<p>and?
If I remember accurately, the UCs are race-blind. That doesn't mean they aren't diverse. They just do their URM recruiting after admissions.</p>
<p>p.s. that was a reply to to post 198</p>
<p>I bring up SAT scores only in response to those who constantly bring it up as "proof" of "greater qualification." There has been no demonstration on this or other threads, that factors other than SAT scores have been claimed as factors in which Asians are similarly (supposedly) "superior." And in fact Janet Rapelye noted that in areas other than scores, Jian Li was most definitely not "superior" to those admitted (which included Asians).</p>
<p>I am beginning to find this whole argument about supposed superiority quite distasteful, quite race-based, quite un-American and even semi-Superior-Race Nation in its tone.</p>
<p>It is arrogant at the least to suggest that anyone applying to any University is or must be superior to those admitted -- people you and he have never met, applications you have never read, essays & recommendations you have no access to -- elements which all determine how "qualified" a student is. It is beyond arrogant to suggest that there is indeed an ethnic group that may be superior in all respects. Someone needs a serving of humble pie.</p>
<p>epiphany- I apologize if my hope for the fair evaluation and treatment of applicants of all races is too "distateful" and "un-American" for you. But again, I make no claim that Asians are superior applicants, and especially no claim that they are "superior in all respects." My comment earlier was merely a "what if," because unavoidably, in the end there is going to be one group with the highest acceptance rate. My purpose was was to show that race shouldn't matter in college admissions.</p>
<p>My concern isn't just about Li. Li was simply brave enough to issue a formal challenge to what I believe may be a flawed system. I'm insulted that you accuse me of being arrogant, no, "beyond arrogant," for advocating that race not be used as a factor in evaluating college applicants.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Jian said that he did NOT believe that SATs should be the only factor in the admissions process. In fact he said that many other factors should be considered as well, just not race. In other words, he's not necessarily against a holistic approach, he's just against factoring race into the equation.</p>
<p>"His outside activities were not that outstanding."--Princeton<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Then this should satisfy Mr. Li and he should end his case, shouldn't he?</p>
<p>The "holistic" approach is not an admissions strategy - it's a legal strategy intended to deflect actual or expected potential charges of race based discrimination</p>
<p>Note that Princeton is not about to release SAT data divided up between URM and non-URM admits, thus confusing matters further in regards to judging to what degree such "holistic" methods benefit admissions-favored races over other disfavored races</p>
<p>"Then this should satisfy Mr. Li and he should end his case, shouldn't he?"</p>
<ol>
<li>The Dept of Education - Office for Civil Rights makes that determination</li>
<li>it proves or disproves nothing</li>
</ol>
<p>"2. it proves or disproves nothing"</p>
<p>Yes. This isn't so much about Li's case in particular as it is about the potentially unfair admissions practices at elite U.S. universities that he attempts to point out. No amount of Princeton admissions representatives trying to justify their admissions decision for Li will prove or disprove that they are judging applicants by different standards based on their race.</p>
<p>This is the kind of thing that gives Asians a bad name.</p>
<p>If he was rejected from Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania, he clearly didn't have a strong application. I'm a Chinese-American, and I know all too well that some Asians tend to think that SAT I's and SAT II's are everything - they aren't. In every college interview I've been in so far, what the people have been impressed with is how easily they can conduct a conversation with me and the initiative that I've shown. SAT scores never even come up. I'm of the opinion that this kid needs to get over his ego and realize that he just wasn't that great of an applicant.</p>
<p>It seems to me that for those who are uncomfortable with the holistic approach,
ICargirl's report in post #133 that the Asian-American student admitted by Princeton from Li's high school also had a higher class rank is dispositive. Class rank is much more important in elite admissions than SAT score. Statistics published on the Brown web site show a significant fall off in chances of admission with each step of class rank below #1. I don't think Princeton publishes similar stats, but if anything I would think class rank is even more important to them than Brown, which has a reputation for making sometimes quirky admission decisions.</p>
<p>So here we have these facts:
At least 2 kids from one NJ high school apply to Princeton.
Both are Chinese-born immigrants.
Both are inclined toward a math/engineering.
One is female and ranked #2 (SAT scores unknown to us, but likely very high)
The other is male and ranked #3 or #4. </p>
<p>It seems to me that if you took those stats associated with no identifying info whatsoever, you would get the same result. If Princeton is going to pick only one math/engineering student from the given high school....they are going to pick the one with the higher rank.</p>
<p>So where is the discrimination against Asians? (The fact that the student they did pick is Asian kind of negates that inference in any case).</p>
<p>There are other areas of discrimination besides race and they happen where there are too similar candidates applying to the smae schools. Candidates from elite private and public schools need higher SATs and GPAs to get into the top 25 schools. I don't know if the spread is as high as 220 points (I'm still trying to digest the impact of that fact if it is one) but the GPA requirement is 0.5 to 1.0 higher.</p>
<p>calmom, was the accepted applicant a US citizen? Just curious.</p>
<p>I think it's logical for people to supect that Adcomms lower (in their minds at least) the SAT scores of an Asian applicant, because of the emphasis placed on the SATs in the Asian community. My nephew is at MIT and says that none of his Asian classmates have had a Saturday off since seventh grade because of SAT preparation. Of course this mental discounting of the SAT score, if it occurs, will lead to even more pressure to study for the SAT in the Asian community. We have to remember that SATs are somewhere between an aptitude test and an achievement test and may be used by the committees for other purposes such as comparing schools or applicants within the same school.<br>
I apologize if I'm repeating someone else's post.</p>
<p>Truthfully, I believe that affirmative action should be dealt with different - race isn't the factor, socioeconomic status is. However, what mardad says is true of many Asian parents who just don't UNDERSTAND until it is too late that SAT's don't mean everything. Thankfully, I happen to be a good test taker and didn't have to study much to get an excellent score, but I'm a firm believer in the fact that students should be pursuing their passions instead of wasting away their high school years trying to get the highest number on an irrelevant test. While the SAT's are still highly relevant in college admissions today, it seems that every year colleges are taking further steps in what I see as the right direction - away from SAT scores.</p>
<p>mardad</p>
<p>My D is at MIT. She would be, (and I am), offended by statements like: </p>
<p>"none of his Asian classmates have had a Saturday off since seventh grade because of SAT preparation".</p>
<p>These stereotypes are a large part of the problem. Reality is students of all races and both genders can be shown as examples, exhibiting traits of high achievers who have worked hard to get where they are. Passion, interest in learning and a willingness to work together is what makes MIT work. For every example that fits a stereotype there is one that does not.</p>
<p>Cheers, I haven't found any info on citizenship -- somewhere along the line there was a report that said that they both immigrated from China in early childhood, but I've got no clue as to current status. I don't know whether that would be something Princeton would take into consideration in any case.</p>
<p>Anyway, it's not relevant to my point.... the bottom line is that Princeton accepted another kid from the high school with arguably better stats, and that acceptee also was Asian, so I don't see how a case for discrimination can be made when there is a clear history of Princeton and other Ivies only taking a very small number of students each year from that high school. In a sense, there is a Princeton "slot" for that school, and Li wasn't good enough within his very competitive high school to get it. I mean, if a lower-scoring, lower-ranking math/science oriented white student had gotten in.... maybe there would be something worth investigating.</p>
<p>In the amicus brief submitted by Harvard University, Brown University, the University of Chicago, Dartmouth College, Duke University, the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton University, and Yale University submitted in support of the University of Michigan they stated the following:</p>
<p>Academically selective universities have a compelling interest in ensuring that their student bodies incorporate the experiences and talents of the wide spectrum of racial and ethnic groups that make up our society. Amici should be free to compose a class that brings together many different kinds of students; that includes robust representation of students from different races and ethnicities; and that prepares graduates to work successfully in a diverse nation. Indeed, highly selective universities have long defined as one of their central missions the training of the nation’s business, government, academic, and professional leaders. By creating a broadly diverse class, amici’s admissions policies help to assure that their graduates are well prepared to succeed in an increasingly complex and multi-racial society.</p>
<p>Every major profession in America has made known a desire for diversity within its ranks. Businesses demand that the graduates of highly selective universities both be diverse and be prepared to work with colleagues from different backgrounds.</p>
<p>The United States accepts that it is entirely legitimate for universities to concern themselves with “ensur[ing] that [they] are open to all individuals and that student bodies are educationally diverse and broadly representative of the public.” Id. at 17. In particular, the United States acknowledges that “universities may adopt admissions policies that seek to promote experiential, geographical, political, or economic diversity . . . .” U.S. Grutter Br. 10.</p>
<p>** None of us favors a return to de facto segregation, or anything like it, in our leading universities. The principal issue in this case is the means by which racial and ethnic diversity should be achieved. This Court should respect the institutional competence and academic freedom of amici and of other highly selective universities, public and private, regarding the most appropriate means to achieve these agreed-upon ends. Rather than imposing a unitary, top-down model of how to be race-conscious enough without being too race-conscious, the Court should preserve the flexibility of universities to pursue carefully calibrated admissions policies designed to promote student diversity and the vital educational benefits that flow from it.**</p>
<p>But the purposes of amici’s admissions policies are served whether the views held by individual minority students, or by minority students on average, turn out to be very different or virtually indistinguishable from those of other students. The policies contemplate simply that being of a particular race, especially a race subject to historical and continuing prejudices, entails experiences that people of other races have not had and ought to understand better. These differences will vary from individual to individual, thus resulting in substantial differences within racial groups as well. Far from reflecting and perpetuating stereotypes, amici’s admissions policies are consciously designed to dissolve them.</p>
<p>**The critics of Michigan’s admissions programs insist that mechanistic approaches – such as guaranteed admission for a specified percentile of high school graduates (as in California, Florida, and Texas) – or softer “race-neutral” proxies (like economic disadvantage) can be deliberately adjusted to replicate the racial and ethnic mix that explicit consideration of race in the admissions process would have achieved. According to the critics, the Constitution forbids overt consideration of race or ethnicity, even as part of a highly individualized admissions process. Instead, the university must be relegated to a purportedly “race-blind”approach – whose very aim, however, is to achieve the same diverse racial and ethnic mix.</p>
<p>Petitioners’ proposed alternatives would be infeasible and ineffective. Although petitioners suggest that universities should consider factors like economic circumstances and personal hardships, the truth is that those factors are already taken into account in the typical selective admissions process. Petitioners’ proposals for guaranteed admissions plans for the top GPAachievers among the applicant pool are unworkable for relatively small private universities, which simply cannot promise to admit the top ten percent (or even the top one per cent) of graduating high school seniors. Nor could graduate schools, with fewer available spaces and even more selective criteria, feasibly operate under such formulas.**</p>
<p>Petitioners proposals would also compromise the quality of student populations at selective universities. Thus, even if a policy of guaranteed admission for students graduating in a specified percentile of their high school class succeeded in admitting a certain number of minority students, it would likely compel the admission of so many other, non-minority applicants as to eliminate available spaces in the college class for those with unusual backgrounds, experiences, and other talents to contribute. Such alternatives are therefore fundamentally incompatible with the commitment to consider each applicant on his or her individual merit, taking into account all factors, not just test scores or class rank, that would militate for or against
admission to a selective university. Whatever strict scrutiny properly requires, it should not force universities to achieve onevital interest (racial diversity) to the exclusion of another (treatment of students as individuals) and thereby compromise the constitutional imperative academic freedom.</p>
<p>The colleges presented the following arguments</p>
<p>**I- Consideration Of Race And Ethnicity In An Individualized Admissions Process Serves Compelling Interests.</p>
<p>A. There Is a Broad Consensus On The Important Educational Benefits of Diversity.**
Diversity helps students confront perspectives other than their own and thus to think more rigorously and imaginatively; it helps students learn to relate better to people from different backgrounds; it helps students become better citizens. The educational benefits of student diversity include the discovery that there is a broad range of viewpoint and experience within any given minority community as well as learning that certain imagined differences at times turn out to be only skin deep. It is surely fitting for universities to undertake to prepare their students to live and work in a global economy within a multiracial world. The challenges of contemporary life demand that students acquire not just traditional forms of knowledge regarding science and the arts, but also techniques of bridging differences in perspective and in personal experience.</p>
<p>B. Consideration of Race and Ethnicity Grows Naturally Out Of The Needs Of The Professions and Of American Business.</p>
<p>Every major profession in this country has sought greater diversity within its ranks. Businesses have demanded more minority managers and executives, as well as non-minorities who can work well with colleagues from diverse backgrounds.
Leading corporations, business groups, professional organizations, and executives have repeatedly called for consideration of race and ethnicity in university admissions. In
adopting their admissions policies, universities are responding to the clearly articulated needs of business and the professions for a healthier mix of well-educated leaders and practitioners from varied racial and ethnic backgrounds.</p>
<p>The Interest In Racial Diversity Cannot Be Served By Race-Neutral Reliance On Factors, Such As Economic Disadvantage, That Are Already Carefully Considered.</p>
<p>The United States urges (as one solution) that universities look to such factors as special economic hardship instead of race. See U.S. Grutter Br. 24-25. But the decisive fact is that all of the suggested race-neutral factors, and many more besides, already enter into admissions decisions. Consideration of those factors alone does not achieve the distinctly racial diversity that amici seek in their student bodies. To accomplish that goal, admissions committees must give favorable consideration to minority race in addition to those other factors, not instead of them.</p>
<p>By deliberately tilting individual admissions toward hardship students in the hope of thereby selecting a large enough increment of minority students to make up for the
osses that would result from race-blind admissions would be disingenuous at best. Such an approach would in truth be a race based policy and not a race-neutral alternative at all. Indeed, such programs, if adopted to assure increased minority enrollment, would be based on race in a causal sense and would thus raise obvious constitutional questions of their own.</p>
<p>A race-neutral preference for economically disadvantaged students, for example, would admit many more whites than non-whites, because of sheer demographic realities.14 And, of course, the university interest in admitting minority students goes well beyond just admitting minority students from disadvantaged backgrounds.</p>
<p>They closed their brief by saying:</p>
<p>We are not so far removed from the days when segregation by race in education, and race discrimination in all sorts of vital opportunities relevant to educational performance, were for many a matter of law.</p>
<p>"I don't know if the spread is as high as 220 points (I'm still trying to digest the impact of that fact if it is one)"</p>
<p>cheers...enjoy the link</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>My D is at MIT. She would be, (and I am), offended by statements like: "none of his Asian classmates have had a Saturday off since seventh grade because of SAT preparation".<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I agree that there are many exceptions to every stereotype, but I can also see where some stereotypes come from. In this case when you drive through the heavily Asian neighborhoods in LA, nearly every strip mall will have a bank, a Chinese restaurant, and an SAT prep school.</p>
<p>Is it stereotyping to present empirical observations? I don't think so. Like mardad, coureur, & others, I have experienced the Asian obsession with SAT scores. Asian kids in my town are tutored privately almost without exception. A grade below a 95 is deemed failing. SAT prep does start in 7th grade for these families. No wonder they are astonished that high SATs aren't a magic entry to the Ivies. By their actions, we can see that they themselves have assigned utmost importance to the scores. </p>
<p>If families would only read the admissions webpages of these elite schools, they'd learn that SATs are only one piece of a kid's profile. The schools are quite clear about it. Now, Citation may be quite correct that this is just boilerplate to justify briging in more minorities. But it is what it is. I'm surprised that so many Asian families are surprised!</p>