<p>I should have made myself clear...I meant the state-u merit scholarships...which are publicly funded. </p>
<p>Someone enlighten me on this...I know the Marshall was created by the Parliament...is it publicly funded? How about the Rhodes?</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>epiphany, I think we're arguing about different things here. So, to clarify my position:</p>
<p>To me, the term "over-representation" has connotations that demographics at college campuses should be proportional to the demographics of our nation as a whole. Support of the term "over-representation" indicates an implicit support for quotas, which the Supreme Court has ruled as an illegal practice. It is inherently racist to believe that only a certain percentage of an ethnic group should be allowed entrance to a campus.</p>
<p>The problem is, your use of the term over-representation is different than how I view it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that if, and that's a big IF, only a certain ethnic group possessed the necessary qualifications to attend certain universities, then this group would be over-represented.</p>
<p>That's almost completely different from what I'm arguing against!</p>
<p>My position is as follows: there should be no explicit quota, and there should be no de facto quota. Usage of the term "over-representation" indicates a belief that students of certain ethnic groups should be denied admission if their numbers rise above a certain level (ie. quota). Such a belief is racist.</p>
<p>epiphany, I am not saying that you believe that. In fact, I have no evidence to show that you support such an idea.</p>
<p>I have no problems with diversity. Diversity is a wonderful thing. But, I do have problems when people say that race should be considered and then claim that it is fair to use a factor that no one can control.</p>
<p>I have a request from those who support the use of race as a factor. This request is open to anyone who believes in such an idea.</p>
<p>Please explain to me why using a factor that no one can control (ie. race) is fair.</p>
<p>I have another request from those who support quotas. That is, you use the term over-representation to indicate that once there are "enough" students of a certain ethnic group to create "diversity" on a campus, then there should be no more students of that ethnic group admitted.</p>
<p>Please explain to me how that is not a racist policy.</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>"It is inherently racist to believe that only a certain percentage of an ethnic group should be allowed entrance to a campus."</p>
<p>Absolutely no college has done this. THERE ARE NO QUOTAS. (And that was my point with regard to the hypothetical about What if only Asians were qualified to attend X college.) Thus, I'll say it again: if only Asians produced sufficient qualifications to handle the work at Whatever college, you would find a 100% representation of Asians there. Asians are not competing against unqualified & underqualified students. They are competing -- JUST as Anglo Caucasians, Latinos, & African-Americans are, against QUALIFIED students of every ethnic group--including their own ethnic group, including 2400's from their own ethnic group. But you haven't seen those competing applications.</p>
<p>It's about the math. It is implicitly "unfair" that qualified students in the majority & the minority groups cannot alter finite mathematics. 1400 freshman seats vs. 4200 qualified applicants, with representation from every ethnic group, every region of the country, 4 corners of the globe. Please, do the math.</p>
<p>People of different races have different experiences - whether it's their ability to talk about discrimation, their traditions, or their knowledge of their country of origins if they are recent immigrants. I've learned a lot about how pervasive racism still is in America from my half Japanese sister-in-law - she barely looks Asian. I learned a lot about Judaism from my Jewish friends in college. I don't believe in quotas, but I do believe that colleges have an interest in create diverse classes and that race can be one of the things they might want to look at.</p>
<p>How about an example.</p>
<p>10.000 applicants for 1500 spots. 7,000 are considered qualified/competitive. 500 are clearly superior. 500 due to a combination of factors score better than average and are clear admits. These 1000 will be offered admission regardless of ethnic/gender issues. Now for the last 500 the process is much harder. There are far too many very closely rated students, maybe in reality about 2500 would all be great in the last 500 spots. If at this point gender/ethnicity/economic status or other cultural issues are evaluated for campus diversity, is there any discrimination? Were the 5,500 qualified applicants not admitted discriminated against? IMHO the answer is no in both cases.</p>
<p>...and expanding on my post: 4200 qualified applicants + several hundred underqualified applicants, but the operative area, as akdaddy indicated, are nevertheless within those 4200 applications (or the numbers he has used), not within the clearly disposable ones from every ethnic group. The latter get put in the Reject pile pretty soon after receipt, as by this time the colleges know what to expect, both in Early and Regular rounds. Those in the auto-reject pile will not be Asians with 2400 scores, not be Caucasians with 2400 scores, not be African-Americans with 2400 scores. Those last groups will be further refined to see how their non-score areas stack up against comparably scoring & similarly stand-out applicants.</p>
<p>...and further, with regard to examination of the 2400's from various ethnicities (& similar high scores).<br>
It's not as if the college says, "A 2400 who's Asian? Well, forget him! He's Asian; let's just automatically admit this 2300 Latino, or this 2350 African-American. I mean, we need more racial diversity." If said Asian brought something very unusual to the campus, that the competing candidates did not, the U would then weigh what the value of that contribution would be, versus overall ethnic balance. Or, if the 2400 Asian was from Iowa & was struggling financially, but the 2300 Latino was from an already-well represented & admitted region, etc., the Asian still (and esp., given the achievement-vs.-challenge ratio) might be admitted, regardless of the representation of the ethnic group. And increase that probability if the Asian had impressive e.c.'s but the Latino did not.</p>
<p>It's a variety of factors, and race is never a stand-alone consideration. (Because it doesn't have to be, for such a level of institution & the quality of candidates being considered.)</p>
<p>But anyway, let's get to more important matters: GO BEARS. ;).</p>
<p>I'm asian and although I wish there wasnt reverse afirm.action, I dont really see how we could live without it.</p>
<p>There are many high scoring/high GPA asian students and if colleges admit all of us, then the colleges would be rcially disproportionate. </p>
<p>But if the student demonstrates passion for his/her ECs and have an impression list of ECs, then race should not be a factor.</p>
<p>Yeah...I honestly don't see another way around how it works right now without turning the Ivies into UCBs and UCLAs with something like 40% Asian.</p>
<p>"Those last groups will be further refined to see how their non-score areas stack up against comparably scoring & similarly stand-out applicants"</p>
<p>The difficulty is that you may not be able to clearly distinguish among most of the applicants in this pool. It is understandable that many similarly qualified applicants will fail, not becuase they are inferior to the admitted students but the system is just not able to accomodate them. </p>
<p>These "failed students", on the other hand, are likely to be admitted to other similarly sought after institutions. In the end, there are enough good colleges in our system to accomodate our needs.</p>
<p>That said, the process is traumatic to our youngsters. It is never easy to watch your child crying over a rejection from what the child perceives as the top choice. They are at an age where issues are still perceived in black and white.</p>
<p>epiphany (248)- You say that race is never a stand-alone consideration. Why does it need to be a consideration at all? If colleges are promoting diversity by using race as a factor in their admissions, aren't they making certain judgments based on generalizations about different racial groups? Why not assemble a diverse class based solely on interests, strengths, and passions instead?</p>
<p>marite (234)- You're completely missing my point (not blaming you, I was unclear). Really, I went on a tangent. I don't need to be told that there are plenty of Asian students at top colleges--I know that. And by being told that (again), I'm again reminded how deep the Asian student stereotype is set in the mind of America.</p>
<p>Colleges are not to blame for Asian students falling prey to the stereotype. The problem I have with all this is that colleges judge Asians differently because of the existence of that stereotype. If college admissions officers at an elite private school are reviewing two male applicants, one Chinese and one black, with near-identical grades, scores, recommendations, essays, strengths, with similar socioeconomic backgrounds, and from the same school (as in, indistinguishable from each other with the exception of their ethnicity), which one do they pick? The black student, obviously.</p>
<p>*Why? * Because, of course, the Chinese student was given an "unfair" advantage from birth because his parents valued education to the point of excess. Because he was encouraged to value his education as well. Maybe he was pressured into academic success by his peers, both Asian and non-Asian, so obviously he doesn't actually like what he does and is only doing it for other people. He probably studied a lot, but none of that matters. He practically had it handed to him on a silver platter. It's not like he found it difficult or challenging at all... keeping perfect grades and getting high test scores is in his blood. He must be less social and lack an interesting personality and background. All of his friends are probably Asian. If he were admitted to the school, he would probably only be friends with other Asians. It's not like he had to deal with racism like the black student did. Nobody judges or ridicules Asians, only blacks and Hispanics. Everybody knows that. Compared to the black student, he had it easy.</p>
<p>Many of you are probably prepared to argue quite vehemently that college admissions officers don't think like that. My response is that we will never know for sure. But why take the chance? Why is it important that the colleges know the race of the students they are evaluating?</p>
<p>
[quote]
[When being evaluated by elite American colleges] Asian-American applicants face a loss equivalent to 50 SAT points.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Got the link simba. As i suspected, in fact. 50 points makes more sense.</p>
<p>I know both students were Chinese immigrants but Li is still a Chinese citizen. He is not an American citizen. I'm the lone nut suggesting that could have been a factor in his application. Other Asian nations have STATED policies sending their students abroad to study. I've not heard of a Chinese policy to do so, but I do know that Chinese universities are filled to the brim--the chances of getting into a Chinese university are minute. This difficulty was one of the major protest points of the students at Tiananman square in 1989--and the Chinese students wanted to study abroad.</p>
<p>I'd love to know the stats on Chinese applications (Chinese citizens) for elite US schools. My guess is that with the rise in Chinese wealth, the elite American schools are getting many many more Chinese applications. There is a possiblity that Li's parents 'gamed' the system by moving to the US. My sons attend a high school which had a significant number of Chinese international students in 2002 -2004. Many of those students were accompanied by parents openly expressing their plans to 'game' the education system. These students were very wealthy, often buying $100K cars upon arrival.</p>
<p>Just as SAT success can be directly linked to higher income over a number of generations, so can the success of so-called 'merit' students in China and France be similarily linked to income. Poverty inhibits education all around the world.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Absolutely no college has done this.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>epiphany, my point was that some people support quotas implicitly by using the phrase "over-representation" to mean "once the magic number has been reached, there can be no more."</p>
<p>I mean, look at IsleBoy's posts. He stated that Asians are "over-represented" at Berkeley because Asians are a minority in California but almost the majority at Berkeley. Thus, he implicitly supports a quota on Asians. How is that a fair policy? How is that not racist? How is he supporting the investment of human capital by denying some opportunities? Of course, I should ask him, but I fear that he will make stuff up against me once more.</p>
<p>He's not the only one, by the way, who supports proportional representation.</p>
<p>In the real world, universities cannot take all the qualified applicants because there are simply too many. Asians are not the only qualified candidates. We are humans like everyone else. We are not in possession a gene that makes us more qualified than others. Whatever others can do, it is likely that we can do it, as well. Whatever we can do, it is likely that others can also do it.</p>
<p>Thus, I disagree with your example. Of course if only one ethnicity had the qualifications to attend X University, then they would be over-represented there. There would only be one ethnic group at that campus! In reality, however, it is impossible for only one ethnic group to be qualified. </p>
<p>At the risk of downplaying the issue, I want to address why racial group preferences are not beneficial by using China's weightlifting and math programs as examples.</p>
<p>China did not have a strong Olympic weightlifting program during the existence of the Soviet Union. When the Soviets dominated the sport, China was trying to develop its training methods and facilities. Instead of campaigning for preferential treatment from the judges, they invested in their citizens. They trained coaches, and these coaches trained youths. A decade and a half after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, China dominated the medal stand. In this year's competition, they placed first with 11 medals, 7 of which were golds. By using money to train its citizens instead of lobbying for preferential treatment, they developed world-class athletes.</p>
<p>China also did not have a strong international math team before the 1980s. In fact, they did not compete at the IMO until the mid 1980s! By contrast, the U.S.S.R. was very strong, and it had been competing for decades. Instead of asking the judges to consider the ethnicities of the students, China developed its math program. It recruited the best high school teachers and instituted tests to seek talents from the entire nation. China invested in its citizens without lobbying for preferential treatment, and at this year's IMO competition, the six team members of the Chinese squad all won golds, and one of the members wrote a perfect paper.</p>
<p>The point of my examples? People can improve if they are given proper support and training. They don't improve if they are given preferential treatment based on their race.</p>
<p>In America, we invest in our citizens by giving them access to our elite universities.</p>
<p>And minorities should refuse this preferential or special treatment. This was fabrizio's point. Racial groups can invest in their own students without preferential treatment from top universities. By treating specific racial groups differently, universities convert racist generalizations into systematic discrimination, widening gaps between ethnic groups.</p>
<p>"China has a two thousand year history of hiring for lucrative government jobs based on a difficult and impartial civil service exam. It was the one way that a poor boy with no prospects could lift himself out of poverty and into the middle class."</p>
<p>I believe that even today, college placement is determined solely by a final examination in China - you don't score well on that final examination, you don't get into a good college. It's as simple as that. I think part of the problem may be the fact that China's universities simply do not have the resources to look over EVERY SINGLE APPLICANT the way U.S. universities do. On top of the fact that China's population is much larger, there's a huge drive to get into top universities there as well, leading to an impossibly large applicant pool - I'm sure Tsinghua University gets many more applicants than say, Harvard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
China did not have a strong Olympic weightlifting program during the existence of the Soviet Union. When the Soviets dominated the sport, China was trying to develop its training methods and facilities. Instead of campaigning for preferential treatment from the judges, they invested in their citizens. They trained coaches, and these coaches trained youths. A decade and a half after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, China dominated the medal stand. In this year's competition, they placed first with 11 medals, 7 of which were golds. By using money to train its citizens instead of lobbying for preferential treatment, they developed world-class athletes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do weightlifters get points for style from the judges? How do judge give preferential treatment to weightlifters? </p>
<p>Oh, by the way, while you analyze the development of sports in China, let's talk about the development of women gymnastics. Should we emulate the practice of separating thousands and thousands of toddlers from their parents for the sole pipedream of finding a handful of competitive athletes. </p>
<p>Funny how that compares with the unrelenting misguided display of entitlement in college admissions.</p>
<p>I know I was upset when I first heard that adcoms might mentally lop off 100 points from my S's SAT scores because of privelege. The more I think about it though, the more it makes sense. He didn't do test prep but he could have afforded to and he's had tons of advantages by being able to travel, my not having to work so I could do enriching activities with him, etc. If colleges didn't do something to level the economic playing field, the schools would be filled disproportionately (I mean more than they already are) with priveleged kids. Is that "classist"? Maybe, but there's a certain fairness to it as well. And I wouldn't want my kid going to a school that lacked economic or racial diversity.</p>
<p>xiggi- Whether or not your personally approve or disprove of the methods used by a people to achieve success is irrelevant. The point is that the Chinese, despite being in terrible economic and political conditions for many years, pulled themselves up to success without outside preferential treatment.</p>