<p>How would removing the question about ethnicity/race help someone with the name of Jian Li?</p>
<p>akdaddy- Only if you count extreme self-selection of Asian immigrants (high percentage of certain groups of Asian immigrants being highly educated professionals) as "something seriously wrong."</p>
<p>marite- The idea brought earlier was to leave out names as well and use social security numbers on applications instead.</p>
<p>I've repeatedly argued against group preferences, and in another thread, I have stated that I support economic over *socio*economic affirmative action, but I have to say that these threads have changed my mind in some ways.</p>
<p>One thought that has not changed is race, which is the factor that causes people to get emotional. I believe that we should not use race as a factor at all. To me, it is racist to use race as a factor.</p>
<p>Now, for the changes. After some thought, I've come to say that legacy and athletic preferences are not anywhere near as bad as racial preferences. Alumni with big pockets make up significant portions of the endowments of private universities. Without them, those schools would have difficult times operating. If some "business" needs to be done to admit a certain student, and this "business" benefits the school financially, what's the problem? Some of the donor's money may have went to finance the study of a student from a low-income background.</p>
<p>Universities need athletes for their school pride. If they want to recruit an athlete, so what? If the school wins a title, it could temporarily create a happier campus.</p>
<p>Geography is a pretty good way to increase diversity, in my opinion. It's independent of race.</p>
<p>Income is another way to increase diversity that does not have to be used in conjunction with race.</p>
<p>Except that economic factors (i.e. wealth, income, education, political participation) are affected by ethnicity (and gender, etc...)</p>
<p>Geography (even with respect to Asian populations) are affected by ethnicity (see California for instance).</p>
<p>Making distictions with respect to legacies, developmental admits, etc...is privy of the private school. If the aim is diversity, and Asians are overrepresented, how does that qualify as something else (i.e. discrimination)? The prefernec for athletes et al. is not different than aiming for diversity. Perhaps, people react differently, but they implicitly make the distinction when it comes to ethnicity. Thus, a legacy, develomental admit, athlete, etc...is viewed differently than ethnicity (or gender)? How is that not a contridiction? </p>
<p>Re-drawing voting districts is another example of ethnicity being a factor in political campaigns (see Texas), as is locating dense public housing in particular sections of the city (see Chicago).</p>
<p>Yet, not recognizing ethnicity is marginalizing to the INDIVIDUAL and to the GROUP.</p>
<p>"Whether or not Li was denied an equal opportunity based on race is pretty clear. If his race was a factor in determining his admission, then he wasn't. ............Race should not be a factor in college admissions. The policy of "race sensitive admissions" perpetuates racist attitudes and wrongly puts specific ethnic groups at a disadvantage."</p>
<p>And the operative word <em>here</em> is "If." That's the entire point: it's a faulty premise to begin with. That Asians have, by greater preponderance than other ethnic groups, on average, higher test scores, does not prove or even indicate that they were "held to a higher standard" (said another poster), that they're being excluded, or any such nonsense. The so-called "research" was faulty at its core, a point that is blithely ignored. It was not a sufficient sample comparison by any standards of scientific accuracy to call the "study" comparative for all factors.</p>
<p>If the higher scoring Asians were accepted in the "study," I can guarantee you some lower-scoring Asians & some lower-scoring non-Asians were not accepted to Princeton. And I'll bet some very high-scoring non-Asians were also not accepted. Since H, Y, and P turn away perfect scoring students from various ethnic groups EVERY YEAR, there is no "proof" that Asians "need" higher test scores.</p>
<p>However, what is patently clear, from this & similar threads, is that the pro-Jian Li faction believes that it (not Princeton, apparently) has the right to determine what defines "qualification" and "superior qualification." There is a hierarchy, in their minds. The hierarchy is, numbers first, regardless. </p>
<p>Hello. The colleges don't see it that way. Would you dare complain to a potential employer that you were "more qualified" than another candidate (of any race) just because you had higher test scores, or additional degrees (more numbers again). Maybe, just maybe, the employer is looking for things you don't have, or for things somebody else has more than you have them. </p>
<p>The person doing the selecting is in charge of defining & deciding "qualifications."</p>
<p>Wow, I wonder how such a student who had not-really astounding extracurriculars, as stated, got into YALE. Does Yale have THAT low of standards compared to Princeton?????</p>
<p>epiphany- If race wasn't a factor in determining Li's admission, I challenge any elite college to prove it by switching to a race-blind admissions program. But wait. Such colleges routinely admit that race and ethnic background play a role in admissions in order to encourage "campus diversity."</p>
<p>I've made no reference to SAT scores or numbers, and I understand full well that grades and test scores by no means determine college admissions decisions, nor do I believe that they should. I don't believe that the various studies having to do with SAT scores prove anything other than what they show in themselves (that average test scores vary from race to race in these colleges). The studies can perhaps serve as tools, however, for pointing out patterns and trends in college admissions worthy of examination.</p>
<p>Re Post #179:</p>
<p>It is NOT "a form of racial discrimination." That's the point. He was not discriminated against, because he was given equal opportunity to compete, and outcomes are not guaranteed under civil rights protection. As long as two families from different ethnic backgrounds are given equal opportunity to apply for a housing rental or real estate purchase, but one is judged as having a better history for purposes of real estate, the one with the better history will tend to win out. In some cases it may be a solid African-American family with steady job performance, versus a Caucasian with an erratic history. It's a breach if the A-A family doesn't get to compete -- which too often has happened in our history, but not a breach if they lose out to someone who looks like a better risk on paper. Again I lament the profound ignorance of what constitutes discrimination & a breach of civil rights. </p>
<p>Separately, the degree of injustice is very much related to the issue & the definition of discrimination. There are some ways in which "life is unfair" and inequalities exist ACROSS ALL RACIAL LINES, but these do not rise to a level of compromising life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.</p>
<p>I agree with wupattr. It doesn't make any sense that race isn't a factor in determining admission but is looked at for "diversity". If you're looking at it-it plays a role.
Few can argue against need-blind admissions. Why can't admissions be race-blind as well, to prevent these double standards?</p>
<p>I do have to admit bias however, being asian myself. Take it as you will. </p>
<p>However, it annoys me to no end when people discount who I am as a person and note that I "play piano" and "am good at math" BECAUSE I'm asian. I play piano by choice and work harder in math by choice, because those are my interests, passions even, to use an overused word. It is not my fault that they happen to coincide with stereotypes/standards.</p>
<p>IsleBoy,</p>
<p>I do not want to have another discussion with you. It is clear that you resort to straw men when you run out of excuses to defend your belief that a group can be "over-represented." Remember, you have still failed to provide a single quotation with appropriate context where I used an old stereotype to defend what I perceive as discrimination against Asians. In addition, you have provided no instances with contexts in which I have touted Asian superiority or claimed that Asians were more deserving.</p>
<p>Even if it's extremely difficult, we can change our consumption and investment habits. We can change our attitudes toward education. We can choose which candidate we vote for on election day. What we cannot change is our race. There is no good reason for it to be a factor, and using it, even as one of many, is racist by definition.</p>
<p>Also, there is no such thing as over-representation. It is politics at its worst. Remember, the Supreme Court has stated that quotas are illegal. Use of the term over-representation suggests that quotas should be in place, which is a racist policy, again by definition.</p>
<p>epiphany- In your example dealing with real estate: So, what if a family with an erratic history is chosen over another family with a seemingly better record? Life's unfair, right? So, what if the family with an erratic history is white, and the one with the better record is black? Seems kind of coincidental. Oh well, life's unfair. Now what if thousands of black families with good records are routinely being systematically denied housing rental and real estate purchases when put up against less qualified white families. At that point, I don't care what legally constitutes a "breach of civil rights." And I don't think a lot of other people do, either.</p>
<p>Note that I'm not saying that thousands of Asians are routinely being systematically denied college admission while competing against less qualified applicants. But, why take the chance?</p>
<p>Repeat:Select the school that fits the child. Do not try to make the child fit the school.<br>
So you're Asian, you're good at math, you play the piano. Great. There are tons of great schools that would love to have you. But if you want to apply to HYP, beware that you will be up against IMO gold medalists, winners of piano competitions, etc... and that's totally regardless of race, though some of those happen to also be Asian. Ian Le, for example, was an IMO medalist who, upon graduating in math from Harvard, is pursuing a M.A. in music. At Harvard, he was on the board of the Mozart Society.</p>
<p>fabrizio,
As I've said elsewhere when I joined the debate with you, if it turned out that only Asians were qualified to attend some particular U.S. college (including H, Y, or P), then Asians would indeed have the opportunity to "over-represent" the student body. The student body would be 100% of whatever ethnic group were exclusively qualified, should that ever be the case. The entire fallacy of these arguments is that Asians are necessarily or always or usually "more qualified" than other groups and thus (or if, true) should have a right to whatever percentage representation that ends up being -- 20, 50, 80%, etc.</p>
<p>H,Y, and P, has neither the desire nor the need to admit underqualified students. If, (outside of the race issue) they admit, for example, an athlete with a 3.1 GPA, they will not admit him assuming or worrrying that he cannot do the work. They admit him with the faith, based on experience, that he can and will tackle the academics, as well as the football.</p>
<p>For those who do not have a special hook like college-level sports, and apply on academic merits alone, the University will be the determiner of whether the accumulated academics rise to the challenge of a H, a Y, a P. And that won't be making that judgment merely on test scores, but on a variety of factors, including the candidate's own words in his or her own app., the interview, the recommendations, and many other factors showing promise & intellectual capacity.</p>
<p>marite- I agree. But what about the Asians who aren't good at math, and don't play the piano, and aren't any of the other things people expect in there stereotypical Asian student? Asian students fitting this description can become discouraged because they feel like they are being held to some kind of standard of "all Asians are good at math and play a musical instrument." This is somewhat irrelevant, but: the Asian student stereotype, like many others, self-perpetuates. Asian students feel pressured to excel in math because all their Asian friends do. Most of their friends are Asian because they are ridiculed by non-Asians for excelling in math (math is just one example). And something similar can apply for immigrant Asian parents.</p>
<p>So, if schools like HYP are judging based on individual accomplishments, why run the risk of having admissions decisions being influenced by race?</p>
<p>Fabio:</p>
<p>Weren't you the one that asserted that Asians are the most discriminated group? And, advocated for the use of quantifiable tests as one of the influencial measures of a college candidate?</p>
<p>And, if you look at the above post, I have provided several reasons why economic AA is not sufficent, as ethnicity (and gender) can impact social, political, and economic marginalization.</p>
<p>I have no desire to debate you. That is why, I just responded to what you asserted here, rather than in your other posts in different threads (and in response to other CCer's). </p>
<p>I believe it is at your hands that the subject came up again. I would prefer not to have the same stubborn arguement that either of us had on AA, as it shows our short-sightedness and does not bespeak well of either of us.</p>
<p>BTW, the SC did rule against using quotas, but not against using ethnicity (or gender) as one of the determinants of who public universities can accept.</p>
<p>Attending an elite(HYPSM AWS) school is nice but you want to graduate at least in the top 50% of the class. If you graduate in the bottom half of the class, your chance of attending decent professional or graduate school diminishes quickly. In this case, you are much better off attending a top 15 school instead and graduating with higher rank / gpa.</p>
<p>Now, why is this relevant to the topic at hand?
I believe there is a reason why the elite schools practice holistic admission.
They call it "building a diverse class", but what they are doing is actually guaranting that the most of the students admitted based on merit (may be 50% of the admitted class), would graduate with good enough gpa/rank and are sucessful after college. They fill the rest of class with the "rich"(developmental admits, legacys, atheletes (mostly prep school sports)) and the "poor" (socio economical admits, URMs). The "rich" admits with lower credentials may not be as sucessful in school compare to students admitted on their merit, but these "rich" students will most likely be very sucessful due to their money and/or connections. The "poor" admits also benefit since this could be their ticket out of the slums and in case of URMs, they would get another AA benefits when applying to professional schools.</p>
<p>I guess what I'm trying to say is, with their current admission practices, the elite colleges are ensuring their entire students are sucessful after college which in turn benefits the college in the long run.</p>
<p>epiphany- "The entire fallacy of these arguments is that Asians are necessarily or always or usually 'more qualified' than other groups..." Delving into some perhaps more sensitive territory, I'll pose the oh-so-terrible question: what if they are more qualified? And I don't mean just test scores, which you repeatedly bring up. After all, one group, in the end, is going to be "more qualified," based on pure racial admissions statistics. I'm not saying that Asians are or that they aren't. I'm saying that there is indication that this is a possibility, and that they may be being held to "unfairly" higher standards. The solution I (and others) propose to eliminate the issue/dispute altogether is to make admissions race-blind. I'm tired of you (and others) criticizing this proposition by claiming some kind of false assumption on my (and others') part that qualification and merit in college admissions are based solely on SAT scores.</p>
<p>Wupattr, I would bet that if there were a way to screen applicants without access to their names, pictures or racial profile, the amount of Asians would increase substanitally even using a "holistic approach."</p>
<p>Asians are not the only ones who are surprised at some selective college admissions practicies. Every year, there are outraged families that are not Asian, whose highly qualifed students are denied entry to the top schools. To add to this blow to these families, often there are kids they know from the same school or neighborhood or from other sources who do not have the academic numbers as their rejected kids, but they got into the very schools that turned down said kids. It does make for some ugly feelings. Two stand out cases in my mind, are non Asian kids I know from last year. Why they did not get into some of the schools they picked, I don't know, and it is clear that they were good candidates, that just did not make the cut.</p>
<p>taxguy- That possibility (we cannot say for certain, yet) is exactly the reason why I believe that the "holistic approach" is a terrible defense against criticism of higher standards being held for certain racial groups in the college admissions process.</p>
<p>cptofthehouse- You bring up another angle to the issue, and that is that college admissions will probably never be entirely fair or logical, regardless of the applicant's race. There's just no reason for race to be added to the problem.</p>