<p>I think we all know that all of the selective universities have some special categories. We all talk about legacies, development, URMs, athletes, celebrities. There are also categories less known such as children of staff, which would include "facbrats". Some colleges give special preferences to kids from certain schools within a city neighborhood--a "good neighbor" preference. Duke has a "Carolina preference" built into its charter. There are also the idiosyncratic preferences. A powerful, pushy prof who takes great interest in keeping tabs of admissions and has strong relations with adcoms, can make sure that there is good feed of students for his department that may not get that much interest. A school with a strong choir, a cappella choir, band is going to make sure that admissions keep that tradition going if the music directors have any brains. They may even be part of the admissions committee. We don't know those inner workings. We don't know what the push is for an individual school. I know there are some colleges that are getting concerned about a diminiishing number of male applicants. When you get towards 40% of one sex in a school, you risk sliding further down the selectivity chart, as few kids then apply cuz applicants tend to like well balanced schools in m/f ratios. The once all female schools openly give preference to male candidates. There are all kinds of discrimination going on, in terms of preferences that have nothing to do with the test score, other than making sure it is with a certain minimum range, and each time you exercise such a preference, it discriminates by definition someone who does not have such a preference. If you focus on the academic numbers alone, you are going to make yourself crazy if you find out the stats of some kids who got into a top, top school.</p>
<p>It's also possible that these schools are not wrong. I know of at least one legacy applicant accepted to HYP with an old SAT score between 1450 and 1500 and great GPA and ECs who is rocking the GPA at said HYP, in the top 20% of the university, and living high in grade deflation. So.</p>
<p>It isn't always about what you did to get there as much as it is the adcom opinion of how you will do ONCE you get there. Do you know how traders on Wall Street trade? Do you think they look at the number? Only holistically. Yes, that word. Only as patterns, as key indicators.</p>
<p>Bay, do not think that you know me. I live in one of the most diverse areas of the country, and as such I have close friends, casual friends, and associates of many backgorunds. </p>
<p>But I also wanted to respond to cptof the house:
The word discrimination has been used & misapplied so liberaally on so many CC threads, that Im glad that it was just used in a more moderated & rational way. To discriminate can of course mean to be selective, to have high standards. In a civil rights or legal context, it can mean to exclude,but systematically, AND because of a category, and often with malice. In such a negative context it is more tied to purpose than result, although both are linked. To mix the issue of selectivity with an intent to deprive an entire group of opportunity, is to be, in a word, non-discriminating about important distinctions.</p>
<p>Sorry to tell you, bay. One of my best friends is Korean, another is Malaysian Sri Lankan, another is a Pacific Islander. 7 out of 10 of my clients are Asian. My world is a mixed one--and I love it.</p>
<p>In my area, there are many "Asian" enclaves. There is a section of New Jersey where nearly all of the kids are Korean. There are parts of this area that are predominantly Jewish, and others that tend to be Italian Catholic. The public schools serving those areas reflect this. And I don't know how many predominantly white neighborhoods and school district I have seen. I don't believe most people care for diversity most of the time. A little bit is ok, but there are limits. Now I am not pointing at everyone or anyone, as there are clearly many exceptions to this. But I see many here deliberately avoiding diversity. And most of the colleges in the US are not diverse. That is why we have special treatment for those who are!!!</p>
<p>Obvious Stuff ?</p>
<p>1) If you apply to elite schools and get accepted to some of them, you should be jumping up and down. Why sue?
2) If you are Asian with 2400 and need guaranteed admission, then apply to schools with less Asian applicants. Otherwise, have some fun and see if you can get in against all those tough Asian applicants. Why sue?
3) Jian Li is obviously a great student and well qualified for all the top schools. He would have done very well at Princeton also. Lets not speculate something is wrong with him. Except....why sue?
4) Holistic view and well-rounded student body play a role in school admission, so there are many variables besides SAT. No one is guaranteed of acceptance. Live with it. Why sue?
5) Life is not fair, not in admission, not in getting a job, not in NFL draft, not in job promotion, not in picking team as a kid. Why sue?
6) Why sue? So more folks will apply to law schools?</p>
<p>
Yes, but then my Jewish daughter gets admitted to Barnard, which definitely has a high number of Jewish women, with below-typical "stats" (ACT score at the bottom of their reported range). So is it because they couldn't figure out that she was Jewish? (No questions about religion on any application that we saw.) Or is it that the is not from NYC? </p>
<p>I think you are right about the "too many" highly qualified girls in the NYC metro area, but I think that the religion is simply an artifact of the fact that there are 1.7 million Jews in NYC. So I suppose the solution is for some of those high-achieving NY girls to move to South Dakota. I doubt that changing their religion would make a difference.</p>
<p>Asians are held to a higher standard for admission into elite universities. It's as simple as that. Is that wrong if the university is private? Nope.</p>
<p>This whole "case" reeks of bs. And I'm Asian. I just don't think he has much going for his case.</p>
<p>As Jewish students learned for most of the 20th century, amongst other limitations applying to and being accepted at a 'top' college or university was decidedly not equal.</p>
<p>Asian/Americans (meaning students from ancestors from China/Japan/Eastern Asia/India) are finding today in 2006, that the same difficult is facing their students in applying to 'top' colleges/universities.</p>
<p>Neither situation was 'fair' or 'right', but as Calmom has stated some of her relatives were able to break thru and get an excellent education. Back then, it was really significant because these 'top' schools were the place where mainly it was the children of the 'elite' in money, influence or family situations that attended the HYP of their day.</p>
<p>Today, it is not the same, as these 'top' colleges and universities are open to a much broader spectrum of our children. That the 'holistic' system is ripe for favoritism is not a surprise. </p>
<p>However, the doors to opportunity are not closed to children from any culture or race in our society. It is not perfect, will never be perfect, probably it is impossible to be perfect. What is clear is that in 25 - 30 years the children of todays college students will be legacies and their parents will be a very diverse group.</p>
<p>I hate to say the time will resolve most of the current 'problem', but it will.</p>
<p>Go to any {repeat} any college campus today, take three yearbooks out on a porch and observe the students going by, have the yearbooks from 1947, 1967 and 1987 (any three books -20 years apart will do) and you will be very aware of how the changes have occurred and you can see the students of 2026-7 will be even more diverse than today.</p>
<p>Is this student (Mr. Li) wrong to file his suit, No, he feels abused and this is our society's manner of resolving his feeling. Will he succeed, IMO only in that the dialogue continues and minds in the admissions office are opened slightly more than before this suit. If that occurs, then Mr. Li's lawsuit will be of benefit to others in time.</p>
<p>Sunlight is the best disinfectant. </p>
<p>Mr. Li is doing a good deed, may not have much immediate effect though, but it will build up. Also, a lot of people are forgetting that the asians are rated consistently lower on personality despite having similar financial backgrounds and extracurriculars. </p>
<p>A white violinist - passion, potential virtuoso
An asian violinist - forced by his parents, no will of his own</p>
<p>Personally, my parents discouraged me from studying and music! They keep telling me that it doesn't matter what college you go to as long as your major is good. In fact, I had to buy my violin myself. I loathe this american system of prejudice. It is not just the SAT factor. Asians are discriminated on all sides.</p>
<p>I believe Bopop has come closest to touching upon an obvious issue here: Had Li been posting his complaint from Tumbleweed Community College, complaining about his slighted 2400, I would be the first to side with him. But he was accepted at YALE. There is a name for this and it is called TROPHY COLLECTING. It is no longer just good enough to get accepted at one top school. You have to run the table. You have to be able to brag about what prestigeous schools you turned down, not just got in. This blurs the discussion entirely.</p>
<p>Meganvirg, very nice post, in my opinion. I don't believe the Asian situation is comparable to the Jewish discrimination. I do believe there is Asian discrimination--not directed at Asians in the way the admissions picture as evolved, but in the end result since the holistic process does diminish the top grades and testscores, areas where Asians tend to excell. Also, there may well be individuals in admissions who are predjudiced against Asians and may have an agenda to keep the numbers down--they are humans there with their own ideas, and who reviews your files and assesses your interests and the type of person you are, can make a huge difference in admissions outcome. This personal predjudice can occur to any person, both favorably and unfavorably. There are adcoms who dislike "jocks", despise artsy type, quirky people, do not want any political activists around. You've lucked out if you are in marching band, and the adcom reviewing your file was a band member for years, and has two kids in band, or if you are an artist and get someone who can appreciate your impressions, or simply someone who can identify with your place in your family and life, in general. I just do not believe that there is a deliberate, active plan to keep down the number of Asians in top schools, nor do I believe the holistic approach and the goal of diversity was planned to discriminate against Asians. </p>
<p>And as Fastmed pointed out, there is much predjudice in how Asians are viewed which often shows up on rec sheets, and in how people think about Asians in general. I don't think that an Asian violinist is necessarily viewed as forced by parents, no will of own, but is often viewed as a "yawn, another Asian violinist, so what". Now if you go to an extreme, and have a big, brawney football player take up the violin, there is a different viewpoint immediately and pretty much unanimously. It is not common, so it will be viewed as such. But, it's not just the Asian--the thin, bespectacled kid, the artsy looking one, all of these fit into aa stereotype of what you expect from a strings player. Enter someone who just doesn't look the part, and, yes, he gets more attention. Part of the affirmative action movement is because of these impressions. Just think of what stereotypes emerge when an African American or Hispanic enters the scene.<br>
Unfortunately, by giving any group an edge or favor, it hurts those not included which can make the difference in admissions or not in the most highly selective schools.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Asian/Americans (meaning students from ancestors from China/Japan/Eastern Asia/India) ...<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Is it just a small sample size I have seen, but does it seem that most of the complaining from the Asian/American group seems to come from Chinese and Korean applicants? Where are the Indian complainants? Many of the Japanese American applicants I have seen are so Americanized that their interests are as varied as white applicants and I don't see a fixation on SAT prep.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Will he succeed, IMO only in that the dialogue continues and minds in the admissions office are opened slightly more than before this suit. If that occurs, then Mr. Li's lawsuit will be of benefit to others in time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This requires an assumption: that the admissions process is in need of a mind that is slightly more open AND that the current process does include discrimination. Based on the statistics of the prior twenty years, that is quite an assumption.</p>
<p>Inasmuch as Li had every right to file his complaint, it is still far from being one with any merit. Considering the statements from the "plaintiff" it is clear that his intent was solely to be a nuisance. Had he be interested in doing it "for the generations" to come, he should have joined every school that rejected him in his filing. </p>
<p>It would be immensely naive and optimistic to believe that anything positive might come out of the resolution of this case, and that much light on admissions will be shed by the findings of the OCR. The outcome of this case is eminently predictable: the OCR will simply confirm its earlier findings and declare the complaint meritless via a nebulous and sibyllic report. </p>
<p>And then WHAT? A precedent that a student with quasi perfect SAT cannot allege discrimination for a rejection based on his scores! Where will this leave the thousands who were rejected with slightly more pedestrian scores? Nowhere! </p>
<p>In the end, Mr. Li will deeply regret his few minutes of fame as much as having listened to the truly unsavory characters who pushed him to challenge Princeton. Yes, Jian Li will come to regret having been cynicaly manipulated by a New Jersey defrocked physician with an agenda filled with racist bitterness. </p>
<p>What a shame!</p>
<p>It's interesting that so many very bright people are missing the point that the difference between a PERFECT score on the SAT could be a lot different than 50 points. He and the other 50% of perfect 2400s that Princeton rejects maxed out on the test. That means that the test does not "test" them. Perhaps they would be capable of a 4800. I personally would rather have the 2400 be my lawyer or doctor or senator given that he isn't an axe murderer than a fabulous squash player, tiddlywinks champion, etc.</p>
<p>And I think that Jews are probably also similarly "discriminated" against. I would like to see a comparable statistic on Jewish applicants.</p>
<p>amazon, from what I understood, schools like Princeton recieve more 2400 applications than they could accomodate. So they look for 2400s who have more to show than bare scores( like becoming fabulous squash players and tiddlywinks champions in their spare time).
Personally, SAT scores would be the last thing on my mind when choosing a doctor. :-)</p>
<p>"His outside activities were not that outstanding."</p>
<p>Ouch, that's pretty harsh. Especially since they don't comment on individual applicants but I guess he is suing them.</p>
<p>Frankly, it seems to me a few parents got so defensive of the current "holistic" approach of the elite schools because their kids, with much lower SAT & GPAs than Jian Li, got into Harvard & alike. They are the beneficiaries of the existing system. All people want is more transparency of the admission process at these schools. After all, these private schools get huge amount of Federal dollars in any given year, they should not be above the law or common sense of fairness.</p>
<p>I am wondering the lack of voices of those parents of students like Jian Li on this board. Oh, these parents probably either don't speak English, or work all day at their shops. What a contrast!</p>
<p>Parabella - that's exactly my point. What does that mean that they receive more 2400's than they can accomodate? They should be taking the 2400's before many of the other people that they're taking. A 2400 has broken the scale. I think it's pretty amazing that they get a perfect score in all 3 sections. And didn't Jian Li also get 800's on his SAT IIs? Unmeasured brilliance. I'll take that person for the tricky diagnosis.</p>