<p>"how would you define/quantify equal?"</p>
<p>It can't necessarily be quantified, that's the point. Differences in competition for any significant goal --college, job, marriage -- are most often qualitatively decided.</p>
<p>As has been said countless times here and elsewhere, there is much more to this college admissions stuff than a perfect GPA and perfect test scores. I think a lot of frustration comes in because some families search for a formula when there is none. Some perfect score applicants will have mediocre recommendations or mediocre extracurrics or mediocre essays. Even if everything is perfect, how it strikes an adcom is pure serendipity. This is just not a science. I know people don't want to hear that and are frustrated by it, but that's not discrimination, it's just fact. In many countries, test scores determine college entrance. But not here.</p>
<p>"Yeah, but the kids in sub-standard schools would have little chance for a 5."</p>
<p>Not true.</p>
<p>Jeremy Lin did not have great stats by Palo Alto High School standards. He is a great ball player, however.</p>
<p>Interesting, how this thread has turned to diversity in athletic teams. I was surprised to learn that, as Coureur says, it is not always the best that is recruited. The very best get recruited, yes, and the top needs filled, but then other factors do come into play. Colleges that need a lift in the team gpa and SAT averages have been known to pick up some academically qualified bench warmers. Nice to have some in house tutors on hand too. Also when there are only a few recruiting allowances, the coach will hedge some bets by NOT picking some kids who are likely to get in because their stats are high enough to make them likely admits without "wasting" an athletic pass. It isn't that simple even in sports with timed results.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>So it's OK for race to trump individual talent and merit?<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>The point is that the concept of "top competitors" is not so race blind as some apparently imagine it is. Big time sports is not always a totally stat-driven, pure meritocracy. Racial diversity sometimes plays a role there too.</p>
<p>
That statement reflects a continued misunderstanding of the purpose of the test. </p>
<p>The test is not intended as a competitive measure of students academic accomplishments-- if it were, then the format would need to be radically changed, to cover much more of the expected content of a high school curriculum. </p>
<p>The test is intended to give some indication of the ability of the student to function at the academic level expected by the college -- for which a minimum, not maximum, score is useful. I think that there is little doubt that any student with a combined 1400 CR/Math score is more than able to keep up with the academic demands of any Ivy league college. As the parent of a 1200-scorer who is currently attending an elite school and who started off at a freshman enrolling in advanced level courses.... I'd argue that 1200 is pretty much sufficient, at least in the humanities, if the student can write well. </p>
<p>So the colleges look at it this way:</p>
<p>Coursework and GPA from the high school, including class rank if available, gives the best measure of the level of accomplishment and likelihood of success at college. </p>
<p>The standardized test scores verify that the student has the requisite ability to perform in college -- by reference to the minimal score the college seeks, as opposed to the maximum. The scores also provide some validation of the high school GPA to the extent that they correspond with the scores -- this is, if there is a serious discrepency between grades & SAT scores, it would provide evidence that the high school grading practices may be too easy or too hard. This could work against a kid who comes from a weak high school and provide some help to a student who comes from a very strong, highly competitive school. </p>
<p>In other words, the sole value of the standardized test is to provide some sort of objective measure against which the primary admission critieria high school GPA & coursework -- and of course the record of outside accomplishments (ECs) -- can be evaluated.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The point is that the concept of "top competitors" is not so race blind as some apparently imagine it is.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I need to elaborate my position, obviously.</p>
<p>Some people here feel that if racial preferences were abandoned, then elite universities would have demographics similar to UCLA and Berkeley (ie. lots of Asians, who somehow aren't minorities).</p>
<p>To me, there is nothing racist about a policy that does not use race as a factor. If Asians happen to make up a large percentage of the student bodies at LA and Berkeley, is something "wrong"? Some say yes, but I disagree.</p>
<p>Likewise, I don't think something is "wrong" because most recruited sprinters are black.</p>
<p>Whoever performs the best and has the potential to further improve should be recruited. If this "whoever" is black, so be it. If this "whoever" is white, so be it.</p>
<p>Wow, since my post yesterday, I have worked 20 of the past 26 hours and can't believe how passionate this thread has become, from all viewpoints. </p>
<p>Saro - I hope that you misunderstood my point, otherwise I must agree with Windcloud. What I was trying to state was that this is all a subjective process, we will never know what the admissions offices of each school are looking for, and after MANY nights of sheer terror that my son wouldn't even get into our state school (yes, I would literally wake up in a cold sweat about this just because the process at these highly competitive schools does seem so random), I was just happy that he got into more than one of his choices so that HE could make the ultimate decision as to where he would be the happiest. Quite frankly, when his rejection letter came from Swat (and this was before he had heard from P'ton), I literally laughed because that was the moment when I realized that no matter how overqualified, personable, intelligent, extra-curricularred these kids are, REGARDLESS OF THEIR RACE, it is a crapshoot unless one has millions to give. That was my point. My son did not check off the ethnicity box as he did not see the relevance and did not want to allow that to be a factor (this after his guidance counselor suggested he check the "hispanic" box, which we are not).</p>
<p>Regarding state schools, it might interest you to know that I attended two state schools and my husband attended his state university. For financial reasons, I attended my home state's university and worked so that I could save enough to afford my dream of W&M as an out-of-stater. As for my son, I pushed William & Mary as hard as I could, especially after his scholarships and our prepaid tuition plan. But his reasons for choosing to attend P'ton were valid and we have all been happy with his decision. I am sure that some, if not all of his younger siblings will be attending our state schools and will get a fabulous education, just as they have in their state run public Governor's High School (which is tougher for them to get into than any of the ivies, percentage wise). So you may want to rethink your assumptions the next time you post a reply.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>I think a lot of frustration comes in because some families search for a formula when there is none. <<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>BINGO Symphonymom!</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>So it's OK for race to trump individual talent and merit?<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>When it comes to sports teams, individual talent and merit are not the sole factor...the point is how to maximize the profit to the owner. Pro sports is all about $$$.</p>
<p>I agree. There is no formula.</p>
<p>URM status + 2400 SAT score = "formula"</p>
<p>Odd how that formula works</p>
<p>WindCloudUltra. I couldn't agree more. There are so many other places where attitudes towards Asians are harmful, would that some of this were focused for example on funding for movies like Eat Drink Man Woman, or more Asian representation in high level politics - Ping's List anyone?</p>
<p>
[quote]
As has been said countless times here and elsewhere, there is much more to this college admissions stuff than a perfect GPA and perfect test scores. I think a lot of frustration comes in because some families search for a formula when there is none. Some perfect score applicants will have mediocre recommendations or mediocre extracurrics or mediocre essays. Even if everything is perfect, how it strikes an adcom is pure serendipity. This is just not a science. I know people don't want to hear that and are frustrated by it, but that's not discrimination, it's just fact. In many countries, test scores determine college entrance. But not here.
[/quote]
Keep chipping away , symphonymom. God, love you for trying. But I bet you'd have better luck teaching pinochle to Aunt Gertie's mule. ;) Check!</p>
<p>fabrizio, schools become less appealing when they are 48% Asian. The students want racial diversity, and the targeted customers (and the alumni supporters...) are not going to apply to a school that is 48% Asian. There is nothing "wrong" with such a school, but I certainly would not want to go somewhere that was so disproportianately Asian, and whether or not this is a mark of racism on my part, many, many students feel the same as I do - and if this were the case, a school's selectivity would drop significantly, as would their ability to draw on alumni support, and a private institution is completely within their bounds to want a class from a variety of backgrounds, with a variety of experiences.</p>
<p>After reading this entire thread, I'm exhausted. I also think the real points are getting lost in the rather passionate arguments.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Does Li have a right to sue? Sure. My neighbor's monkey has a right to sue (well, not really, but follow me on this). Does he have a case? Nope. There is no possible way for him to prove, even at lower civil suit levels, that he was bypassed because he's Asian. All Princeton needs to do is point to the many more-qualified Asians they DID admit. Case over.</p></li>
<li><p>In regards to race consideration in admissions: I think they should be tossed. Whether or not the people doing it are racist (which I doubt) or have the interests of diversity in mind (which I suspect), it opens the door to ugliness and, quite frankly, sometimes perpetuates problems.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>For example - having lower standards for URMs. I am all for diverse campuses. I am all for giving URMs a chance. But after teaching in public schools for 5 years, I'm convinced the way we go about this is a mistake. Explain the fairness factor in the following cases:</p>
<p>Student #1 is an URM in a highly selective school. Both parents are college graduates with good jobs. They live in an economically privileged area.</p>
<p>Student #2 is white in an urban public school, which is struggling. The parent is a single mom who works 2 jobs to make ends meet. They are economically disadvantaged.</p>
<p>Which one should get the boost? How can it be based on race?</p>
<p>Now, I will say, that I believe adcoms take circumstances into account more than race. However, if more URMs are needed for the "balance," this may not be the fairest way to do it.</p>
<p>I will also say that I think giving URMs a boost encourages underperforming, minority schools to continue to underperform. Why improve if your students are getting accepted to colleges? As far as the assertion that every school but the elite colleges base admissions solely on grades and SATs, that's not really true. Many state schools do, but flagship unis and LACs do not, especially competitive ones like Michigan and Virginia. I have personally experienced multiple administrators and counselors in a poorly run urban minority school point to college admissions as "proof" that they must be doing something right. Colleges fall into the trap, and the lie that education in equal continues. The people that suffer? The minorities we're trying to help.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>This entire argument put me in mind of andison. What if, when he didn't get accepted to colleges despite his amazing profile, he just sued, saying that he didn't get in because of all the URMs? He would have gotten nowhere, and wouldn't have learned a thing, either. Instead, he sucked it up, bettered himself, and moved on. Perhaps Li should show the same maturity.</p></li>
<li><p>Li got into Yale, for Pete's sake. Who on earth applies to all elite colleges and throws a fit when they "only" get accepted to one? No one should feel entitled to be accepted at ANY college. Period.</p></li>
<li><p>It has been pointed out that Asians are disadvantaged by about 50 SAT points. Who, precisely, thinks that 50 points on the SAT are going to make or break an application, especially at the elite level. 50 points is nothing - adcoms don't say, "Well, this person got a 2300, and this one got a 2250 - 2300 it is!" Please.</p></li>
<li><p>GPA is far more important than SAT. In fact, most of the rest of the app is more important than the SAT. Recs, essays, GPA, activities - all outweigh the SAT. So I'd still like an explanation of how this 50 gap is going to eliminate anyone.</p></li>
<li><p>If there are more applicants in any group, competition will be tougher. That's life. Deal with it.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Race blind admissions? Good idea. Li's lawsuit? A crock.</p>
<p>
[quote]
fabrizio, schools become less appealing when they are 48% Asian. The students want racial diversity, and the targeted customers (and the alumni supporters...) are not going to apply to a school that is 48% Asian. There is nothing "wrong" with such a school, but I certainly would not want to go somewhere that was so disproportianately Asian, and whether or not this is a mark of racism on my part, many, many students feel the same as I do - and if this were the case, a school's selectivity would drop significantly, as would their ability to draw on alumni support, and a private institution is completely within their bounds to want a class from a variety of backgrounds, with a variety of experiences.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And a school like Harvard, which is 47% White, is more diverse than a school like Berkeley?</p>
<p>Every tenth student at Berkeley is Hispanic. Berkeley has an undergraduate student body totaling over 20,000.</p>
<p>Approximately every twentieth student at Harvard is Hispanic. Harvard has an undergraduate student body totaling below 7,000.</p>
<p>And you're going to tell me with a straight face that a school like Harvard is more "racially diverse" than Berkeley? Please.</p>
<p>Don't forget that all the students who are currently at Berkeley earned their spots without racial preferences.</p>
<p>Really, I have never understood why a school that is half White is considered diverse, but a school that is half Asian is not. As if our presence magically reduces a campus's "diversity."</p>
<p>If you want more Blacks and Hispanics at campuses, find a way to do it without using the term "diversity" and resorting to racial preferences. Also, try not to forget that Native Americans are the only real "under-represented" minority, and that we Asians are minorities, too.</p>
<p>Don't forget that private schools are also businesses. They need to continue to maintain/increase their rank and attract top students. </p>
<p>I agree with some of the earlier comments that once a school gets to a certain percentage of any race, it is no longer appealing to a certain segment of the population. </p>
<p>There is nothing inherently wrong with a school that has a majority of Asian students. But it will most likely end up being a school of all Asians. As much as no one wants to admit it on this board, the racial makeup of a school's student body plays a LARGE part in where an applicant will apply.</p>
<p>"And a school like Harvard, which is 47% White, is more diverse than a school like Berkeley?"</p>
<p>A school like Harvard is much more representative of the US population at large. If I wanted to go to a school where Asians would be the majority, I would not apply to a school in a country where they make up only 4% of the population. This is not representative of our country, and I don't think a college should be in any way obliged to admit students at a rate 10x higher than their prevalence in the country. Likewise, I would not choose to go to a school that was 90% white, etc. Even if Harvard were no more diverse than Berkeley, the target customer would see it as much less appealing if the most highly represented race was Asian, despite the fact that they are a relatively tiny majority. A school could not have that. And while stereotyping all Asians is of course not a constructive or beneficial practice, I'm sure Jian Li did not stick out in an applicant pool which consisted of so many high SAT scoring, math focused Asians. Again, colleges are completely in their bounds to choose students from a variety of backgrounds, and a liberal arts school (which is, essentially, what Princeton is) does not want to create a class where there is little diversity in race, background, and educational goals. </p>
<p>"Every tenth student at Berkeley is Hispanic. Berkeley has an undergraduate student body totaling over 20,000.</p>
<p>Approximately every twentieth student at Harvard is Hispanic. Harvard has an undergraduate student body totaling below 7,000.</p>
<p>And you're going to tell me with a straight face that a school like Harvard is more "racially diverse" than Berkeley? Please."</p>
<p>Well, actually, I never used Harvard as an example, I never even mentioned Harvard. But okay.
According to the Harvard Crimson, Hispanics were nearly 10% of the Freshman class last year. <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512466%5B/url%5D">http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512466</a> Where are you getting your statistics? Are you just making them up?</p>
<p>And it isn't sensical to use their sizes to say that Berkeley is more diverse. If Berkeley, with 20,000 students, had 3 black kids, and Swarthmore, with 1,400, had 2...would Berkeley be a more diverse place?</p>
<p>"Don't forget that all the students who are currently at Berkeley earned their spots without racial preferences."</p>
<p>Are you implying that Harvard (and Princeton) students DIDN'T legitimately earn their spots? How can you determine whether or not the spots were "earned" more at Berkeley? Did you read all the applications? On what basis are you making such a statement? It's ludicrous.</p>
<p>"Really, I have never understood why a school that is half White is considered diverse, but a school that is half Asian is not. As if our presence magically reduces a campus's "diversity.""</p>
<p>Your presense does not reduce a campus's "diversity", but if you are represented at a rate over 10x higher than your prevalence in the country, this is going to raise serious eyebrows amongst potential students. Colleges know this.</p>
<p>"If you want more Blacks and Hispanics at campuses, find a way to do it without using the term "diversity" and resorting to racial preferences. Also, try not to forget that Native Americans are the only real "under-represented" minority, and that we Asians are minorities, too.""</p>
<p>Blacks and Hispanics (along with Native Americans) are also generally much more disadvantaged then whites and Asians. Adcoms know that these disadvantages tend to hurt them when they are taking standardized tests, APs, etc. This does not mean that I think that a privileged black person should be given preference over an underprivileged Asian, I think it should be done on a case by case basis whenever possible. But until we live in a race-blind society, race-blind admissions seems ludicrous.</p>
<p>Sorry everyone, as a side note, how do I quote properly?</p>