<p>I heard that colleges would rather take a white guy than an Asian with the same stats. Do you know if this is true…? Sounds like bs lol</p>
<p>That would explain why there are so few Asians and Asian Americans in the country’s leading universities and colleges.</p>
<p>Oh, no, wait…</p>
<p>You’re right. It sounds like…well, I’d prefer to say nonsense.</p>
<p>This is a joke…right?</p>
<p>Ugh, giving asians a bad rep…</p>
<p>Pretty much, and they’re biased toward blacks and Hispanics. There are (unfortunately) many more qualified, high-scoring Asian students than there are black students, but colleges don’t want to admit every top Asian applicant, so the bar is more or less raised. Similarly, they want to admit more blacks and Hispanics, so the bar is lowered.</p>
<p>Harvard, a school that considers race, has 11% black and 20% Asian students in its class of 2017. UC-Berkely, a top school that does NOT consider race, has 4% black students and 43% Asian students. Sure, there are other factors to this (like the differing racial makeup of the applicant pool) but the effects are still obvious.</p>
<p>Also, in a study from 1997, when the maximum SAT score was 1600, a Princeton sociologist found that Asians needed a 1550 SAT to have an equal chance of getting into an elite college as white students with a 1410 or black students with an 1100. Study may be dated, but the bias still stands.</p>
<p>Here’s the thing. If top colleges were to take every qualified Asian, relative to his/her peers, there would be a great many MORE Asians at top colleges than there are even now. Nobody is going to come out and say this. However, then the college is gonna have 400 violinists and 70% STEM majors per class. This is highly undesirable. So, the college makes the admission process a whole lot more holistic. Whatever bias is perceived, it’s justified.</p>
<p>Truth be told, Asians are indeed at a disadvantage if you only consider numbers. That is factual.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Funny, but true. Who would want to go to such a college? Diversity is a good thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who said anything about taking every qualified Asian applicant? For a given elite, there are more qualified applicants, of all racial classifications, than available slots. The issue was never about taking every qualified Asian applicant, just that if racial classification were not considered, you would see more Asians.</p>
<p>Let me ask you a question. Suppose instead you had written the following:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Would you have posted that comment?</p>
<p>Re: #7 and #9</p>
<p>Believe it or not, most Asian students in colleges are not violinists. Nor are you going to find 70% STEM majors except at STEM focused schools.</p>
<p>For example, UC Irvine is 47% Asian but only 30% STEM majors. University of Hawaii is 40% Asian but only 13.5% STEM majors.</p>
<p>However, the fact that supposedly well informed people on this forum believe that the “tiger kid” stereotype is the norm among Asian students means that there if the stereotype is widely held, it may prejudice admissions readers against Asian applicants as being “cookie cutter” “tiger kids” even if they may not be.</p>
<p>How can such a small percentage of the population think that it’s smarter than everyone else combined? Is it conceit or just ignorance, or maybe just the squeaky wheel making too much noise? Such small minds invariable place too much reliance on outdated studies and overestimate the importance of the SAT. The great failing, however, is the inability to understand the large numbers involved. Good grief-give it a rest!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Quote where such a comment was made in this thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, yes, sosomenza, of course; the Princeton Review has said the SAT is worthless. That’s why they said [“admissions</a> officers continue to place great weight on this test. So it’s important to do well”](<a href=“http://www.princetonreview.com/college/4-sat-myths.aspx]"admissions”>The New SAT. We're ON IT. | The Princeton Review) and why their entire business revolves around selling prep courses and prep books to high schoolers.</p>
<p>In case anyone here doesn’t know, nothing sosomenza says is to be trusted. You can find more than ten pages of his posts in the old Race & College Admissions (#10) thread and judge for yourself the quality of his “logical” reasoning “abilities.”</p>
<p>
Would you agree that there are more qualified Asian applicants, proportionally? If you accept qualified Asian applicants by proportion, you would still have a very high concentration of Asians. </p>
<p>
Yep. Racial diversity is something that should be valued. An over-representation of any race should be avoided. Think about it. Use your “logical reasoning skills”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Suppose this is true. What is the problem? I don’t see one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you’re not afraid to say that “if elites are are 70% black, it would be highly undesirable.” I am impressed. I commend you for choosing consistency over inconsistency. For the record, if through race-blind admissions the elites were to be 70% black, I would see no problem with it.</p>
<p>Now then, what is “overrepresentation”? How do you define it? Relative to what? U.S. Census statistics?</p>
<p>And how does “avoiding” this “overrepresentation” not amount to a quota?</p>
<p>^I subscribe to the belief that the demographics of elite colleges should be representative of the general population. This is to create an environment that is a microcosm of the real world, which fosters interactions between races that is the essence of a liberal arts education - to learn how to live together. </p>
<p>I’m not targeting any specific race. You apparently think that a college with 70% blacks would be okay. I’m saying that such a gross over-representation of ANY race is not conducive to learning how to interact in a way that can be applied to the real world. Because, inherently, such an over-representation of one race would lead to an under-representation of one or more other races. This is unjust, even if it would lead to a complete meritocracy in college admissions. </p>
<p>Additionally, racial diversity - the kind that is representative of how race is distributed among the general population as a whole - is good because it enriches the student life of the college. Students bring their own racial cultures to the college and the more you have, the merrier! </p>
<p>Over-representation is any significant (statistically) deviation from the general racial distribution among the general population. Where you draw that distribution from is up to you to decide, as long as it is just and fair. U.S. Census is a good starting point. </p>
<p>
It is a quota. Essentially. It is justified by encouraging racial diversity. The Supreme Court upheld the use of race in college admissions for the purpose of achieving educational diversity. I’m saying that a 70% representation of ANY race would take away from educational diversity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK, to start with, let’s take your belief for granted. Forget 70% Asian. Are you saying that elites should be <6% Asian? Because that’s roughly the percentage of Americans that are Asian. In addition, are you saying that whites are “underrepresented”? Harvard, for example, was [44.55%</a> white in 2011-2012](<a href=“http://www.provost.harvard.edu/institutional_research/CDS_2011-2012_Final.pdf]44.55%”>http://www.provost.harvard.edu/institutional_research/CDS_2011-2012_Final.pdf), but whites make up anywhere from ~60-~70% of the United States, depending on whether you include Hispanics.</p>
<p>If your answer to my questions (or to at least one of them) is “yes,” then</p>
<p>1a. another one of your beliefs is that “there are more qualified Asian applicants, proportionally.” Supposing this is true, why should their enrollment not reflect this?</p>
<p>1b. If you are willing to let Asian enrollment at least partially reflect that there are proportionally more qualified Asian applicants, then at what point do you say “no more,” and why that point?</p>
<ol>
<li>Unless you’re willing to argue that Asians are actually receiving racial preferences at elites, won’t you have to admit weaker white applicants to get them from ~40% to ~60-~70% who also are not guaranteed to be any better leaders / visionaries / whatever than the Asians you’re excluding?</li>
</ol>
<p>I’ve already asked too much for that paragraph, so I will comment later on the “microcosm” part of your belief.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whoa, whoa, whoa. How does my attending an elite that is 70% black, for example, impede my “learning how to interact in a way that can be applied to the real world”? And why are deviations from U.S. Census statistics “unjust”? Do you think that everybody who competes in the Olympics should receive a gold medal?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your paragraph seems to imply that individuals are representatives of their racial classification. Moreover, your statement - “the more you have, the merrier!” - does not justify proportional representation. To the contrary, it allows for extremely imbalanced demographics so long as there is at least one “representative” per racial classification.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you think everyone has the same notions of justice and fairness? We’ve already established that I have no problem with an elite being 70% black whereas you find that to be a problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you know of Grutter, then you should also know that Grutter upheld Bakke in two senses: (1) racial preferences are Constitutionally permissible, and (2) quotas are un-Constitutional. You’ve referred to “racial diversity” and “educational diversity.” How does an elite being 70% black, for example, take away from “educational diversity”?</p>
<p>@93tiger16: What you are saying is definitely true when you say “I’m saying that a 70% representation of ANY race would take away from educational diversity,” but only in one sense. I think that America fails to see that being the same race as someone does not necessarily mean you are the same. For example, all Europeans are classified as “white,” but Europe is an incredibly diverse continent in the world when it comes to religion, culture, currency, food, politics and traditions. People from different countries in Africa are undeniably different (take South Africa vs. Libya, for example). The countries within Asia certainly have many distinct differences. I mean in China alone, there are many versions of Chinese! And Venezuela has very different customs than say, Brazil.</p>
<p>Anyway my point is, a school with 70% white, black, hispanic or Asian people could actually be a very diverse place if people’s backgrounds were looked into. You could have 70% of the people be white and can still have Swedish, French, Italian, Swiss, Norwegian, Icelandic, etc. etc. etc. people who all bring something different.</p>
<p>Asia is also a very diverse place. Singapore, Myanmar, India, China, Japan, Nepal Mongolia, Russia, Bhutan, Bangladesh, etc. etc. etc. certainly do not operate their countries the same way, practice the same religions, have the same currency etc. etc. etc.</p>
<p>All the other continents are the same way…</p>
<p>I guess what I am trying to say, is that colleges fail to see that there can be so much diversity within one race. So I guess that leads me to the same question as fabrizio’s: How does an institution being 70% of any race make it not diverse?</p>
<p>If they are, I don’t think it’s to the extent that the average overachieving kid at my school seems to believe >_></p>
<p>
Whites are underrepresented at top schools. And that’s just speaking from experience. Do I think that the number of non-hispanic whites should be representative of their overall proportion in the general population? Yes. Do I think that Asians are over-represented at elite colleges? Yes. Asians make up a small proportion of the population, but I suspect that the proportion of Asians at college age, is higher, due to the recent tide of immigration from China and India. </p>
<p>1a) College admissions should not be, in my opinion, a complete meritocracy. Racial diversity is good. To the point that over-representation of any one race is bad. So I just say colleges should reflect the demographics of the general population. While there are more qualified Asians, I also say that admitting fewer of them is justified for the purpose of racial diversity.
1b) Irrelevant if I do not let Asian enrollment reflect the higher numbers of qualified applicants, which I do not. </p>
<p>2) They may not be leaders, etc., but they bring racial and thus cultural diversity to the table. An Asian child who was raised by Asian parents in American society will still retain elements of an Asian culture. </p>
<p>
I don’t use that to justify proportional representation. I already do that with racial diversity, which the Court has already held to be beneficial. </p>
<p>
Educational diversity is distinct from racial diversity but connected, as I see it. Educational diversity, to me, means learning from one’s peers as well as via formal instruction. I have personally found that I learn just as much from my classmates as I do from my teachers - albeit different topics. Educational diversity means learning about different traditions, different cultures, from people from cultural backgrounds different from your own. My university has hundreds of organizations, many of them cultural. For instance, you can’t have a Georgian choir if you admit so few students from Russian/Eurasian backgrounds because you overwhelmingly have a 70% Asian student body (I’m classifying Russians/Eurasians as not Asians, but rather whites).</p>