<p>As a Jew, I would like to say something about the repeated comparison of Asian admissions to historic discrimination against Jewish applicants, which began in the 1920's. At that time, some schools had fixed, official quotas about the maximum number of Jewish applicants; this was not presumed discrimination - it was an actual, written policy, with different rules in play for how Jewish applications would be measured. For example, at Harvard the rule was that the top 7th of students from suitable high schools would be deemed admissible; high schools with large Jewish admission were simply deemed unsuitable and not subject to this rule. See "College Admission and Jews", New Republic, <a href="http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20051226&s=glazer122605%5B/url%5D">http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20051226&s=glazer122605</a>
<a href="http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20051226&s=glazer122605&c=2%5B/url%5D">http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20051226&s=glazer122605&c=2</a></p>
<p>Students were required to state their religions - as well as race -- on applications, and to submit pictures. See: "Getting In", New Yorker, <a href="http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html</a></p>
<p>[Note: both of the articles are very well balanced look at the issue of Jewish discrimination vs. holistic admissions practices and I would highly recommend both.]</p>
<p>Nonetheless, despite overt policies, I have one uncle who attended Columbia, two uncles who are Harvard law grads, and my father is a Yale grad. And a great-uncle who had a law degree from Penn. If there were any uncles who wanted to attend Ivies but couldn't get in, I am not aware of them. Somehow they all were accepted despite the practices designed to keep them out. However, neither my mother nor my aunts every attended an Ivy. Why? Because the discrimination against women was absolute. My mom and aunt went to Smith, because the doors to the Ivies were shut to them. So as a female, I have to say that I grew up keenly aware of a far more serious form of discrimination -- none of the Ivies went co-ed until it was too late for me to consider attending one. </p>
<p>In the climate of discrimination against Jews, Brandeis was established as a place that welcomed both Jews and women. </p>
<p>However, fast forward to 2005 and my daughter's college search. My daughter seriously considers Brandeis, then drops it from her list because she thinks it has "too many Jews." Wait a minute - we're Jewish. Well, daughter doesn't want to go to a college where everyone looks like her... she's used to hanging out with people from all races & religions. Then Brandeis offers a free, expedited application, so she goes ahead and applies. She is waitlisted, but we are now following the results on the CC thread, and it is quickly ascertained that a signficant number of Asians and hispanic students have been accepted by Brandeis and offered large merit scholarships, whereas Jewish students who have been accepted with better stats are not offered similar monetary inducements. What gives? Brandeis, that bastion of Jewish higher learning, is looking to create a more ethnically balanced student body.<br>
Who is the primary beneficiary? Asians. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, my Jewish daughter gets offered a rather nice little merit scholarship to attend Fordham, a Catholic school where her stats are good, but certainly not amazing. She declines, but not out of any discomfort witht the religion. </p>
<p>So what's my point? I think that overt discrimination is a bad thing, but a holistic admissions process designed to increase academic diversity is a good thing. I also think its a good thing that colleges like Barnard take in enough rich, full paying students so that they can afford to guarantee generous need-based aid to students like my daughter -- and if they have to favor a few legacies or development cases to do that, so be it. </p>
<p>Any selection process is going to "discriminate" against those who don't meet whatever criteria are used for selection. My son, who had high test scores, was at a disadvantage because he didn't play sports and had few EC's. My daughter, who had great EC's and mediocre test scores, was at a disadvantage at a different set of schools. But the thing is: it was pretty easy to get information on which schools these were, and to apply strategically to colleges where the advantage was greatest. Whatever the selection criteria was, we could be pretty sure that it would be applied evenly. Right now the name of the game is to play against type, and to seek out colleges where whatever one has to offer is something that is in short supply. </p>
<p>If my daughter had been a hispanic or black, I am sure that her admission to great colleges despite weak scores would have been attributed by many to affirmative action, the flip side of purported discrimination against Asians. But since that is not the case, she remains simply an example of a beneficiary of a holistic process. The holistic process is something that is susceptible to discrimination -- no one really knows why one applicant is selected over another -- but imbalances in results don't prove discrimination.</p>