<p>Tyler, why do you say the opposite is true?
Do you mean there isn't a large number of Korean adoptees applying to top schools or Korean adoptees are not applying to top schools? Or a small number of Korean adoptees are applying to top schools?</p>
<p>I REALLY disagree with the advice in post 13. As I posted in another thread, writing an essay which makes you into a type is a BAD idea. The odds that there won't be at least one other adopted Korean girl among the applicants to any top college strike me as being just about non-existent.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you believe the UCs don't factor in race how do you explain the wide gulf between average score for blacks versus asians or whites?? It is in the 100's of points.
[/quote]
They say they don't and they're prohibited by law from doing so and I believe them. And if you look at the demographics of the top 3 most competetive UCs (UCSD, UCLA, UCB), it's quite apparent there's no racial factor in the admissions since Asians are the most represented, way out of proportion to their demographics in the state, whites less so, Hispanics and AfAms considerably less so. The proportions are completely different between these races in the general population versus these UCs. </p>
<p>They do, however, consider other factors that may favor some socioeconomic groups since extra 'points' are awarded for things like first gen college student, family economics, only having one parent at home, etc. These other factors can result in some gaining admission over others on factors outside of GPA/SAT scores.</p>
<p>^That there are a large number of korean adoptees. And that those adoptees make up a significant percentage of the applicant pool at top colleges.</p>
<p>Potatoe, potatoh. The facts remain far less qualified black and hispanic students get in. The rest is window dressing. More asians get in because so many more by proportion are well qualified.</p>
<p>I guess it depends what you mean by "less qualified".</p>
<p>Some colleges believe that a student growing up in an affluent white suburb with every advantage isn't necessarily more "qualified" than a student from a single-parent working class family in Compton with no private SAT tutoring.</p>
<p>I think 'interesteddad's' point is what the UCs, CalStates, and many other colleges have concluded and why they look at these factors in the decision.</p>
<p>But the fact remains that they're not considering race. I think whites and Asians in low income, single parent, first gen situations get the same boost as Hispanics/AfAms in the same situation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But the fact remains that they're not considering race.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is true. And, the lack of African American students at the major state universities in the states' two largest urban areas is a disgrace. If you look at the big picture for the state of California, it is devastating to have black students so incredibly underrepresented at UCLA and Berkeley.</p>
<p>Nothing to add to the subject of the thread, so forgive me for this slight departure: It's really nice to see you back, interesteddad. Where ya been? Have you heard from TheDad?</p>
<p>I agree with poetsheart, nothing to add but it is good to see you back ID. I hope that your D is doing well as she wraps up her last few weeks (maybe even days) of undergrad.</p>
<p>ChiSquare, if your daughter were to write about her experience being born Korean, but raised by an American family, it might make a compelling essay. </p>
<p>Also, I have found it odd how schools attempt to seek "diversity". You don't hear about some groups deliberately represented: adolpted kids, gay kids or kids from very poor backgrounds, for example.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's really nice to see you back, interesteddad.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>ID hasn't left but to catch up with his news, go to Swarthmore forum.</p>
<p>^enjoyed reading your posts there, ID.</p>
<p>Barrons, there is a very simple reason that would explain the disparity in SAT score averages among admitted students. Consider the simplified case that Berkeley makes its decision solely on a SAT cut-off. If you get above say 1400, you're in. Now consider that for group A there are 3 people over 1400 with scores of 1410, 1430 and 1450. So Group A has an average of 1430. Now consider Group B. Group B has more very high scores: let's say the people who cleared the cut-off have scores of 1400, 1450, 1500, 1500, 1500, 1550, and 1600. The average for admitted students in group B is 1500 while the average for the admitted students in group A is 1430. The admitted students in Group B have a higher SAT average, but there was no preference whatsoever for Group A.</p>
<p>...except that UC admissions (subject of post 20) is not as neat & delineated as all that. They're not selecting from discrete piles in the manner described in post 33.</p>
<p>In fact, if they did, there would be far more ethnic & racial diversity in the <em>undergrad</em> classes at U.C., but particularly in the freshman & sophomore classes. There are several private U's and LAC's that are much more diverse than any of the UC's are.</p>
<p>The UC undergrad student bodies reflect the middle class segment of the CA population groups, with the greatest emphasis on whites & Asian cultures. As transfers begin to play into the mix in upper division, and as internationals join the campuses on the graduate level, especially, the mix becomes increasingly representative of a more national and international representation, racially, ethnically, geographically, & economically. (A fair amount of wealthy students in some of the graduate divisions; much fewer of these as undergrads.) I know I'm digressing, but it's clear that the subgroup admissions methodology of some of the privates is not operative in Comprehensive Review. Comprehensive refers to the combined assets of the individual applicant as an individual, not as a member of a group. Some campuses assign points for these categories of attributes.</p>
<p>Beyond that, some in-State geographical distribution comes into play (as in VA), as well as comparative assessments vs. one's own senior class.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have found it odd how schools attempt to seek "diversity". You don't hear about some groups deliberately represented: adolpted kids, gay kids or kids from very poor backgrounds, for example.
[/quote]
And students with disabilities. There is no allowance made in admissions usually, and no scores a hundred points and more below the average being accepted like those scores are accepted for URMs.</p>
<p>Tyler: I didn't say there were large numbers of adopted Korean girls (although I know of a couple). I said there were large numbers of adopted Asian girls (i.e., including Han Chinese as well as Korean). I don't have statistics, I just have the experience of living in an upper middle class community -- one where many kids apply to competitive colleges -- where there are lots of adopted Asian girls. Granted, the experience of being an adopted Korean girl may be slightly different from that of being an adopted Chinese girl, but I'm skeptical -- unless she has some particular involvement with the Korean community. And it's not as though ethnic Korean kids are unknown in the competitive college applicant pool.</p>
<p>All of which does not mean that the OP's daughter couldn't write a nice essay about her experience, but I believe any competitive college may receive some dozens of such essays, so hers had better have some original take on it.</p>
<p>Re the diversity comment above: I believe many historically elite schools want socioeconomic diversity and favor kids from very poor backgrounds in admissions. It's hard to tell, because nobody breaks out test scores, etc., by income bracket (and also because income bracket is less than a perfect proxy for wealth and class). I know that kids from the lowest income quintile are much better represented at elite colleges than kids from the third and fourth quintiles.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You don't hear about some groups deliberately represented: adolpted kids, gay kids or kids from very poor backgrounds, for example.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, a lot of schools these days are making a big effort to bring in more poor kids. And I'm not sure about colleges, but I've seen some grad fellowships that make a big effort to get disabled students.</p>
<p>Some groups don't need to be deliberately represented, because they're not historically or currently underrepresented. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I am not aware of gay students having been underrepresented (though I think it is a good thing when LBGT students have a supportive community with other LBGT students).</p>
<p>Undergraduate enrollment at Berkeley is 41% Asian American. I don't suppose Daniel Golden compared that to the overall population of California in his hatchet job?</p>
<p>You can't seriously suggest that UCB is discriminating against Asian Americans when they make up 41% of the student body.</p>
<p>As for SATs above 1400, big whoop. That and a buck will buy you some french fries at McDonalds.</p>
<p>"Undergraduate enrollment at Berkeley is 41% Asian American."</p>
<p>(And quite recently the freshman class itself was 47% Asian American.)</p>
<p>About once a month, it seems, someone drags out that tired piece of Golden's from the mothballs, attempting to "prove" something suspicious & conspiratorial at work. (Yes, unfortunately these posters are 'serious.')</p>
<p>Again, for the record: "scores" do not prove superior ability in & of themselves (or superior "qualification" -- for the benefit of those who think they know who is 'qualified' & who is not). i'dad has it right.</p>