<p>@T26E4
The obvious counter argument is that those URM or track star or whatever slots should not exist.
How does having 10% of your class devoted to URM’s benefit everyone? It prevents (by definition, otherwise you wouldn’t need to pay attention to URM status) more academically accomplished students from attending the school.</p>
<p>imnew: I direct you to my hypothetical in post #691. I posit that schools determine the right mix. You say the more academically accomplished – a private college president says legacy or URM or top scholar athletes have importance as well. You say a football star shouldn’t have a slot set aside? What if the FB program single-handedly pays for all the other schools sports? (which is very true)</p>
<p>You want pure meritocracy? About 80% of US colleges accept solely based on numbers alone. But the rub is that most of these colleges aren’t the darlings of the college confidential crowd. If you do a search for “meritocracy” you’ll see a broader discussion into the topic on which you’ve just commented.</p>
<p>just joining the conversation here- realistically, will schools still to some extent take URM status into account if supreme court votes against it this June. Are private schools currently obligated to practice AA or do they choose to? If its a choice, won’t in all likelihood they continue to operate in the same way?</p>
<p>You can choose not to report your race. I did not feel that my race was a huge part of my life, so I didn’t include it in my applications. If you don’t include it, then it won’t play a role… positive or negative.</p>
<p>@T26E4 Yup, that’s the post I was referring to. I was merely elaborating the argument you were attempting to refute with post 691.
It is not, for example, a specific URM that is “taking someone else’s spot” but the college that is allocating some of the limited number of spots in the entering class to URM’s. So yes, the argument is imprecise, but its central point is valid.
(I do think I agree more with this argument than with yours, especially to URM’s. I have no problem with schools trying to field competitive sports teams [although I do think that they lower their academic standards too much for elite athletes]. In fact I think it is also reasonable to accept the children of very wealthy donors–it is my opinion that the entire model of really limitless resources at these elite universities would collapse if this was not common practice.)</p>
<p>I can see the subtleties you’re discussing. I think it’s ultimately OK to desire a great group of musicians as well as people from a certain ethnic group as much as it’s OK for a college to want a certain gender mix. That’s my opinion and I realize others may disagree.</p>
<p>"I can see a few reasons, however, why a college that identifies itself as need-blind wouldn’t do those things. "</p>
<p>It is a catch 22. I do suspect it is done though for the simple reason that it is a holistic process. How else are they going to determine someone overcame adversities if they can’t figure out that the kid is the daughter of an Asian Refugee as in the case of Priscilla Chan? They are admitting need blind but need to consider SES in relation to their achievements.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some schools may be indirectly “need aware” in this sense, but in the reverse direction from what is commonly assumed. I.e. they may end up favoring applicants from low income families, due to being impressed by “overcoming adverse conditions” type of situations.</p>
<p>@imnew69, “It prevents (by definition, otherwise you wouldn’t need to pay attention to URM status) more academically accomplished students from attending the school.” </p>
<p>What happens if schools decide to just shrink the incoming class size, offsetting the category admits? ie with quota - 100 total admit, w/out quota - 90 total admit. Those “more academically accomplished students” still wouldn’t be admitted. Unless you assume that class size is guaranteed.</p>
<p>Affirmative Action. It’s controversial, and continues to rise in popularity with the rapid decrease in college acceptance rates. According to Wikipedia, Affirmative Action is “the impetus is to redress the disadvantages associated with overt historical discrimination.” </p>
<p>“African-American applicants receive the equivalent of 230 extra SAT points (on a 1600-point scale), and being Hispanic is worth an additional 185 SAT points. Asian-American applicants face a loss equivalent to 50 SAT points.” (Chung & Espenshade, 2005)</p>
<p>The statistics above make one thing fairly obvious for sure, and that is Affirmative Action is blatantly racist. Affirmative Action assumes that all African American or Hispanic applicants are underprivileged and belong to families with incomes below the poverty line, and did not have the same opportunities as their peers. This does not take into account individual hardships that may not be restricted to a person’s race. Additionally, this undermines any hardships faced by an Asian or a White applicant. Affirmative Action implies that there are no Asian or White families that could possibly be under the poverty line. Of course, all White and Asian people are rich and live in good crime-free neighborhoods. And also, of course there are no well-off African Americans or Hispanics besides Oprah Winfrey and Jennifer Lopez, right? </p>
<p>It is not unheard of for an Asian student with excellent credentials to be rejected from the same university that would accept a non-Asian candidate with the same or similar credentials. Due to Affirmative Action policies, thousands of Asian and White applicants get turned away from schools which they are qualified or even over-qualified for, based on an unsaid quota. As a result, less qualified students are given admission determined by their race, and not their merit. Yes, competitive colleges are looking for students that have good credentials in extracurriculars as well, but this does not mean that Asian and White students lack these traits. This also does not mean that Hispanic and African American students are necessarily well-rounded.</p>
<p>Arguments that the Asian culture enforces an academic oriented focus on children does not invalidate the fact that these Asian students still had to devote hard work into preparing themselves for college. It is unfair that their credentials are often chalked up to simply “being Asian.” On the other hand, Affirmative Action is also offensive to African American or Hispanic students at competitive institutions. An unwanted bias is created that these students were admitted to the university based solely on Affirmative Action. There is a negative stigma that these students had lower SAT scores or qualifications than their peers, and this often is not the case, and is untrue for many African American or Hispanic students that have credentials on par of those of their Asian or White counterparts. Affirmative Action should be based on an individual’s personal experiences and family income level, not on their race, which beyond their control.</p>
<p>Affirmative Action has greater consequences than most people realize. Individuals that attend elite institutions are exposed to far more opportunities than students at other colleges. For example, students at Ivy League universities have more access to highly coveted positions due to connections and the name brand of the institution. This is not to say that students at other colleges do not have these opportunities, but the number of wealthy and successful alumni of each elite institution compared to that of other colleges speaks for itself. Society’s expectations of the graduates of elite colleges are much higher, and thus, are likely to be given more responsibility. Can you imagine if this responsibility were to fall into the hands of an under-qualified applicant, while someone who should have been in their place could be contributing more to society, but is unable to do so due to the “virtues” Affirmative Action?</p>
<p>A final word for the advocates of Affirmative Action. Should we allow some grace for Asians in the Olympics? After all, isn’t it popularly conceived that they are too busy studying Math to play sports, and maybe a 5 second head-start in the 400 meter wouldn’t be so bad. This is essentially the same effect that Affirmative Action is trying to achieve. Is Eminem’s fame and success due to an Affirmative Action policy in the rap music industry? Didn’t think so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha what Op-ed where is your cite? How does it relate to Harvard? Your whole viewpoint is archaic and does not represent the reality of modern times. C&E Study is based on outdated information 20-30 years old. Another poor Asian, woe is me post. To say Harvard is giving away 230 points is ludicrous. Post your cite or retract. Whine. Whine. Whine!</p>
<p>Frankly it reads like an op-ed in a HS newspaper</p>
<p>No matter what opinion you may hold, before the end of June, the Supreme Court will rule (again) on affirmative action and college admissions: [Supreme</a> Court Weighs In On Race With Affirmative Action, Voting Rights Cases](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost)</p>
<p>So . . . what’s the point of this thread?</p>
<p>As an Asian-American student admitted to (and who will addend) Harvard, I feel as if the Chung and Espenshade study is slightly misguided in that it neglects the idea of a holistic admissions process involving extracurriculars, as well as Legacy/Athlete/Race (what the study measured). From personal experience (which obviously is far from statistical relevance or validity), the reason that Asian Americans with a similar (or greater) statistical profile (GPA and SAT) ‘lose out’ in admissions to Harvard or other similar quality institutions is due to extracurricular activities.</p>
<p>I am not insinuating that most Asian-American applicants are the bookish types who devote nearly all their time to studying. The problem I see is standing out from the crowd. The vast majority of cases of Asian-Americans who do not get admitted to Ivy League (or similar caliber) institutions in my personal experience seem to have a similar extracurricular profile to one another. This typically includes any combination of the following:</p>
<ul>
<li> A strong record in classical music, especially instruments such as the violin, piano, or flute.</li>
<li> Accolades in speech and debate, perhaps reaching NFL national success.</li>
<li> Math team or science team, or perhaps knowledge bowl or quiz bowl.</li>
<li> Participation in AIME or producing a project for Intel.</li>
<li> Internships and research over the summer in a science field.</li>
<li> Cultural activities such as dance and learning/teaching language.</li>
</ul>
<p>Since these activities are very common amongst Asian-American applicants the bar is set higher for admittance to elite colleges. The premise of holistic admissions is that the college wants to create an ideal educational environment from their perspective. This means that there are only a certain number of spots for each individual niche, which may include race (only an admissions officer can be certain) or just be based on interests and activities. If there are 4000 Asian-American students who apply for admission for one niche which may have a target size of only 100, there are indubitably students who are strong enough to be a member of that 100 but who are victims of over-competition. </p>
<p>The attack on affirmative action really is a misguided attack on holistic admissions in general. I personally believe that there is not a bias against Asians, but a bias against the ‘stereotypical Asian’ applicant.</p>
<p>Again, please take my words with a grain of salt as I have been incredibly lucky in the college process and therefore will psychologically argue for its fairness to confirm my own beliefs that I deserved to get in.</p>
<p>It looks like a lot of readers here are eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court decision to see what influence it has on college admission practice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why is racial classification the critical factor that defines “holistic admissions” (i.e. without it, admissions is not holistic)?</p>
<p>It’ll be interesting to hear the Supreme Court decision. Public opinion is certainly slowly changing on this topic. </p>
<p>I have no qualms about college allocating slots for applicants with particular academic or extracurricular interests. Nothing wrong either with taking into account the circumstances of an applicant in judging his or her achievements. But, race is not always a good predictor of the true nature of obstacles one has to overcome. In fact, I would think it’s an insult to smart underrepresented kids who truly outperform their white peers but end up with the insinuation that they somehow got more than they deserve. </p>
<p>If colleges want true holistic admissions, they can take the time and resource to truly evaluate each applicant on an individual basis without using race as some automatic criterion that serves to better the diversity appeal of their student body on advertising brochures.</p>
<p>Und3rc0ver: Those are common activities for top applicants of any race. By saying that those are stereotypical Asian activities, you’re part of the problem. Stop socially categorizing people and focus on the individual and his or her merits/experiences.</p>
<p>Agreed with runnerxc. Und3rcover is a budding self-hating racist.</p>
<p>In order to ingratiate himself with mainstream white America he says “Hey guys! Look at me! I’m not a stereotypical Asian! I’m so cool! Those other Asians are weird and nerdy but not me!”</p>
<p>“Look at my self-deprecatory humor! It means I’m cool and mature! Ching chong! Hahahahaha!”</p>
<p>The extracurriculars you mention are not “stereotypically” Asian if such a thing even exists. They are stereotypically HIGH ACHIEVER (academically).</p>
<p>And I know a lot of Asian American athletes, student journalists, and essay contest winners. You left those out.</p>
<p>I guarantee (if this data could be quantized) that Asian American applicants on average participate, excel, and lead in more extracurricular activities than whites, blacks, and hispanics on average.</p>
<p>But maybe that’s what you’re saying. Fine. I guarantee (if this data could be quantized) that Asian American HUMANITIES-FOCUSED applicants on average participate, excel, and lead in more extracurricular activities than white, black, and hispanic HUMANITIES-FOCUSED applicants on average.</p>
<p>Now what I want to know is how pale-skinned you can be without not being allowed to be called Hispanic no matter how many connections I have to the culture or how Hispanic your name is, you sometimes get marked non-Hispanic. Let’s hope self-identification and what I have on paper prevails.</p>