Princeton answers to Jian Li claims

Parents Forum
21

<p>
[quote]
Also, many college applications does ask for the prospective student's race.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>S left it blank on his application. But he needed to fill it in to get paid for grading problems sets!</p>

<p>
[quote]
In fact, if it is much harder to get into some schools as an Asian, there must be some form of quota regarding Asians.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not necessarily. That is what many have been arguing. There may be a cap on admitting members of several subcategories to which certain applicants belong. For example, a college may not want to have more than half of the entering class going into a pre-med track; if it has too many applicants who list piano or violin as their ECs; or who mostly come from some geographical areas, and so on. If a particular applicant belongs to more than one or more of these subcategories then s/he will have a tougher time getting admitted, regardless of race.</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
I have to say that I grew up keenly aware of a far more serious form of discrimination -- none of the Ivies went co-ed until it was too late for me to consider attending one.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Unless you're really, really old, you would have been welcome at one Ivy, calmom. Cornell has been co-ed since 1872, four years after it was founded. But then, Cornell has always been a little different from the other Ivies -- and those of us who went there like it that way.</p>

23

<p>A great post, Calmom. And a wonderful example. The one highly selective college whose admissions procedures I know pretty well, does not even have the actual SAT1 or classrank on the card that is used for assessment in admissions. THe SAT1 is given a numerical score based on range, so a 1510 is equivalent to a 1600 when the file is being reviewed. They do not want any of the adcoms making a decision based that difference. From what I have read, other schools do the same thing. IT is only the kids who fall in the "undecided", tied vote, that get the apps taken apart in a group meeting. The adcom, an old classmate of mine, says that the first round picks are very clear and obvious. It 's the final third where the hair splitting decisions have to be made, and too often even with the emphasis on holistic factors and the private wishlist, the decision does come down to the test score/class rank, so overall those kids with those high scores are definitely favored. </p>

<p>Unless we switch to a prescribed numerical formula based on grades, course difficulty and SAT scores, I don't know how we can get rid of holistic admissions. Of course to make sure the school gets what it needs in certain areas, there has to then be a quota system, that is against the law at this time. </p>

<p>There are schools that are more formula driven than others, but unless you allow discretion that goes beyond the numbers, the type of school we get will not be what most of us want. I believe that the discrimination of Asians accusation arise from the greater number of Asians not accepted at given high test score/grade ranges. Given those criteria, it is true because the Asians as a group do have the highest test scores. By adding any other criterion as a factor in admissions that Asians as a group do not tend to have, you are discriminating just by definition.</p>

24

<p>"But the SAT is a measure of one's ability to do the work (a predictor of first-year college performance.)"</p>

<p>This cannot be emphasized enough. The SATs do not measure a person's potential beyond the first year of college. High SATs merely get one's application beyond the initial screening.</p>

25

<p>
[quote]
I believe that the discrimination of Asians accusation arise from the greater number of Asians not accepted at given high test score/grade ranges. Given those criteria, it is true because the Asians as a group do have the highest test scores. By adding any other criterion as a factor in admissions that Asians as a group do not tend to have, you are discriminating just by definition.

[/quote]
:):):):):) Ta-dah.</p>

<p>And that is where some posters stop their analysis.</p>

26

<p>Hello, Taxguy! Thanks for the clarification. I agree with the need to do everything possible to eradicate discrimination. </p>

<p>NMD, regarding, "yes, Xiggi, they can admit who they want, and do. I just wish they would not spend so much time covering up the nature of what they really DO want." I would also welcome a lot more transparency in the process, but I believe that in thi sprecise case, the message by schools has been rather clear. </p>

<p>IMHO, this is more a case of potential candidates NOT paying close enough attention or refusing to acknowledge the messages sent by schools. Fred Hargadon used to be VERY clear about his "choices" but people preferred to challenge the virtues of the criteria rather than acknowledge that the school might not be a ... good fit. This is where "misguided entitlement" and reality do clash. We all read the reports of 75% or 50% of valedictorian/perfect SAT scores being rejected; yet, every year there is a story about the injustice of the rejection of one of those "perfect" candidates. Yesterday's Henry Park is today's Jian Li. </p>

<p>Interestingly enough, in another thread, a poster quoted a Time article of 1987. From my vantage point, it does seem that little has changed in the area of entitlement and expectations of meritocracy. While the admission numbers have changed favorably since 1987, the recriminations have hardly subsided. It's simply the nature of the beast.</p>

27

<p>"Given those criteria, it is true because the Asians as a group do have the highest test scores."</p>

<p>It is worth repeating that this is NOT necessarily true in the upper ranges of the scores that MATTER at the super selectives schools. The SAT is a composite score and the importance of high VERBAL scores cannot be discounted.</p>

28

<p>mini, I agree with you pretty completely about the value of the SAT. (Except, of course, if my kids do well -- that's MERIT, bay-bee!!) But the colleges use it for SOMETHING, and I think it's fair to look for a legitimate explanation for a significant difference that seems based on ethnicity, rather than taking refuge in the argument that it's not that great a metric anyway. It's not that great a metric. But if you controlled for whatever factors you considered legitimate -- legacies, athletes, etc. -- and still saw that difference, you might want to look further before you blythely accepted the "Asians have weak ECs and poor leadership" line.</p>

<p>(Also, to be clear, I think the 50-points thing is 50 points out of 1600, not 50 out of 2400.)</p>

<p>(Final thought -- does anyone bother tracking this stuff for Jews anymore? I wonder whether the same measures would show that Jews still needed extra points to get in. It would be tough to figure out, since there is no easy way to identify Jewish applicants and admittees. I don't think anyone feels there's a whole lot of discrimination against Jews anymore, but I'll bet kids from predominantly Jewish communities in and around NYC feel they have to do better than kids from Iowa to get into Harvard. It would be interesting if the Jews were still the Old Jews to some extent while the Asians were being the New Jews.)</p>

29

<p>
[quote]
What is to prevent schools from instituting any form of discrimination if they can maintain some "holistic admission" standard?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So stop obsessing about means and look at ends. If you want to reify some group called "Asians" -- a fairly specious grouping in my opinion -- then take that group and see if it is "fairly represented" in the student body. Where is your proof that "Asians" are underrepresented? From all accounts I've read, "Asians" at top colleges are over-represented as a proportion of the US population, but are under-represented as a proportion of 2400 SAT scorerrs. It seems like you've chosen the former as unimportant and the latter as important. That's your choice. What you haven't done is come up with some compelling argument as to why anyone else should.</p>

<p>There's actually an interesting direct answer to your question, which is, "in the 21st century, a whites-only school would not attract top candidates." The marketplace (that is, students wanting to go to college) have chosen "diversity" as an important factor, and reducing diversity would make them less popular, reducing the candidate pool. It would also have a chilling effect on grants, alumni donations, etc. This is a case where the market is a much more powerful force than regulation would be.</p>

30

<p>Following up on Calmom's examples of Brandeis and Fordham, Kenyon College considers Asian-Americans to be an underrepresented group and Asian-American students are eligible to apply for travel grants to visit the campus and merit scholarships designated for underrepresented groups. Obviously, Kenyon is trying to encourage MORE Asian-Americans to apply and enroll, not less.</p>

31

<p>
[quote]
But if you controlled for whatever factors you considered legitimate -- legacies, athletes, etc. -- and still saw that difference, you might want to look further before you blythely accepted the "Asians have weak ECs and poor leadership" line.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree with everything you say. I don't know if studies have actually controlled for the range of factors you cite. It's mostly GPAs and SATs.</p>

<p>The ideal candidate would be an Asian kid from Appalachia, with great (not necessarily perfect) stats, who'd started his own business (though not moonshine!), had re-recorded all the songs of Stephen Foster and wanted to study Celtic literature. </p>

<p>But failing that, you can get in by playing basket ball as Jeremy Lin did:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Upon returning home the next day, Diepenbrock waded through the congratulatory e-mails. One had a different tone, from a Peninsula man who lambasted the coach for not landing a major-college basketball scholarship for the Harvard-bound Lin.</p>

<p><code>You've failed him,'' the man wrote.</code>My sons will never get a chance to see him play.''</p>

<p>Diepenbrock could only laugh. He'd done all he could, but Lin didn't receive one basketball scholarship offer (Ivy League schools cannot offer athletic scholarships), though he turned down opportunities to walk on at Stanford and Cal.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/special_packages/highschool_sports/14176325.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/special_packages/highschool_sports/14176325.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
After captain guard Jim Goffredo’s three-pointer tied the game at 81-81 with just over a minute left in overtime, freshman guard Jeremy Lin stole the Wildcats’ inbounds pass after UNH (1-5) had called timeout. With 23.8 seconds left, he drove the lane for an off-balance reverse layup to give the Crimson (3-3) an 83-81 lead they would not lose.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=516068%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=516068&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

32

<p>
[quote]
In fact, if it is much harder to get into some schools as an Asian, there must be some form of quota regarding Asians.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'd also say not necessarily. Imagine this scenario:</p>

<p>School says they'll look at all 1400s in one group we'll call "high SAT kids". They don't look at the SATs after that - they look at the other factors. If the Asians in that group on average have higher SAT scores it may look like it's harder to get in as an Asian because their average SAT scores are higher with the same approximate ECs.</p>

33

<p>Marite just scored a three-pointer of her own. :)</p>

34

<p>I'll try again. The concept of holistic admissions is admittedly ripe for abuse and difficult to "see through". </p>

<p>As an example of another academic selection process , I offer the following :</p>

<p>" Intellectual distinction is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for election to a Rhodes Scholarship. Selection committees are charged to seek excellence in qualities of mind and qualities of person, which, in combination, offer the promise of effective service to the world in the decades ahead."</p>

<p>"The criteria which Rhodes set forth in his will still guide Committees of Selection in their assessment of applicants. The will contains four standards by which prospective Rhodes Scholars should be judged:</p>

<p>literary and scholastic attainments;
fondness for and success in sports;
truth, courage, devotion to duty, sympathy for and protection of the weak, kindliness, unselfishness and fellowship; and
moral force of character and instincts to lead, and to take an interest in one’s fellow beings.
Underlying these standards is the aim that Scholars be physically, intellectually, and morally capable of leadership, persons who will, in Rhode’s phrase, "consider the performance of public duties as their highest aim." From this statement, one may infer that Rhodes expected his Scholars to play an influential part in the betterment of society, wherever their careers might lead them.</p>

<p>Much of the distinctiveness of the Rhodes Scholarships stems from this comprehensive set of criteria. Intellectual excellence is obviously required, but not in isolation from other qualities. Rhodes sought Scholars who were more than "mere bookworms"; he wanted their intellectual talents to be combined with concern for others. Thus, the Selection Committees assign the highest importance to this blend of character with intellect."</p>

<p>Maybe that will help. Or are we going to start accusing the Rhodes folks of discriminating against some group or groups based on their higher SAT or Graduate Test Scores (LSAT,GMAT, GRE, MCAT) or GPA's?</p>

<p>I'm offering this only as an aid that may help someone understand. I do not mean that the processes are interchangeable. </p>

<p>BTW, I have no idea how the process breaks down in the U.S. selection. It may be that people ARE making these arguments and complaints. I KNOW people are ticked at the sports part. LOL. I would think that a candidate for selective college admissions who was hitting on all cylinders with these attributes would be in good shape. (I know there are other ways to gain admission, also.) </p>

<p>I also recognize no government money is in play.</p>

35

<p>Taxguy (re your post #19), when I was growing up I was also told that there were things I couldn't do because I was female, as professional schools that admitted women still overtly discriminated against us. The rule was that you really had to be the best and brightest to get in, and then pretty much prove your worth every step of the way. I have an aunt who graduated at the top of her class from UCLA law school, but couldn't get hired as a lawyer anywhere and ended up working for many years as a legal secretary. </p>

<p>As to the quotas: my point is that if the "quota" is significantly above the representation of the population in society, I don't really care. I don't think Jews have ever been more than 3% of the US population, but the quotas were implemented in the 20's when Jewish admissions were around the 20% mark. So another way of looking at it was that even with quotas, any given Jewish kid was 6 times more likely to end up at an Ivy than any given white kid. My parents griped about the quotas, but the reality I grew up with was that a disproprortionate number of highly educated professionals, especially doctors and lawyers, were Jewish men. I mean, I went to a public elementary school where half of the kids in my classroom were Jewish, in parts because all the Jews where tracked into the highest performing class (and all of the hispanics were tracked into the lowest performing classes, so even though at least half of the kids overall were Mexican, hardly any were in my classes). It it was pretty easy as a kid to figure out that the parents of my Jewish friends had better jobs than the parents of most of the white kids. I also grew up in the shadow of the Holocaust -- one of my friend's was the daughter of Auschwitz survivers, and I saw the number tatooed on her mother's arm -- so I was painfully aware of discrimination and anti-semitism. </p>

<p>Let's just say that in the greater scheme of things, I found the whole quota-issue to be rather trivial in comparison. I mean, while my father was worrying about getting into college as a teenager in 1941, my Lithuanian cousins were lined up in front of a ditch and shot. I am sure they would have been very happy to have been able to come to America and get rejected from Harvard. </p>

<p>One of the interesting thing that Xiggi's stats show is that the high-testing Asian group is also the highest socio-economic group at the elite colleges... so basically you have a societally advantaged ethnic group arguing that their children should be allowed to fully benefit from their more privileged educational upbringings -- that is, they start out advantaged and they want to stay advantaged. (I'd note that in the community where I grew up, the Jewish kids were also generally the richest kids, one more reason why I found it hard to see "discrimination", especially as I was a direct witness to the overt educational discrimination against the hispanic kids). </p>

<p>I'm pretty sure that if you broke up the statistics into subgroups, you wouldn't see the same SAT discrepency looking at less affluent ethnic Asian groups such as Vietnamese. SAT scores themselves are known to be income-influenced, so the very first thing you would have to do in a test to measure discrimination based on SAT scores is to control for income -- are the colleges discriminating if they favor students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, or are they just compensating for the discrimination inherent in the test? </p>

<p>I don't want to live in a society where the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, and wouldn't want colleges where the educationally advantaged are given greater advantages, while the disadvantaged are given less. So I'd rather see admission and employment policies which favor the disadvantaged, because I favor a more egalatarian society. </p>

<p>If the issue were that Asian students were unable to attend any reputable, that would be horrible. But this is a case of a kid who can't go to Princeton so he is going to Yale instead. California is full of Asian kids who couldn't get into Harvard, so they are at Berkeley. And kids who couldn't get into Berkeley, so they are at UC Irvine. </p>

<p>I see that as being a very, very trivial problem as compared to the number of hispanics and african-americans I see who can barely make it through high school and can't find jobs that pay enough to support their families. When those famies are placed on an equal footing, then we can talk about their kid's SAT scores.</p>

36

<p>Excellent post calmom. I am not attempting to get off topic, and the following is still relevant. Your post reminded me of a shocking question that one of my female friends was asked during an interview for admissions to a graduate school in 1978. The question was regarding why they should offer her a seat since she would probably marry and have children and not work much after she would graduate. The follow up question was to explain if her education would just be wasted.</p>

<p>I had a similar question posed to me when I applied for a job in 1981. I wish I had a tape recorder on for that interview! The potential employer asked why he should bother training me, since I would probably get pregnant and quit within a year.</p>

37

<p>When I was in graduate school in 1978, a male professor told a female student during her first week that he bet she would get married and leave the program before she graduated.</p>

38

<p>Northeastmom, I applied for a job at an <em>employment discrimination</em> law firm in the early 90's, and the entire interview consisted of the senior partner quizzing me on my child care arrangements. He made it very clear that he did not want to hire a woman who was not available to work long hours, and he was quite hostile to the idea that my husband would be able to regularly handle taking care of our two elementary-age kids on evenings and weekends. Needless to say, I wouldn't have wanted the job even if it had been offered to me.</p>

39

<p>Marian, re your post #22. You are absolutely right about Cornell. But my father went to Cornell for undergrad and when I was in high school, he told me it was a miserable place where students regularly committed suicide by leaping into gorges, and quite frankly, I was scared of the place. I didn't ask whether there was a quota limiting the number of Jews who would be allowed to plunge to their deaths. </p>

<p>(;) note: the report of my feelings are accurate -- but I am fully aware today that the suicide rate at Cornell was grossly exaggerrated .... no need to turn this into a Cornell-suicide-debate thread ;) :) I do get the impression that my Dad was a lot happier at Yale, though.)</p>

40

<p>JHS, re your post #28, I think that if you parsed things out, you probably would find some evidence of "discrimination" against Jews. One of the articles I cited pointed out that the 1940's discrimination against lower social-strata New York urban public high schools had been replaced by 1970's discrimination against higher economic strata Long Island high schools, coinciding with the move of Jews to Long Island and other affluent suburbs. You won't have to look long to find parents and students complaining that it is unreasonably difficult for their high achieving suburban students to get admitted to college from their communities; and it has already been pointed out that the New Jersey high school that Li serves an area that is mostly Jewish and Asian. </p>

<p>Is the quest for geographic diversity discrimination? or is it something that strengthens the college? Probably depends a lot on your point of view. If you are trying to get into an Ivy, you might not want to hear that your chances are better at Stanford because of your east coast zip code... on the other hand, my daughter has found that there are an awful lot of kids from New York and New Jersey at Barnard/Columbia... and I think as a west coaster she's glad that there is room for her, too. Inside the gates, it sure doesn't look like a place that is "discriminating" against kids from the east coast, who still form the largest constituency.</p>