Princeton answers to Jian Li claims

<p>I still see NO evidence that Princeton discriminates against Asian-Americans in admissions, and I think when the data is available, it will show just the opposite.</p>

<p>I'm with taxguy. Investing in the improvement of underfunded public schools actually addresses the inequities. Giving preferences based on race, a factor that no one can control, does not.</p>

<p>
[quote]
...even blacks who score better than most whites and Asians are still likely not to be admitted to the best colleges.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I doubt it. If they beat other students, and fulfill the other parts the application, then they deserve to get in.</p>

<p>What can colleges do to address inadequate, underfunded public schools? In our imperfect system, they are doing the best they can. Nobody is arguing that levelling the playing field should start and stop with college admissions.</p>

<p>Investing in underfunded public schools WOULD correct for inequity in education (if enough voters share that aim), but not for how the majority treats minority groups. Public schools are often denied or given funding by a vote, which can contribute to economic and social inequity. If people were concerned with educational inequity, then schools in poor districts would not be underfunded. BTW, students have no control over funding, voters do. </p>

<p>Private colleges admissions policies, should be able to aim for diversity since they are not public entities, just like they can consider economic, social, historical, and political issues. They also consider legacies, ECs, developmental candidates, recommendations, scores (if they are looking to boost their USNews ranking), athletic ability, special talent, grades, work, etc... </p>

<p>School funding, does not correct for discrimination by others based on appearances. Thus, ethnicity is an issue that affects how minority groups are treated. To ignore such treatment is to ignore the reality of living in the United States.</p>

<p>If inequity in public schools were an important consideration, then voters (who are in the majority), would vote for equitable funding. Generally, this is uneven at best. Therein, while funding is capable of reducing the inequity in public schools, it is not reliable across the board because it does depend on demographics of voters and their personal biases. As such, a district with a high percentage of elderly are less likely to vote for public school funding, for instance.</p>

<p>Ethnicity does affect U.S. politics, social institutions, education, income, wealth, housing, etc...how would it not be a consideration with respect to economic AA (which would, in effect, make it socioeconomic AA)?</p>

<p>Poor minorities tend to pay more for mortgages & insurance, often live in the most poverty-stricken areas of cities. Again, how is ethnicity not an issue that affects economic conditions?</p>

<p>Saying that race is a factor that one cannot control, and therefore should not be taken into account does not make sense. Can your children control who their parents are, how much their parents make, where their parents live and enroll them in high school? </p>

<p>Why should any student be penalized in admissions because they happen to be born to highly-educated, economically successful parents who do everything they can to provide for their children.</p>

<p>Race should be taken into account, just as everything else about the applicant should be taken into account.</p>

<p>How does investing in public schools have ANYTHING to do with who gets into a prestige private college, the majority of whose students come from families in the top 3% of the population in income, and who serve a tiny, tiny sliver of those requiring higher education?</p>

<p>I think all of these schools are virtually irrelevant to the educational life of the nation. And why should these schools serve inadequate public schools? They never have in the past, and they aren't in a particularly strong position to do it.</p>

<p>"Why should any student be penalized in admissions because they happen to be born to highly-educated, economically successful parents who do everything they can to provide for their children?"</p>

<p>Evidence, please? I think the overwhelming evidence is that full-freight or near-full freight cusotmers are REWARDED in admissions, not penalized.</p>

<p>I didn't say they WERE penalized.</p>

<p>The earlier poster intimated that because an applicant cannot control his/her race, then race should not be considered. I'm saying most high schoolers cannot control their socio-economic status or where they went to school either, but those things seem to be considered by many on this board to warrant consideration.</p>

<p>Well, it is true that the single thing one can do to improve admissions chances is to choose one's parents wisely. Preferably white, very rich, with three or four generations of legacy behind one.</p>

<p>Your rhetorical question said "penalized", which is why I quoted it. But even as a rhetorical question, it is misstated. It should be, "Why should any student be REWARDED in admissions because they happen to be born to highly-educated, economically successful parents who do everything they can to provide for their children?"</p>

<p>"Well, it is true that single thing one can do to improve admissions chances is to choose one's parents wisely. Preferably white, very rich, with three or four generations of legacy behind one."</p>

<p>I would add one more thing.....change your name to URM sounding name.</p>

<p>I have seen few examples of that. In one case the name was changed to a polish last name and one case the husband adopted his hispanic wife's last name. In Houston, it helps to be hispanic if you want your kids to go to Magnet Schools.</p>

<p>I think the rhetorical question makes sense both ways.</p>

<p>Personally, I just believe that the admissions offices should consider EVERY factor known about the applicant, whether "controllable" or not.</p>

<p>This dialogue is excellent. One should not forget that the other issue in admisions is the sheer number of applicants. More kids are applying to college than ever before. Consequently, the applications are getting less time than ever before. My friend who reads applications says the number of incidents of fraud are increasing too...kids are puffing their achievements and those applications are dispensed with immediately.<br>
The process of wading through the masses of applications further frustrates those looking for that scientific explanation: many times it comes down to when the application was read, by whom it was read, how tired the adcom was when he/she read it and what file was read before. Of course, great applicants don't always make it because of things beyond their control. There are so many nuances to the process...I really hope people will just realize that it is not a science, we will never fully understand it, and that it is just life.
If you really really really want to go to Princeton instead of Yale (for Pete's sake), transfer, don't sue for discrimination. I'm sure Yale is regretting admitting Li...obviously the other colleges saw something disturbing in the file that led them to the conclusions that they didn't want him on their campuses. I can see their point.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I doubt it. If they beat other students, and fulfill the other parts the application, then they deserve to get in.

[/quote]
They may deserve to get in, but when I do the math I see that statistically, they don’t stand a chance unless someone is deliberately looking out for them.</p>

<p>Taxguy:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Response: Yes, there are racial incidents. Yes, there are cops who are acting both inappropriately and illegally. So should your kids get special preferences in college admission and maybe even hiring because some cops on idiots? If you were spurned by a waitress in a restaurant, your kids should get many preferences in life? Is this what your argument?

[/quote]
C’mon guy. Don’t reduce my point so much that you lose its meaning. Lets be fair here. I am saying that this sort of treatment exists today because it existed yesterday, even in my lifetime, against my parents, and against me personally, by American law. And that it existed yesterday against us by American law because it came against my parents’ parents through slavery. In all of it, we have been held down by American law and culture. Because of this, race is being considered and used against us in almost every facet of American life. Everyone wants to act as if all things in America are equal. Well, they aren’t and they never have been, and it is because of race. I mean, c’mon folks. Who among you aren’t being influenced by the stereotypes of blacks that permeate everything in America? It shows up in all sorts of ways, even in ways many of us think are good. Condie Rice isn’t just a Secretary of State. She is this black woman “who is so articulate!” with the implication that she contradicts the norm for blacks. Even this sort of thing is a weight that blacks feel and that you never even have to think about. Race matters a great deal because some white guy pulling down a 2390 in America, even a poor white guy, is not the same as a black guy doing the same thing – even a rich black guy. That rich black guy still is tugging a ball and chain that is at least a half a millennium in the making.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Is using illegal discrimination/affirmative action to correct some previous illegal wrongs in society the right answer? In my opinion, we should attempt to change the wrongs. In your case, cops that do racial profiling for no good reason should be removed from the police. You should not be given special preferences in life, however, in order to "solve" some unrelated societal problems.

[/quote]
I am saying the cops are the way they are because it is the way they have always been toward blacks. Just read our history, and you will see it. From as far back as slavery America has done to blacks what it now does to them. You can’t just “change the wrongs” without addressing the damage this history has done. The whole thing is wrong. The very minute America chronically denied an entire race of people its natural right to life, and liberty to pursue happiness, it became, by natural law, indebted to that people. As America continued to pass laws to deny this people their natural rights, America continued to acquire a natural debt. As America turned a blind eye to people who continued to deny blacks their natural rights, America’s debt increased. And even today, as cops continue to bring along attitudes of the past and apply them to me, though I persist in trying to be American, all of America’s debt is underscored and it all keeps serving to defer the dreams of people just like me. I am saying that the situation was once such that the vast majority of blacks aspired to be American, and wished to join a movement that aimed to bring them prosperity and America denied them that right. Today, vast numbers of blacks have lost faith in the country. You see it in a number of dangerous ways. Things like AA may help counter the widely held belief in American blacks that this country is out to destroy them.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If African American kids are not perfoming in school appropriately, giving affirmative action to them doesn't seem to solve the problem.

[/quote]
Please try to see the situation here. We have 100 positions at X University. We have 1000 qualified white students and 500 qualified Asians, neither group of which suffers the debilitating history suffered by blacks. Because of that history, we have 2 qualified blacks. What are the odds that the hard work of those blacks being rewarded by the attainment of one of those 100 positions? The odds are almost non-existent. If after years and years of working to become part of the system they see no one who looks like them enjoying it, what are the odds they will maintain faith? That is the issue. We are at a point where very many blacks have lost faith, and it is due to America’s historical treatment of this people.</p>

<p>
[quote]
AA has been going on for over 20 years, yet the SAT scores for African Americans and Hispanic Americans have stayed in the doldrums.

[/quote]
Twenty years. Dear me. What is twenty years? That ain’ even a lifetime. Shoot. I got a kid nearly that age. Even fifty years is nothing. Even a hundred years is absolutely nothing compared to the centuries of abuse that caused this mess. It is just completely unreasonable to think you can literally beat a race into the dust from 1619 to today, and then after twenty measly years expect one little program and some greenbacks to reverse it. Surely AA has had some positive benefit. The question is, does AA provide a net positive benefit. I do not know the answer to this. I think it does. But I am not sure.</p>

<p>
[quote]
What is needed is NOT AA. What is needed is to put more resources in improving the performance of all under performing groups in schools. We can spend 10s of billions on IRAQ and yet not have money for special support for under performing groups. This is a tragedy that needs remediation.

[/quote]
Well. It is true we need money, and lots of it to deal with this problem. We need lots more than we are spending and for a longer time than apparently we are willing to wait. But we also need the right sorts of pressures to show the path to progress. The day my kid was accepted to her school was a day I will just never forget. The mailman pulled up and, you know, I had been pacing around all day, praying until I thought I would drop. I saw the mail truck in the distance and said to my son “If it pulls up to us, we are gonna begin our celebration. But if it keeps going to deposit the mail in our box, we will show them our calmness.” My daughter was away, wanting nothing to do with it. When that truck pulled up, every single one of us went to the door in anticipation. That mail guy knew what was going on. His face went from stoic stone to one of the biggest sunny smiles I have ever seen. Then he slowly pulled out that fat envelope. Fireworks went everywhere. I mean we all just burst outside to get that envelope. But you know there is this kid here about my daughter’s age who has basically wasted his time. All the years we have been here he has watched my kids toil endlessly, even made fun of them as they worked. On the day of the fat envelope, tons of people came outside to see what the fuss was all about. Our little neck of the woods was just filled with joy. We were all outside talking, except for this kid. He stayed inside. And you just know he was feeling the pressure. He needed to feel it. What my kid's success was doing was showing him that despite racism and everything else, you gotta keep going and that if you don't, then you ought not be surprised when nothing good happens.</p>

<p>We do need money for resources. And we need policies that make it easier for families like mine to educate our kids. But we really do need some cultural changes too. I admit this. (Can't edit this post because I have to run. If I said something crazy, I didn't mean it).</p>

<p>Northeastmom, it's a combination of both: lower income and high income houses.</p>

<p>
[quote]
obviously the other colleges saw something disturbing in the file that led them to the conclusions that they didn't want him on their campuses. I can see their point.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There is no need to paint Jian Li as an inferior candidate to explain why he was waitlisted at Harvard, Princeton and Penn. Just remember two things: 1. there are more qualified applicants than can be admitted.
2. beyond academic qualifications, colleges look for students who fill THEIR needs and wants, whether it be in terms of prospective major, musical abilitiy, athletic prowess, community service commitment, geographical diversity, gender, ethnicity or some other factor.<br>
Since each college is different, the same applicant may fare differently at different but equal colleges. No one knows why an applicant is admitted to Harvard but rejected by Yale or vice-versa. And it happens every year.
Students who lament that they suffer from being over-represented in the applicant pool should remember that there are some schools practically begging them to apply. For Asian-American students, that is often LACs. I'll repeat that when we visited some NE top LACs, the admission officers made it clear that for them. Asian-Americans were an underrepresented minority. Which means two things: not enough Asians applying, and Asians benefitting from a tip similar to African-American or Hispanic applicants.</p>

<p>So a white kid would be pushed aside in favor of an Asian kid at a top LAC? And the cause of the claim of anti-Asian discrimination at the Ivy League colleges is because Asians flood those schools with applications instead of looking at similarly selective and equally academically desireable LAC's, and then complain because they can't all go to the schools they want?</p>

<p>Kind of adds a different slant to the discussion, doesn't it?</p>

<p>kluge,</p>

<p>Some users have implied that it is OK to discourage students of certain ethnicities from applying to Ivies, but it is perfectly acceptable to encourage students of other ethnicities to apply to Ivies.</p>

<p>That's a double standard.</p>

<p>To Fabrizio, Bay, others:</p>

<p>as to circumstances beyond one's control, the Ivies already do "reward" or at least recognize, student of all ethnicities, both URM, and non-URM, who achieve on the levels that many wealthy or at least advantaged students do.</p>

<p>As someone said earlier -- probably cptofthehouse, one favoritism will "equal" or result in a "discrimination" against another. But this is inevitable in the over-popular races for the upper level schools, as many of us have only said here maybe 1,234 times. If you look at recent literature, and recent results, for P'ton, Yale, possible H, these U's are committed to admitting & funding underfunded students form all backgrounds. This is to the benefit of lower middle class Asians, Hispanics, African-Americans, & Caucasians. Nor are these U's particularly going to "look" for one ethnic group of another, in this category. Again, as I said earlier, it depends on who applies, from what region(s), & what the other applicants have or do not have. Could one say that one is being "punished" for being born middle class or above that? Possibly. That is, if you look at only 3 schools as being in the ball park for excellence, which is foolish, not to mention unrealistic. (See Kluge's last post) There would be schools of equal scholastic merit that would be delighted to have more capable students of any economic background, to elevate the entire pool of applicants & give admissions committees even more excellent options. </p>

<p>Last round (last yr.), for P'ton, for example, as reported on CC, I can remember a Caucasian girl from humble backgrounds getting admitted from NJ.</p>

<p>So being "punished" for circumstances beyond one's control (ethnicity) must be seen against also being "rewarded" for circumstances beyond one's control (economics). In this respect, one could say that the economically deprived student has been sufficiently punished by circumstances of birth (including possibly previous educational opportunity), whereas the well-educated upper middle class student has already been rewarded for circumstances of birth.</p>

<p>At some point I think one has to look at this philosophically. No?</p>

<p>symphonymom, P'ton doesn't accept transfers. :)</p>

<p>hello i like dogs an i agree with dogs on this one</p>