<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, is that too much to ask for someone who’s trying to claim that mismatch has been debunked?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, what I did is point out that I brought up academic research consistent with mismatch or at least failing to rule out the possibility of mismatch, and you ignored this but not before arrogantly claiming that I have stayed silent on this issue.</p>
<p>Why are keeping making my points about not reading with attention? </p>
<p>Have you read the “articles” I quoted about Mismatch? How hard is it to read the articles that describe the previous arguments on the work of Sander. Again, do you think it is better to post a link to the original papers or opinions? In THIS forum? </p>
<p>What I wrote is that you have been unable to address the paper written by Sander of Uppala. And for very good reasons … it is unpublished, unvetted, and unavailable. You have addressed Sander’s work on his mismatch theory. Not the same difference. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So unlike you, I don’t waste time talking about something that is unavailable. That is why I linked to TWO published, vetted, and freely available open access papers in economics about mismatch. I’m happy to talk about the papers to the best of my ability, but for obvious reasons, you don’t want to do that. You’d rather keep rehashing this tired point over and over again and claim that I haven’t said anything about the topic.</p>
<p><a href=“Opinion | Is Harvard Unfair to Asian-Americans? - The New York Times”>Opinion | Is Harvard Unfair to Asian-Americans? - The New York Times;
<p>
</p>
<p>I am learning from the master! </p>
<p>xiggi, please, no need to be modest. You’ve been a master of that for a long, long time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps Howard, as an HBCU, is better at educating black people than Harvard.</p>
<p>Editing to add, in STEM subjects, since those are the PhDs you’re looking at.</p>
<p>Hey guys, I have a few questions regarding AA and ethnicity in general. I’m both Native American and Caucasian, although I am technically unenrolled in the three tribes (Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw) that make up my background. I didn’t realize how slow the processing of the paperwork was in tribe enrollment and I started it too late to be on any on my college apps. </p>
<p>Also, my dad is ethnically (not religiously) Jewish, but was born in Mexico and holds a dual citizenship. I assume that his birthplace doesn’t affect my ethnic status, correct? I also assumed that I should allow my Jewish heritage to fall under “White”. Is Jewish even an ethnicity since it’s technically a religion? </p>
<p>What I want to know is if I will count as a minority applicant. Does my white ancestry “cancel out” the Native American in me from an admissions standpoint? If not, does my unregistered status take away from my URM-ness? </p>
<p>(The school in question here is Princeton. I apologize if I’m in the wrong thread/forum/etc.). Thanks!</p>
<p>ScienceDaddy, if you’d like a considerably better chance to get into Princeton, check Native American and Hispanic on your application. Native american blood quantum laws vary dependent on tribe and you may not have to be a tribal member per se, you just need lineage (does any of your parents, grandparents, great grandparents, great great grandparents or great great great grandparents hold membership?) . If your dad was born in Mexico and holds Mexican citizenship, you are Hispanic when applying to college. Colleges using the Common App have agreed to use the Department of Education’s definitions pertaining to ethnicity. The definition they use is: "A Hispanic or Latino person is of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. "</p>
<p>@mavant really? Dang. I already applied early to Princeton as white/native. I assume that ethnic info cannot be changed, that would look pretty fishy. But, I will certainly keep that in mind on my regular decision apps.</p>
<p>Thanks so much!</p>
<p>thank you so much!</p>
I’ve been lurking on this forum quite a bit, and holy not-so-subtle anti-Asian racism Batman. Asians have been historically stereotyped as “boring,” “robotic,” and “all the same” and I’ve seen those exact terms used to describe various Asian applicants as well as the Asian population as a whole. The term “tiger parent” is ONLY used, and in a VERY derogatory fashion I might add, to describe Asian parents who work hard and sacrifice their lives to ensure that their kids have great resources, although parents of ALL races do this. Asians seem to have a lower propensity to do “interesting” activities - as defined by CC.
There was a NYT article a while back about how very low-income Asian immigrants manage to succeed in the SHSAT and specialized NY public schools through hard work and determination despite so many socioeconomic/language barriers. Their efforts are discounted because they’re Asian and Asians have some genetic ability to do well am I right?
geegee Asians are discriminated but many on CC choose to ignore the data. Here is a link that you should read through the 5 pages to get sense of the denial that takes place when confronted with the evidence.
Here’s the one-track agenda again. I saw the thread. It’s the same irrationality of mere results passing for the total data. The only way to sign on to your assumptions and your “conclusions” would be to also adopt blindly the following set of assumptions:
(1) every Asian applicant to every program and every college and every scholarship is always at least as qualified, as determined not by you but by that college, as is every different category of personal origin.
(2) results (offers, enrollments, awards) exactly replicate the applications received, in the same proportions.
(3) only Asians, among all varieties of applicants applying, produce perfectly every single element of the application to whatever program, college, or scholarship is in question: Their essays which you never see and which Miss Geegee never sees must always be flawless and convincing, their recommendations and presented experiences must be in 100% of cases equal to the packages of all competitors for the same goal.
That is hardly a voice of reason, and you are not omniscient, prescient, or clairvoyant. If you know (because it’s published) every single objective criterion for the goal sought you will never know what the competitors presented nor what the privately submitted elements were among any member of the application pool.
All of college admissions is comparative, not absolute.
Most other awards attached to college education are also comparative now.
To believe that Asians alone are always superior on every count is not only fantasy; it’s also raw racism.
Most of my students are Asian. They present a wide variety of abilities, accomplishments, interests, personalities, and character. In no way can they be classified as a group as being uniformly or even overall better than the Caucasian students I have. Some are hard-workers and bright, both; others work extra hard because their intellects are not up to achieving the same results more easily. Like many white students, most of them are not realistic enough about the level of national and international competition for elite U. S. schools and special prizes, and their college lists too often reflect that lack of understanding of how many capable, equally hard-working and as-or-more accomplished students there are outside of their known world.
I don’t think anyone here is such a simpleton to argue that applicants aren’t individuals. But when large numbers of applicants are examined, they form a cloud of data in regard to the quality of academic stats, ECs, recs, essay. The grievances stem from the fact that admitted students of different demographic backgrounds form clouds of data that don’t overlay very well.
epiphany You are in denial. Of course every applicant Asian, White, Black, Hispanic etc are individuals and from that point of view you are correct. But ethnic groups taken as a whole as GMT states " they form a cloud of data in regard to the quality of academic stats, ECs, recs, essay."
For instance, individually an Asian, a White, and an Hispanic student might have a SAT score that is lower than a Black student in your class, in fact the highest SAT scorer in your class could be Black, but as a collective group of each ethnicity, the breakdown of SAT scores very consistently does not breakdown like the individual case. When large groups are examined, you will find that Asians score the highest average SAT, then Whites, then Hispanics and Blacks the lowest.
This isn’t conjecture, but FACT. I think you need to read all of my postings in the above link to W&L to see how I arrived at the conclusions that I did because it is clear that you have not taken the time to review it. Only then should you post your opinions and give review. I am sure that is what you would tell your students who blindly give out sound bites without reading their assigned material in your class.
Upon reviewing the posts then you can point out the error of my analysis until then, your post is without any value.
epiphany, nice going, I’m not even a girl. Yes, not every Asian applicant is qualified, but when they’re admitted in statistically significantly lower numbers than other applicants, something fishy is going on. Assuming that each racial group is, on average, equally qualified, you’d expect, say, 20% of all Asian applicants, 20% of all Hispanic applicants, 20% of all White applicants, etc. to be admitted. Even accounting for affirmative action, Asians and whites should be admitted at similar rates, lower than those of URMs. This is NOT the case.
Folks may find this piece of research interesting:
Nothing beats personal self-interest. Nothing.
This gets so tiresome. Round and round and round…
“Assuming that each racial group is, on average, equally qualified, you’d expect, say, 20% of all Asian applicants, 20% of all Hispanic applicants, 20% of all White applicants, etc. to be admitted. Even accounting for affirmative action, Asians and whites should be admitted at similar rates, lower than those of URMs. This is NOT the case.”
So maybe they’re not equally qualified. So? Colleges prize diversity. This is not new news. And whether it’s geographic (Idaho) or race (URM), fewer of them apply so they may be more sought after. Is this also not news?