<p>
[quote]
Do you have difficulty with idea that so-called "Asians" have remarkably different ethnic (and educational) identities...
[/quote]
Why in the world would you think that? Do you think all peoples of European ancestry are identical in all ways? Africans? I certainly don't.</p>
<p>As to the original question, look at the over 200 Catholic colleges created in large part because of anti-Catholic discrimination, barriers to admission, and outright disdain shown toward "popists." Most are thriving still. A few are now in the elite category. If Asians feel they are being shut out, nothing is stopping them from creating a network of universities geared toward Asians.</p>
<p>Most asian families place a heavy emphasis on getting into the toughest colleges. Thus, ivies, the high 2nd tier, etc. You're not going to ever convince them that applying to a college where they have an advantage in admissions is as prestigious.</p>
<p>Second, most asians are less racially sensitive than other minorities. I've noticed this a lot. They are more willing to assimilate into mainstream culture as opposed to rejecting one or the other (blacks deriding "white" culture, for example, or vice versa). There's a strong sentiment against blaming race for personal lack of achievement.</p>
<p>Mini - you have no argument here, sorry. Nobody claims the common classifications for race mean anywhere near a uniform culture across that race.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Data for the 1997 entering class indicate that eliminating affirmative action would reduce acceptance rates for African-American and Hispanic applicants by as much as one-half to two-thirds and have an equivalent impact on the proportion of underrepresented minority students in the admitted class. White applicants would benefit very little by removing racial and ethnic preferences; the white acceptance rate would increase by roughly 0.5 percentage points. Asian applicants would gain the most. They would occupy four out of every five seats created by accepting fewer African-American and Hispanic students. The acceptance rate for Asian applicants would rise by one-third from nearly 18 percent to more than 23 percent.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's a very interesting study and an easy read.</p>
<p>If I recall, the Princeton "study" looked only at SAT scores. Refer back to my point above that most people, including people who write studies at Princeton, have no clue what characteristics colleges are looking for.</p>
<p>To put it bluntly, anyone who thinks high SATs will get you into Princeton is an idiot and any academician who bases a study of admissions solely on SAT scores is a fraud and a charlattan. </p>
<p>High SATs and a few bucks will get you a latte at the Starbucks in Princeton; that's about it.</p>
<p>What would be the point? A mixed culture and ethnic background education could may be more educational and more rewarding to the student and school, than a single culture.</p>
<p>Private schools may have a single unifing theme but perhaps a nonrealistic theme that is unadaptable to society's needs. Communism in the Soviet Union comes to mind.</p>
<p>SAT scores and GPA are pretty much the only things that can be objectively quantified for studies like this. There's no real way of showing that Latino students write the best essays or that white students participate in the most sports, for example. I believe the underlying assumption is that among the various groups of students applying to schools like Princeton, they all have about equal participation in the various ECs, are equally good at getting teacher reqs, and are about the same in the quality of their essays.</p>
<p>
[quote]
SAT scores and GPA are pretty much the only things that can be objectively quantified for studies like this.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But, SATs tell you nothing about the odds of getting accepted to Princeton. Princeton and every other top ranked university and LAC rejects half the applicants with perfect SAT scores.</p>
<p>If you want to use SAT scores, then at least them in a way that approximates how the colleges use them. They will consider:</p>
<p>a) The top 1% of Caucasian scorers.</p>
<p>b) The top 1% of Latino/a scorers.</p>
<p>c) The top 1% of Asian American scorers.</p>
<p>d) The top 1% of African American scorers.</p>
<p>These groups are largely competing within their groups for separate pools of admissions slots. The colleges are evaluating SATs in the context of the national SATs for that group. The fact that one ethnic group scores higher nationally than another is largely irrelevant to Princeton's thinking. They expect white and Asian American applicants to have higher SAT scores.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most asian families place a heavy emphasis on getting into the toughest colleges. Thus, ivies, the high 2nd tier, etc. You're not going to ever convince them that applying to a college where they have an advantage in admissions is as prestigious.
[/quote]
I think this in particular addresses the OP's question. Further, I don't think that Asians (of all particular variants) are today being denied opportunity through wholesale discrimination as was the case with Jews, AfAms, and some others historically. They seem to be represented in significant numbers at most of the highest ranked colleges and I'm sure would be welcome at many of the colleges that aren't the top-ranked ones. That said, any college that uses race as a factor in admissions will be discriminating against one race or the other by definition.</p>
<p>Shades, they don't all have the same story to tell, and elite admissions is a matter of selecting among fully qualified candidates, not a matter of picking the "most" qualified. It is likely that a screening of candidates based on qualifications at Princeton or Harvard will narrow the field to about one-fourth to one-third of the initial applicants -- and from there they have to pick roughly 1/3 for their class. At that point they are past looking at stats. </p>
<p>I find myself perpetually baffled when supposedly smart people can't seem to figure out the colleges don't have room for everyone who is objectively "qualified". One problem with the Princeton study to start is that it WAS based on SAT scores, and SAT scores are known to have different meanings for different ethnic and income groups. The reason that blacks & hispanics would suffer if the admissions were based on the tests scores alone is that such an admissions scheme would be patently discriminatory - so the colleges look at SAT scores in context. And that means that a hispanic kid who is the first in her family to go to college and has combined SATs of 2050 can look a lot more impressive than a white or asian offspring of two parents with advanced degrees who has a score of 2300. </p>
<p>The standardized tests are teachable, coachable, and of limited value. They tell very little in isolation about the student's likelihood of doing well at college, and even less about the process that went into selection of various students.</p>
<p>Post 21, correct. Post 24, correct. (SS, I was thinking also of Catholic colleges as soon as I read the OP.)</p>
<p>"believe the underlying assumption is that among the various groups of students applying to schools like Princeton, they all have about equal participation in the various ECs..." </p>
<p>Not really. Overall, Asians participate in a wide variety of e.c.'s, but not as wide a variety as non-Asian students do, overall. There's much more clustering of e.c.'s among narrow bands, among Asian applicants. Also more clustering of academic majors favoring science. Therefore, Asians in outlying geographical areas, with less "typical" e.c.'s, and atypical academic interests tend to be at an admissions advantage, given similar SAT scores & similar GPA's as other Asians. It's not that science majors are not welcomed; Asian science majors are heavily represented at the Elites. But if you think they want their science majors to be 80% Asian, you're wrong -- regardless of how many Asian science students apply, regardless of how high their scores are. At some point any elite college is going to draw the line on those admits, & welcome science applicants of a variety of backgrounds & locations.</p>
<p>"What would be the point?"
The point would be to introduce some control into preferred admissions standards, rather than unrealistically griping & trying to change the policies of individual colleges. If you think you know better "who's qualified," there's nothing to prevent you from opening your own U. People who whine believe they should judge admissions standards; so open your own already, & control the process. </p>
<p>"Most asian families place a heavy emphasis on getting into the toughest colleges."
Precisely. You don't think the scholastic standards would be tough enough for an Asian applicant, if designed by Asians? But one can read that quote in an amusing way: No fun getting into a U unless there's a masochistic focus on the difficulty of getting in (i.e. its <em>popularity</em> -- is really what's being talked about, versus <em>excellence</em>)</p>
<p>Is it possible that we've come far enough that there's no longer a need for the establishment of ethno-centric college due to wholesale discrimination against ethicities for college admissions? I think we have.</p>
<p>I could have read the OP wrong, but I thought her point was that the admissions process at U.S. colleges is much more a subject of controversy among Asians than among any other group. OTOH, I guess I wasn't reading her too literally, either. I presumed that such a U would not necessarily directly favor (prefer) Asians for ethnicity reasons, but indirectly 'favor' them for quantitative elements reasons.</p>
<p>(And I have no problem with that.) I'm a fan of free marketplace choice.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But, SATs tell you nothing about the odds of getting accepted to Princeton.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that overstates the facts. Probability of admission rises with higher SAT score, ceteris paribus, at Princeton and at most other colleges. I am not aware of any college whose admission committee says, "Let's try to get the lowest SAT-scorers who submit applications." </p>
<p>Of course, there is a workaround if it is thought that a college has an admission policy that favors people of one ethnicity over people of other ethnicities. </p>
<p>Pretend I'm a College Confidential high school applicant trying my hand at a "Chances" thread as follows:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hi. I scored 2400 on my SATs. What are my chances at Princeton?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Can you provide any guidance whatsoever about the student's chances at Princeton? I can't. None whatsoever. And that's with perfect SATs. Now, let's call it 2250 SATs...</p>
<p>I understand what you are saying. High SATs are better than low SATs, but I'm not telling someone they have a "good chance" or even "any chance" at Princeton just because they have high SATs. There are plenty of applicants with perfect SATs who have ZERO chance of getting into Princeton.</p>
<p>interesteddad, that's not what tokenadult was saying. He's pointing out that there IS a correlation between SAT scores and admission rates, not that a high SAT score means automatic admission. However you believe in holistic admissions, you really think someone with an 1800 SAT has as good a chance as a 2300? The correlation may begin to tail off at the highest end, but it's there nonetheless.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However you believe in holistic admissions, you really think someone with an 1800 SAT has as good a chance as a 2300?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>1800 is a little extreme. Only 49 of last year's Princeton freshmen scored below 600 on the SAT verbal.</p>
<p>But even so, just knowing 1800 versus 2300 tells me nothing about either student's chances. The 1800 could have better chances than the 2300 if, for example, the 1800 scorer is a 275 pound defensive end or offensive left tackle.</p>
<p>It's never the scores that gets someone accepted to a joint like Princeton. It's always "something else".</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am wondering when some top financiers within the Asian community will get sufficiently fed up with the status quo and simply create a new university that admits according to high statistics, where a student's ethnic/racial minority status as "Asian" is no detriment to admissions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Great idea! </p>
<p>Now, let's have fun with naming the proposed school, the NCAA athletic teams, and the mascot. </p>
<p>How about HYPS University, the Individualists, and the Bookworm. </p>
<p>as a white female with less than stellar math scores I would like to submit my appl. to the aforementioned institution. Will I get URM status?
Go Bookworms!!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Only 49 of last year's Princeton freshmen scored below 600 on the SAT verbal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, that tells you something right there. </p>
<p>The College Board releases figures each year in August showing the highest obtained single-sitting SAT score for each member in the immediately preceding high school graduating class who took the SAT (more than 1 million students per class). The figures for class of 2007 </p>
<p>show that only a very few students have "perfect" scores across all three sections of the new three-section SAT Reasoning Test. Thus we know that EVERY top college (Caltech being the only mathematically possible exception, with its small entering class size) has to admit some student with less than perfect scores. </p>
<p>Earlier threads about test scores as a genuine admission factor or as a proxy (or correlate) of other genuine admission factors include </p>
<p>No, standardized test scores are not the only admission factor, but I stand by my statement that colleges that are highly desired are not actively looking for low-scoring students, as the quoted text above would seem to indicate.</p>
<p>interesteddad, you are completely and utterly missing the point. Nobody here is saying that the 2300 is automatically the better applicant. What we are saying is that holding all else equal, the 2300 has a better shot than the 1800.</p>
<p>Holding all else equal (which we can assume with a huge sample size), there is indeed a correlation between admission and SAT scores.</p>