian can't make up his mind to whether that is a compliment or an insult, and requires the reporter to prompt him that being called a "textureless math grind" is offensive.</p>

<p>LOL ROFL LMAO.</p>

<p>That report was quite misleading. The percentage of development admits is incredibly small and they all donate millions to the school. Not just anyone with money can walk right in the door at any school. The legacy applicants often donate more and stay loyal to the university and they aren't necessarily weak students, just not as strong. Another point to make is that Jun Li had a 2400 but it was never made clear if he did extensive community service, maybe one expensive trip to South America, but did he ever really give back to the community? Did Li play any varsity athletics? Was he a school leader in government and club positions? His high grades and scores hardly make him a perfect student. I guess the poor fellow had to settle for another top university or a different Ivy because he got rejected from Harvard. Oh well, guess life just sucks at Yale or CalTech or wherever he ended up going.
Poor kid {Sarcasm}</p>