Princeton answers to Jian Li claims

Parents Forum
421

<p>Here are more scientific findings:</p>

<p>Diversity, Yes; Racial Preferences, No! -- Racial Attitudes on Campus
One of the most unexpected findings of the study by Massey and his colleagues
was the discovery of the considerable degree of resentment which white and Asian
students often harbor towards the black and Hispanic beneficiaries of racial preference
policies. Students were asked to rate how close they felt to whites, blacks, Latinos, and
Asians "in terms of your ideas and feelings about things." Besides giving their closeness
ratings to members of "the group in general," eight other subcategories within each group
were given including the middle class, the rich, the poor, professionals, business owners, young women, young men, and "affirmative action beneficiaries." Most students
regardless of their own racial or ethnic background gave relatively high closeness ratings
to the middle class and professional members of all of the four ethno-racial groups, and
there was no indication of any "extreme outgroup distance" felt by one ethno-racial group
for another when the target being assessed was "the group in general."
Nevertheless, there was a considerable amount of social distance expressed by
many white and Asian students both to the black and Latino poor and to blacks and
Latinos who had benefited from affirmative action. "Whites and Asians," Massey and his
colleagues report, "tended to perceive a great deal of distance between themselves and
blacks who benefited from affirmative action." (143) They also tended to rank each
group in terms of their academic promise "with Asians on top, followed by whites,
Latinos, and blacks." (152) Blacks and Latinos tended to be seen as "academically
underqualified," while Asians were seen as overqualified.</p>

<p>For the question asked on their social distance survey was
specifically worded in terms of "affirmative action" rather than "racial preferences,"
"racial quotas," or other terms more clearly associated with special consideration or
special privileges based on race. We know from many years of polling that the phrase
"affirmative action" means different things to different people, and for some people, at
least, it is not associated with any kind of controversial policy or with a policy that any
reasonable person would oppose. It is a nice sounding phrase that is sometimes
responded to positively even by people who indicate strong opposition to any kind of
racial preferences, even the most modest in scope. For many, "affirmative action"
seems to mean nothing more than outreach or welcoming policies, or such policies
combined with rigorous enforcement of nondiscrimination norms. A 1996 Roper poll, for instance, asked a random sample of 1001 University of California faculty members
the following question:
The term "affirmative action" has different meanings to different people. I'm
going to read two definitions of the term "affirmative action." Please tell me
which one best describes what you mean by the term. First, affirmative action
means granting preferences to women and certain racial and ethnic groups.
Second, affirmative action means promoting equal opportunities for all
individuals without regard to their race, sex, or ethnicity.
In the Roper survey, 37 percent of respondents chose the first statement (the
preferentialist understanding) as best describing what "affirmative action" means to them,
while a larger percentage -- 43 percent -- said the second statement (the color-blind and
gender-blind meaning) is closer to what they understand by the term (14 percent said
neither statement captured what they mean by "affirmative action"). For many of the
respondents "affirmative action" thus meant nothing more controversial than a systematic
policy of nondiscrimination, which was the original meaning of the phrase in a famous
executive order issued by Lyndon Johnson in 1965.
A more recent Gallup poll (June, 2003) captures the dilemma even more
forcefully. Respondents in a representative national sampling of 1,385 adults were asked
the following question: "Do you generally favor or oppose affirmative action programs
for racial minorities?" Almost half of all whites who had an opinion on the matter
expressed support for "affirmative action programs for minorities" -- 47 percent favoring,
53 percent opposing -- while a clear majority of all the respondents expressed such
support.
In the same survey, however, Gallup asked the following question about racebased
admissions to colleges and universities:
Which comes closer to your view about evaluating students for admission into a
college or university?
a) An applicant's racial and ethnic background should be considered to help
promote diversity on college campuses, even if that means admitting some
minority students who otherwise would not be admitted?
b) Applicants should be admitted solely on the basis of merit, even if that results
in few minority students being admitted.
To this question only 23 percent of whites among those expressing an opinion chose
alternative "a" (i.e. that racial and ethnic background should be given special
consideration in college admissions to help promote diversity), while the remaining 77
percent -- a substantial majority -- opposed this idea. Though 47 percent of whites had
said they supported "affirmative action programs for minorities," only half this amount --
23 percent – said they favored special consideration of race to enhance diversity on
23
college campuses. Among Hispanics who had an opinion only 38 percent supported
alternative "a", though 77 percent had said they favored "affirmative action programs for
minorities." Here too, there were twice as many supporters of "affirmative action
programs" as those saying they favored special consideration for race in admissions to
college. (Only blacks showed majority support for race-based college admissions,
though just barely, with only 53 percent of those who had an opinion supporting
alternative "b").</p>

<p>The level of student disapproval of race-based preferences may be gauged by the
results of a survey conducted in 1999 by the research firm of Angus Reid.16 In
telephone interviews with a representative sample of 1,643 students in 140 different
American colleges the study found overwhelming opposition within this group to racial
preferences in employment and college admissions. To the statement "No one should be
given special preferences in jobs or college admissions on the basis of their gender or
race," almost one in five student respondents said they "moderately agreed" with the
statement (18.7 percent), while fully two out of every three (66.7 percent) said they
"strongly agreed" with the statement. Less than 15 percent said they disagreed with the
statement, with more than two out of three of these saying they disagreed only
moderately not strongly (a mere 4.6 percent said they "disagreed strongly"). In all, 85
percent of the students in the survey disagreed with granting racial and gender
preferences in employment and college admissions, with most saying they disagreed
strongly.
The</p>

422

<p>continued from above</p>

<p>The high level of student opposition to both racial and gender preferences is no
doubt a reflection of the triumph of the meritocratic ideal in America. It gains a special
poignancy among students in the most selective colleges and universities since most have
gained admissions only after an arduous four-year trial-by-ordeal in which they have had
to struggle through demanding high school honors and Advanced Placement courses,
countless hours of study, harrowing exams and standardized tests, and a senior year of
applications and personal essays, to be followed by months of anxious waiting. The
universal expectation is that if you have academic talent, work hard, and focus your
24
energies on your school work, you will be appropriately rewarded and your reward will
be commensurate with your academic performance. That's the basic trust and many
students view it as the fundamental social contract under which they live.
For many high-achieving students affirmative action in college admissions dashes
this trust, and nowhere does this become more evident than in the early spring of senior
year when high school students receive final word on whether or not they have been
admitted to the colleges of their choice. It is at this time that many students first learn of
the enormous degree of racial preference that elite universities often accord to black and
Hispanic students. They watch with bewilderment and dismay as some of their much
better qualified white and Asian classmates get the thin letters of rejection from some of
the very same elite institutions that have sent out the fat letters of acceptance to some of
their much less qualified black and Hispanic peers. "It's not fair," they say, and their
resentment can oscillate in its focus between the individual students who benefit from
racial preferences and the institutional policies which support them.
The great social distance regarding "affirmative action beneficiaries" which
Massey and his colleagues found among the entering white and Asian freshmen in their
study is no doubt explained by many individual high school experiences such as these.
The resentment and perception of unfairness which such experiences can evoke is well
captured in a recent description by a Princeton undergraduate of his own experiences in
the college admissions process. The account is taken from the concluding paragraph of a
term paper the student wrote, which was highly critical of affirmative action policy in
America:
I'll close with a personal anecdote. In my high school graduating class, five were
admitted into the class of 2005 at Princeton. Of those, one was of a minority.
While I was lucky enough to be one of those five, many others in my high school
with much higher grades and SAT scores than the admitted minority were passed
over. In many ways, the situation disgusted me. I knew that countless students
had worked much harder than the minority student, but they had not been
admitted only because they were not black. While I had never fostered any ill
will towards that student, I found that I resented the fact that she could matriculate
because she was black; really, though, my anger could only be directed at the
cause of the problem -- race-preference -- and not the minority student. We seek
a society where race does not matter, but affirmative action, as my high school
experience testifies, only intensifies the importance of race. I look forward to the
day when affirmative action ends and race truly does not matter. In the
meantime, society seems vigorously keen on becoming more race-conscious in a
misguided attempt to become less race-conscious.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nas.org/reports/river_change/affirm-act_soc-sci.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nas.org/reports/river_change/affirm-act_soc-sci.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

423

<p>Marite,
You missed my point...it was that Jian Lin may have been undesirable, not because he is Asian or because he had bad grades, scores or ecs, but because he had certain personality traits that were revealed in the applications...and that the colleges found undesirable. I really think his actions, from the vantage point of a Yale suite, are quite audacious. Unless the judge is completely out to lunch, he won't get far...and he won't get far in his applications for grad school either. I wouldn't take him.<br>
Compare, for example, Andi's son, who was also very well qualified, and who did not get into Yale...or anywhere else. Did he react with a lawsuit? Did he cry "reverse discrimination...I'm a white male." No he did not. He reacted with grace and courage and ended up at MIT.
What are Jian Li's damages? That a Yale education is inferior than a Princeton education? What a ridiculous young man.</p>

424

<p>symphonymom, I don't think any college found Li "undesireable" -- it is a process of selection, not rejection.</p>

<p>If I go to the market and buy fresh produce, if I want 5 apples, I will always pick the apples that look the best to me -- the most shiny, well shaped, nicest colored apples. But if I want 5, I will only pick 5. If I also want 5 oranges, I won't compare the 6th apple to any of the oranges. When I leave, there are hundreds of apples and hundreds of oranges I didn't pick... but there is absolutely nothing wrong with any of them. Yes, there may be individual fruits that had a reason for rejection -- an apple with a bruise, and orange with a greenish tinge. But most of the fruits are equally good -- I just happened to pick the first 5 that looked the best to me and came to my attention. </p>

<p>Li's problem, if any, is that he didn't have enough distinguishing factors about his application. As he himself admits that he was hoping for a rejection so he could file his bias claim, it is unlikely that he supplemented his application in any way. A Princeton student from the same high school, who posted earlier in this thread, mentioned that she had submitted supplemental recommendations and writing samples as part of her effort. I know that my own daughter had lower-than-typical test scores for Barnard and Chicago, but both colleges welcomed supplemental submissions, and she took advantage of that. In fact, she was deferred EA from Chicago, then submitted a supplemental essay and a graded writing sample, then was admitted. </p>

<p>I also feel that there is no evidence whatsoever of discrimination -- just of one kid who has very high test scores but doesn't understand the nature of the competition that he entered. I think of this as kind of being like an olympic hopeful who thinks winning is simply a matter of being the best, such as having the best time in a series of races -- but unfortunately is entering the figure skating competition where artistry and pizazz have become more important than technique and consistency. </p>

<p>It's a game that Li didn't know how to play well. He didn't lose. He just didn't happen to win. </p>

<p>We know that because he was not rejected, but waitlisted. The waitlist is the same as a letter that says the ad com didn't have any reason to reject the applicant, but couldn't come up with any particularly good reason to select him either --- so they keep his name in reserve just in case their yield projections fall short and they need to fill a space.</p>

425

<p>Hi Calmom, how's the weather across the Bay?
If Li was waitlisted, then I certainly agree that he was a desirable, but not particularly outstanding candidate. I guess I find it hard to believe that this young man, who looks a gift horse so directly in the mouth, did not have some undesirable personality traits that came through in his applications...I find his position absolutely untenable and really disgusting. Was he damaged in any way? He got accepted by the most selective university in the country. Just give me a break.</p>

426

<p>Symphonymom - that kind of bullheadedness can be a valuable trait as well, though. I know several people who have that kind of tunnel vision, and they can be both charming and high achievers, while at the same time having absolutely no sense of perspective regarding their own place in the world vis a vis that of others and the needs of the community as a whole. So if I were an Adcom I'd want some students with exactly the characteristics you find so repellent in Jian Li. (Of course - only some, and not too many.)</p>

427

<p>From the New York Times article about a surge in Asian primary and secondary schools students:</p>

<p>
[quote]
In some cases, Korean and Japanese mothers have been known to take their children to the United States for the school year while the fathers stay behind at high-paying corporate jobs in their own countries.</p>

<p>“Koreans are very aware of the schools, and their rankings; that’s the first thing they ask other parents when they move,” said Maria Shim, 40,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Asian immigrants are not arriving in the US ill-informed. They are often highly educated. Why would a WEALTHY educated mother leave the father and husband behind for years at a time? They are gaming the US system and capitalism in general.</p>

<p>I doubt the 'quiet' 17 year old Mr Li formulated this protest and suit on his own. Chinese adults were behind his entire 'research' and 'protest' project. They have of course ruined his US grad school prospects and his US employment prospects. </p>

<p>He would have known that. His adult mentors would have known that. Yet they went ahead.</p>

<p>Why? Who benefits if elite schools are forced into Asian-like systems of admittance based on testing alone? Asian-Americans? Perhaps--but also--apparently--Chinese nationals who have permanent residency.</p>

<p>Fortunately, reading the Li articles in the Princeton, Yale and Harvard student newspapers, it appears that many of our children have a deep committment to the goals and principles of affirmative action for African Americans and other URMs.</p>

428

<p>Symphonymom:
You also missed the point that I and others have been making. </p>

<p>We have absolutely no reason to suppose that Jian Li came across as obnoxious. Rapelye does not make such a claim. It's all post hoc guessing on your part, with absolutely no basis in fact. In terms of explaining why students get rejected, it is more than sufficient to bear in mind that there are more qualified students than slots and leave it at that.<br>
The fact that Jian Li was waitlisted means that various colleges were prepared to admit him if a slot opened. If they had believed that he would be obnxious, they could easily have rejected him.</p>

429

<p>"So really, I see this whole "affirmative action" debate as one more distraction from the real issue of social class and economics..."</p>

<p>I agree. But more importantly, the highly selective U's seem to think so, too, since economic disadvantage is currently more of a hook than URM status per se. I think colleges have become very aware of these differences & are looking to provide opportunity where accomplishment has already been demonstrated.</p>

<p>fabrizio, one last thing, on an earlier post of yours:
I think you may be a little too influenced by the notion/existence/concern about stereotype, & its supposed link to "racial" decisions. I agree that if/when groups are stereotyped, there is the appearance of unfairness & possibly just a different form of racism. But I sincerely believe that "Asians," or even "East Asians" are not all lumped together by the committees, nor are assumptions made <em>before</em> the package/profile is read. Nor does this happen with other ethnic groups. Because of various comments on CC, in several forums/fora;), it may appear to you that the concept of racial balance is overriden by the opportunity for stereotyping, but CC'ers are not representative of opinions & determinations by the colleges. Given the array & variety of applicants, I doubt very much that <em>most</em> committee members assume a certain pattern for an Asian student before reading the full app. JMO.</p>

430

<p>Kluge: Point well taken...I suppose that kind of bullheadedness you describe could describe us all at times. I just think that a kid who gets into Yale has nothing to complain about. I really hate when discrimination laws are misused because it just dilutes them. The fact that he's so hot to sue makes me wonder about who is advising him. Eighteen-year olds are not usually so litigious. It's an odd society we are creating.
Marite: As I answered Calmom, if he was waitlisted, you are right, he was probably a decent candidate, just not outstanding. It could also mean someone was on the fence... and that could well be because someone had questions about personality. Of course it's all conjecture...I've never met Li. You've got to admit that an eighteen-year old who wants to sue Princeton because he didn't get in, but is hanging out at Yale instead, is either a head case or very ill-advised.</p>

431

<p>Symphonymom. Li filed a complaint to the Department of Education. That is a far cry from your statement "the fact that he's so hot to sue".</p>

432

<p>I somehow think we are discussing this issue based on a misconception: Jian Li accuses discrimination based on test scores and race. Taxguy, you assume the same thing.</p>

<p>Yet, what about the essay? What about ECs? Did Jian Li have an interview? </p>

<p>All of these items are taken into consideration when weighing admission status. Colleges are looking for students who work hard, are extremely intelligent, but who can also add to the collegiate community. They are looking for students who are not only looking for an education, but who are also looking to make a difference with those around them.</p>

<p>I teach at an extremely culturally diverse school. Caucasians are the minority. We have an equal distribution of Pacific Islanders, Mainland Asians, Indians, Middle Easterns, Blacks, and Latinos. It is my experience that many parents who are immigrants have a difficult time realizing the importance of EC's. If you finally get them to agree to have their kid in football, drama, etc., then they pull the kid out the first time he gets an A-.</p>

<p>As our American institutions are looking for qualities that are difficult (not impossible) for those from different cultures to appreciate, I wonder how much of this purported "discrimination" is just a difference in cultural values between immigrants and Americans whose families have been here for many generations.</p>

433

<p>"The fact that he's so hot to sue makes me wonder about who is advising him."</p>

<p>you have the name of the court with his "suit" was filed?</p>

434

<p>
[quote]
who wants to sue

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I know a brilliant EurAsian American applicant who may have wanted to sue Harvard for the very same reason. He/she got into Yale and Princeton but not his/her dream school...Harvard. Harvard's loss believe me.</p>

435

<p>symphonymom, I think that the issue with Li is not that there was anything wrong with his app, just that the answer to the question, "what's special about him?" was elusive. Perfect SAT scores aren't special in a field that is full of perfect scorers. </p>

<p>Unfortunately for Li, the easiest way for the ad com to defeat allegations is to point out exactly what could be wrong about the app - no application is perfect, and now's the time to highlight all the flaws. To the extent that it gets made public, it probably will not be good for Li's future academic career.</p>

<p>I mean, remember Blair Horstine? It's not always a good idea to try to nudge your adversaries into explaining what it is they don't like about you.</p>

436

<p>Calmon, the complaint is not why Li was not admitted but the general practice of racial bias. Thus, it is not furitful for Princeton to address Li's case individually. The investigation will now centers on Princeton's admission practice in general. I suspect that Li has taken on Princeton also because a published study done by a bunch of Harvard professors just a few years back also raised the question whether Princeton also practices other forms of selective admission.</p>

437

<p>Padad, as far as I understand the law, based on the complaint submitted by Li, what will be investigated is whether there was discrimination against Li; if he wants to later file a lawsuit, he needs to show that he was personally discriminated against and hurt by the discrimination. I don't think his complaint can or will trigger an investigation into Princeton's practices in general, except to the extent that such practices are relevant to determining what happened in Li's case. </p>

<p>Perhaps there is someone here who is a civil rights lawyer who can correct me if I am mistaken, but as far as I know the only way to address generalized allegations of discrimination would be via a class action suit. Otherwise, if the OCR finds after investigating the complaint that there is no evidence of discrimination in Li's case, the claim will be dismissed.</p>

<p>Procedurally, from what I can gather, Li filed a complaint with the OCR in August contending that he was discriminated against. The complaint was initially rejected for insufficient evidence. Li appealed, with "citing a white high-school classmate admitted to Princeton despite lower test scores and grades." The office reopened the case. Now all Princeton has to do is respond with an explanation as to why that white student was admitted --- if they can cite to better recs, more impressive EC's, or simply a talent the student has in a different area than Li, then they negate any inference of discrimination.</p>

438

<p>"Fortunately, reading the Li articles in the Princeton, Yale and Harvard student newspapers, it appears that many of our children have a deep committment to the goals and principles of affirmative action for African Americans and other URMs."</p>

<p>studies contradict that.</p>

439

<p>Li appealed, with "citing a white high-school classmate admitted to Princeton despite lower test scores and grades."</p>

<p>LOL. Gee, how disappointing for the Li supporters. Li math : Best test scores + best grades = best candidate for admission. Like several of us have been saying all along, Li (and his handlers, mentors, friends, supporters) just don't understand the selection process. Whether that is cultural or not is not for me to say but there is a disconnect somewhere that does not allow them to see the process for what it is after repeated attempts to explain it.</p>

440

<p>
[quote]
I wonder how much of this purported "discrimination" is just a difference in cultural values between immigrants and Americans whose families have been here for many generations.

[/quote]
How much of it? Probably all. It's not even just immigrants who don't want to believe what every elite college tells the applicants is important when making admissions decisions. For people with such high test scores, I'm surprised at the lack of reading comprehension.</p>

<p>curmudgeon is so right about the disconnect. Now, whether or not one AGREES that holistic admissions is a good thing is another issue entirely. But even if you think it is a crock, it is how things are done.</p>