<p>mollie, you continue to impress me with your posts. I think you nailed it. Good job.</p>
<p>thank you cheers and marite for your comments.</p>
<p>Drossselmeier...I love your posts....they speak to the large and small issues all at once. Are you a professional writer?</p>
<p>fabrizio is a talented Asian American senior in high school. He is in the midst of applying for substantial merit scholarships. As I have told him, I think his talent will carry him to the heights he dreams about, where his view on diversity MAY soften.</p>
<p>"A way to admit all races in the fairest way possible? Remove racial preferences and invest in underfunded schools with national funds."</p>
<p>What in the world could this possibly have to do with who goes to Princeton, where half the students come from families earning more than $160k (and the average of those likely over $300k, and the majority of these coming from private schools?)</p>
<p>Fabrizio, the problem with your argument is that you are, in essence, arguing for racial preferences in favor of Asians, because you want a system that is already skewed in favor of high-achieving Asians to be changed to further benefit that group. </p>
<p>The system is skewed in favor of Asians because the critiria for college admissions tends to favor them -- that is why Asians are admitted to top colleges in disproportionate numbers as compared to their percentage in the population. The crux of Li's complaint is: "Asians tend to have higher SAT scores than non-Asians, so Princeton should change its admission criteria so as to give even more weight to the relative measure of SAT scores." </p>
<p>However, suppose it could be shown that on average, caucasion students needed to be 2 inches taller than Asians in order to secure admissions. Let's say that the caucasion students file a discrimination suit, asking that tall students be given preference over short ones. You'd probably think that was unfair, because even though height is a race-neutral characteristic, using that as a criteria would have racial implications. </p>
<p>Yet you see no problem in arguing that SAT should be weighted more heavily by colleges that simply are not placing that great of a value on the relative weighting of higher end test scores. That argument might make sense, in my mind, if the argument was framed as a way to help a disfavored group in admissions-- but I don't see how it makes sense when applied to an already favored group.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The system is skewed in favor of Asians because the critiria for college admissions tends to favor them -- that is why Asians are admitted to top colleges in disproportionate numbers as compared to their percentage in the population. The crux of Li's complaint is: "Asians tend to have higher SAT scores than non-Asians, so Princeton should change its admission criteria so as to give even more weight to the relative measure of SAT scores."
[/quote]
This is incorrect. The crux of the claim is that given identical applicants, the asian is measured to a higher standard. What's the admit rate for 2400 SAT black, hispanic, white students compared to 2400 asians. That'd be telling. They all have the same score, so then surely they must be admitted at nearly the same rates?</p>
<p>Nope. Not even close.</p>
<p>But the score isn't criteria the college is relying on to make the selection, Mr Payne -- so when you start comparing the scores and complaining of "discrimination" your real complaint is that you want the school to change the rules by which they make the selection. </p>
<p>Personally, I think that they should drop the SAT requirement entirely. It's not going to happen, but it would end all of this madness. I think they should just require all students to submit graded writing samples instead. That way they have a sample of the student's real work to look at. Forget all this standardized testing nonsense.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But the score isn't criteria the college is relying on to make the selection, Mr Payne -- so when you start comparing the scores and complaining of "discrimination" your real complaint is that you want the school to change the rules by which they make the selection.
[/quote]
That's false. Scores are very much a factor. Admission rates go up depending on what sector your SAT is in.</p>
<p>Basically, you are saying that Asians, for any given SAT score, are less appealing in these "other criteria" than other races. I'd love for any adcom to say that. They would be sacked the next day.</p>
<p>Correlation is not causation. The fact that admission rates are higher for those with higher scores is meaningless unless you look at other variables -- it is likely that students with high CR & writing scores also write better essays, and that students with the highest GPAs also tend to have higher scores. That doesn't mean that the decisions are being made on the basis of the scores.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Drossselmeier...I love your posts....they speak to the large and small issues all at once. Are you a professional writer?
[/quote]
No. Not a writer. Not even close. Im just some guy, trying to make his way like everyone else.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's false. Scores are very much a factor. Admission rates go up depending on what sector your SAT is in.
[/quote]
It could be that those in the highest SAT sectors tend to have other traits that colleges find appealing, and that after Asians have saturated the demand for traits like those possessed by guys like Mr. Li, the schools begin selecting elsewhere. That would explain why so many Asians are in the schools relative to their numbers, and also why people like Li are deemed unremarkable compared to others within his sector.</p>
<p>If he is a science oriented piano playing mathematician, like so many Asians, he likely will after a time lose to a green-haired paint-slinging Asian with scores and GPA slightly lower than his, but in the same sector. If the person is a black guy, then the selection pressure ought to be even greater, since because of history so few blacks are at this level and since the black guy has the skills and profile the colleges want.</p>
<p>For another example of high scorers being admitted despite the weight of standardized test scores, look at graduate school admissions. Several of the professors I talked with who are on my school's admissions committee told me they don't even consider the actual score -- the score is used as a first-pass cutoff, and anyone below a certain threshhold (about 1100 out of a possible 1600) is rejected.</p>
<p>Despite the fact that this threshhold is low, the GRE averages of students admitted to the department tend to be in the upper 1400s-1500s. This doesn't reflect a secret preference for high scorers, just that getting a high score on a standardized test is correlated with having other good factors on the application -- and also, probably, that students generally don't apply to top programs without good GRE scores.</p>
<p>Self-selection is an issue with SAT scores and undergraduate admissions as well. People often complain that one "needs" high SAT scores to get into top schools, but the admissions statistics say that the high scores of admits are reflective of the strength of the applicant pool. Almost 80% of the applicants to MIT last year had SAT I math scores over 700 (stats</a>). The prevalence of high math scores in the MIT admit population isn't a result of selecting for high math scores, it's a result of the population having high math scores to begin with. (The prevalence of high math scorers can also be explained fairly accurately by assuming that admissions comittee members are selecting randomly among students who scored higher than 650 on math -- about 60% of the 650+-scoring applicant pool had above a 750, and about 65% of the admit pool had above a 750.)</p>
<p>In short, you'd expect Asian admits to have higher SAT scores than students of other races -- they can be expected to have had higher scores going in. This is exactly what you would expect to see if scores are not a primary determinant of admission to highly selective schools.</p>
<p>Mollie, you said what I tried to say about a zillion posts back so much better than I did. :)</p>
<p>No one is saying scores don't make a difference. If there is a stack of applications of kids that are have the same interests, the same assesssments on other items, the same declared major, you take the one with the highest score. That is why you get lower test scores for athletes as a group. The entire stack of athletic recruits tend to have lower test score, but you want these kids for very specific other talents. All things equal, the athlete with the higher test score will get in. When the the need for the talent overrides the testscore, you get kids in with lower scores. The kids that fit certain profiles are in a huge stack. So the ones with the higher scores are selected; the ones left may well and do often have higher test scores than kids accepted in other categories. THe sticking point is that there is no "Asian " stack. All kinds of kid fall in that category. It's just that a lot of Asians tend to fall in that group.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Clearly, the optimal society would not take race into account, because all races should be treated equally and perform equally well.
[/quote]
Yes. But, you know, I don’t even advocate a society in which everyone performs equally well. I don’t think such a thing is even possible. What I am saying is that blacks in this country began with certain inalienable rights, whether their captors or purchasers recognized them or not. They began in possession of themselves and of their identity. Those rights were taken away, and they were taken away by a nation that recognized the existence of the rights. Now, we are left with a people here who struggles to regain themselves and to find an identity worthy of them. The current American identity, as they perceive it, is insufficient. They cannot and therefore will not accept it. The only resolution I see to this problem is to better integrate this people into the society and culture of their birth, the society that has recognized their natural state all along, even while failing to protect it. In this way, we help them acquire the sense of place they lost during slavery. America owes them this, and we cannot force it by demanding they “get over it”. The dispossessed people must themselves feel a sense of belonging here. The most effective way to do this, I think, is through education, preferably education that takes place in a diverse environment. </p>
<p>
[quote]
However, the reality in American society is that we have grave inequities that divide at least in part on racial lines. I'm not saying that we need to atone for the sins of our ancestors, or impose equal representation, but when members of a struggling subgroup achieve, it is only natural to take more of an interest in their performance and inclusion than in that of the member of the majority.
[/quote]
Yeah. Absolutely. Traditionally, integration has taken place as differing racial/ethnic groups have entered the country, formed enclaves, and its members began to sell goods and services to fill the needs of the enclave. Eventually, a surplus develops and the goods are sold externally, to members outside the enclave. Behaviors slowly mesh, are often altered and ultimately integrated into the mainstream culture. Blacks had little ability to take this route. They were held to an artificially limited range of behaviors, and given a new culture designed to hold them in servitude and ridicule. It is not exactly a product largely exportable to the mainstream culture. And we see the sordid relationship it created yet persisting here</a>, for example. What should have been a casual, all-in-fun meeting between an adult and two kids, has turned into a racial incident because it harkened back to an exploitative past. Spike Lee, whose movies I don’t like at all, did a film about this called “Bamboozled” where, it seems to me, he claims that blacks today, in film, music, hip-hop, etc. (basically in most of what we do), are “bamboozled”, incessantly duped into playing the roll of buffoon, and all for the pleasure of whites – just as was the case during slavery. If that is in fact his belief, I think he is quite right.</p>
<p>Slave culture has a surprising number of characteristics that we as a people should salvage. But it has also a number of defense mechanisms that while sensible in context of slavery, are destructive in a modern context. Where all other groups are able to come to America, form enclaves, be themselves, and slowly integrate into the larger American culture, blacks are in the reverse situation. Since American culture detests what it created us to be, and after having created and exploited us it now rejects what we are, we blacks are required to do what no other group has ever done, namely, become other than what we have always been so that we might have a chance of being accepted as Americans. It is just something that many blacks find galling – and rightly so. We fall behind all other groups because such a radical change in culture is a very rare thing, happening only as a result of intense upheaval and war, or of deliberate and focused thought. The more rapidly America focuses on allowing the best of us to develop our own capabilities, the more rapidly it will help us take the latter approach. In this way, we join the society as productive citizens who literally feel American, while also maintaining dignity, since our change occurred willingly.</p>
<p>"All things equal, the athlete with the higher test score will get in. When the the need for the talent overrides the testscore, you get kids in with lower scores."</p>
<p>....The point being (and also as I've said elsewhere), given the number of Asians applying to Princeton in the cycle studied -- or any cycle -- the 2400-score Asians were accepted over the <2400 Asians who also applied! In the concentric circles of admissions decisions, you are competing within & across various levels: globally, nationally, regionally, & locally; within & against your own socioeconomic level; within your own ethnic group; within & against your gender; within & against your location. So before the committee juxtaposes an Asian against a URM, or a Caucasian against a URM, they are looking at how you compare with applicants most like yourself.</p>
<p>It is both narrowly focused AND broadly focused. Again, many times a decision will be made that confirms a similarity in the pool (in the above areas) because the "need for the talent," or some other need overrides similarities, ethicities, regional representation, etc. No formula. No quotas.</p>
<p>The thing to remember is that THERE IS NO ASIAN STACK. It just so happens that a lot of Asians are in that stack. A top basketball recruit who is Chinese is not going to be in that stack. Neither is the top cross country recruit. Nor is the hot shot marching band captain. Nor is the male tenor who is eagerly checking out college a cappella groups. Nor is the national debate champion who is active in several major community service projects and president of his student council. Nor is the daughter/son of the president of a major bank financing the school's newest building project. Nor is the legacy whose dad has headed the funding drive and interviewed candidates for umpteen years and is a big player at the reunions, always stopping to say hello to those in admissions. Nor is the the political activist who has been quoted in several major publications and has written some hard hitting editorials about her cause. Nor is the head of a national drive for funds for disadvantage who has come up with some unique ideas and raised a lot of money, impressing a lot of people. Nor is the Classics major who spent a semester or summer abroad in Greece studying, and wrote a piece published in a major magazine, and is interning at a major museum. Or the math major who not only finished the math sequences at his school, but has taken some theoretical math courses that few kids even know exist and has done some awesome work with the Mathematica program. Or the kid who built his own sailboat, and has taken some CAD and other unusual courses at the local CC, and has entered races and contests with his creations, that he can describe with great gusto. Those kids will get in without the top SATs and class ranks, most likely, at any school, and it won't matter a whig if they happen to be Asian.</p>
<p>Addendum to my post 519:</p>
<p>Before anyone replies, "See, an Asian 'needs' a 2400," you would have to have seen the reject pile, to make that conclusion. And you're never going to see that reject pile because those applicants' rights are protected by confidentiality. (Even then, it would still not prove "need," as a few of us have explained.) </p>
<p>Since every top school rejects & waitlists many perfect scorers every year (not just from their claims, but from CC students & other students who admit this), chances are some of these perfect scorers are Asian, some are Caucasian. And unless every single such CC poster is a liar, the universe of CC students includes perfect & imperfect scorers who self-report being Asian, perfect & imperfect scorers who self-report being Caucasian, & who post their ED and RD results, which include waitlists & rejections of perfect scorers and imperfect scorers of every ethnic group. That perfect-score-reject trend has "historically" been accurate at the elites over the last about 5 yrs. This is why the study is faulty at its core, & is not a scientific determination of any "bar" or any "quota" or any "exclusion" of any segment of applicants by ethnicity.</p>
<p>Yes. (Post 518)</p>
<p>The point is, it is the Exceptional Person, period, who is most important to highly selective colleges. Exceptional overrides all other categories, including ethnicity. And the college gets to determine Exceptional, not Jian Li, not any of us parents or students here on CC, unless we're on those admissions committees. Over the last 5 yrs. minimum, the colleges in their decisions & in their public statements, have shown that Exceptional is not best defined by test scores, nor confined to or limited by any particular ethnic group.</p>
<p>"Exceptional overrides all other categories, including ethnicity. And the college gets to determine."</p>
<p>Nope. Money overrides all other categories, followed by football quarterback. College can't operate without money, and some folks think it can't operate without QB. The rest of the moving parts are interchangeable.</p>