<p>I very much appreciate Questing for the encouragement, it put a smile on my face :)</p>
<p>Jamescchen- I do understand your opinion too (basically what my parents have been telling me for the past 4 years), and thank you for keeping me realistic :)</p>
<p>Also, I appreciate everyone’s opinions (:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not what the recent Princeton study showed. Not at all. The study did not consider pools of Asians and white applicants “with similar academic and extracurricular profiles” and compare their rates of admissions. The opposite was true: the study lumped together applicants with a wide range of profiles as a single large pool, and attempted to extract statistical trends using regression analysis. Here are some of the findings:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>**Asian lower-class applicants have 91.5 times higher admissions odds ratio than identical White applicants<a href=“610%20x%200.15”>/b</a>.</p></li>
<li><p>**Asian working-class applicants have 2.94 times higher admissions odds ratio than identical White applicants <a href=“19.62%20x%200.15”>/b</a>.</p></li>
<li><p>Asian lower-class applicants are preferred over black and Hispanic working-class applicants, and thus are preferred over all race and economic categories of applicants other than lower-class URM. (odds-ratios of 8.24 (A,lc) versus 3.16 (H,wc), 5.78 (B,wc), 1.00 (W,wc or higher) ).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The above are from table 3.4 of Princeton sociology professor Espenshade’s presentation referenced in the US News “3-to-1 discrimination against Asians” article (slide #12, page 4 of the PDF file from the NACAC lecture). The 3-to-1 figure is from the more limited Model 5 that does not consider race/class interactions. Espenshade’s full model of private school admissions, no. 6, finds huge and significant interactions between race and class, leading to the figures given above.</p>
<p>Note that for (1) and (2) above, all odds-ratios used in the calculation are statistically significant at the same three-star (p<0.001) level as the Asian 3-to-1 figure that is being claimed as a proof of discrimination. Item (3) is the same calculation, but taking the regression coefficients (whatever their significance levels) at face value and as such could be subject to more error. However, it is questionable whether a discrepancy of more than 8-to-1 between Asian lower-class and white working-class (or higher) applicants could be erased by statistical noise in the parameter estimates.</p>
<p>It spans Brooklyn and Manhattan island. Any takers?</p>
<p>It was rude of me to engage in name-calling. Tried to delete prior post but system would not allow it. I’ll try and stick to the subject.</p>
<p>Readers can view the Espenshade-Chang study and Inside Higher Ed article for themselves here: [News:</a> The Power of Race - Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/03/elite]News:”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/03/elite)</p>
<p>You can also read the US News & World Report article describing the study often cited on these boards here: [Do</a> Elite Private Colleges Discriminate Against Asian Students? - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/2009/10/07/do-elite-private-colleges-discriminate-against-asian-students.html?PageNr=2]Do”>http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/2009/10/07/do-elite-private-colleges-discriminate-against-asian-students.html?PageNr=2)</p>
<p>This is the excerpt from the US News article that many posters often cite:</p>
<p>"Espenshade found that when comparing applicants with similar grades, scores, athletic qualifications, and family history for seven elite private colleges and universities:</p>
<pre><code>* Whites were three times as likely to get fat envelopes as Asians.
<p>Most of conclusions were taken from the Espenshade-Chang presentation that is linked in the US News article.</p>
<p>Happy reading, everyone!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The news reports are inaccurate, so quoting them doesn’t make the 3-to-1 claim more credible. You have to go to the primary sources to get the real information, and if you do, you will find that my statements above are exactly correct. </p>
<p>Thus, US News is peddling misinformation when they say that Espenshade compared similar white and Asian applicants. He didn’t, and doesn’t claim to have ever performed a controlled study of that kind. As I wrote above, Espenshade’s method is the very opposite: to mix together a large and diverse pool of applicants, and then try to sort out statistical trends using regression analysis. Whatever the merits of this approach it is completely different from the controlled experiment that the news accounts falsely imply. </p>
<p>US News is also selling misinformation when they say that Espenshade found (whatever types of applicants he studied and however comparable they were) a 3-to-1 reduction in admissions probability for Asians. This number and all the other ones that you quoted from the news accounts are loose summaries of logistic regression coefficients displayed in a recent slide presentation by Espenshade, excerpted from a new book that he is promoting. For instance, a parameter for Asians came out as log(0.33), which is conventionally and somewhat misleadingly denoted as an “odds ratio” of 0.33, and this phrase was then reprocessed by US News reporter Kim Clark into the “three times lower chance of getting a fat envelope”. </p>
<p>If you look at the regression results provided in Espenshade’s slides, you will see that the published accounts are based on his Model 5. The full model, Model 6, is of course more accurate, and more importantly for this discussion, it shows that the simple picture of “racial discrimination against Asians” or “in favor of elite whites” breaks down when you consider ever so slightly more realistic models. As you can see from the third calculation I posted, if Espenshade’s admissions models hold water, then (subject to some analysis of the statistical significance levels if and when that information is published) his regressions appear to actually be showing a preference for lower-class Asians over black and Hispanic applicants who are working-class and higher. If you dispute this, have a look at his regressions and make your own calculations. </p>
<p>Espenshade’s presentation of his regression results (i.e. the ultimate source of the US News and Inside Higher Ed reports) is here:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nacacnet.org/EventsTraining/NC10/Baltimore/educational/Documents/C313.pdf[/url]”>http://www.nacacnet.org/EventsTraining/NC10/Baltimore/educational/Documents/C313.pdf</a></p>
<p>Happy reading, as you say. Enjoy.</p>
<p>Welllllllllllll. There are a lot of confounding variables to be considered in both cases, but I think it would be fair to say that each application should be personalized, and I don’t mind Columbia views me as an Asian student, because that’s who I am and I am not afraid of how they would judge me. I guess at the end of the day they are still admitting students who belong at Columbia, even if individual biases are inevitably part of the admission process. I just want to say that both of you are right…The admission officers are biased, just like everyone else in life, but their biases may not actually be strong enough to keep someone out based on their race. It wouldn’t really be realistic to use regression to back up either statements because students are not statistics, you know? Unless you can somehow enumerate personality, ethnicity, innate talent, academic interests…etc., which is not realistic since we are not machines 
So both of you are right, clearly. It’s just a matter of settling on the middle ground, I think. And yes, I am a pacifist.</p>
<p>jamescchen is not a “kid.” He’s a long-term, thoughtful participant in this forum. He apologized, and should be respected. Many adults participate here with nothing but affection for the young folks trying to figure out the admissions system. Many of these adults have legitimate concerns regarding the proliferation of false, often overly-optimistic information offered by high school students who are not really in a position to know the veracity of their statements. Optimism is great, but misplaced overconfidence ultimately can be devastating.</p>
<p>it’s interesting how you say that jamescchen should be respected when he was quite rude to IceFire. there are a lot nicer ways to express your views; you don’t need to be so blunt. I think that you’re going to be fine and even if you do get waistlisted as jamescchen so nicely predicted, you’ll still have a chance to get in :)</p>
<p>James has some really interesting niche experience, speaks up, and writes well, which is why I find his postings more interesting reading than 99% of what is in these boards. You guys should be happy he is around. I think his assessment of OP’s chances was accurate and, as such, useful. </p>
<p>To the extent that he is “in the trenches” of the (northern California) Asian college admissions market, and probably has been a market participant for a while, jameschen has information and insights that are useful, and that should be respected. I personally would have liked to hear more details from some of the war stories he posted, to see whether or not they really support the picture of massive hurdles for Asian admission (as opposed to Asians using inefficient strategies that are decimated at the admissions screening).</p>
<p>With that said, I don’t think that telling statistically in-range Asian applicants that they have 150-to-1 odds (without further evidence that this is true), or claiming that Harvard gives Asian applications an extra read-and-weed filtering, or jumping on Espenshade’s studies as tabernacular statistical wisdom, is either accurate or realistic, and postings of such statements are likely to be challenged.</p>
<p>thank you zlst for supporting me on this…btw can i have yo number, can i get it? :P</p>
<p>and i’m sorry if i ruffled some feathers but i was merely trying to speak up for icefire…yeah jamescchen may be a frequent “thoughtful participant in this forum” (pbr) and you may have been thru the whole college process, but the way you go about offering advice really seems to me offensive at times and, as zlst put it, “blunt” (telling icefire she “wasted her chance” on an essay opportunity with a supposedly bland essay topic, which btw i found pretty intriguing)…those types of comments really only serve to discourage potential applicants</p>
<p>Jamescchen apologized, showing his superior character to some of the character-assassins on this thread.</p>
<p>That is not to say that I necessarily agree with his statements, just sayin’…</p>