VOR, if lower stats in themselves reduced the intellectual contribution of any particular student (regardless of origin), then any student (Asian or not) who scored high but was rejected would have an argument that personal origins were being preferred to objective qualifications. But the point is that the understanding of intellectual contribution is so much broader and deeper than a score on a test, or even scores and grades together. Academic awards, academic endeavors outside campus, demonstrated joy and excitement about learning as reported in teacher recommendations, joint facility with both STEM subjects and humanities subjects, and whatever maturity and independent academic motivation are discerned in an alumni interview – these contextualize those scores and grades.
I did a whole long Reply here (following that first paragraph ^), but I’m concerned that the details about the anonymous students I would be posting about might identify them. I do know that some of them read CC, so it’s a tad risky. Instead, I will PM you.
“epiphany So you are a conduit and voice for those people who want to limit Asian enrollment in our colleges without your own opinion on the matter. I believe that is the very definition of being a fool.”
I couldn’t possibly be such a “conduit and voice,” for two reasons:
(1) None of my posts substantiate such a claim.
(2) As I have said more than once, almost all of my clients are Asian. (Whoops!) I am personally invested in their success, on more than one measure of investment – mostly personal, but incidentally for the outcomes. It would obviously be detrimental to my reputation to sabotage or in any way undermine or compromise their application efforts for some odd personal agenda, if I did have one, which I do not. And as I have also said more than once, my students run the gamut of abilities, personalities, interests, and appeal – just like other students from the remaining variety of personal origins.
As to your insult about my being a “fool,” I’ve Reported it. I didn’t see it until after I submitted my post 1447, but in view of your apparent low opinion of me and your frequent ad hominem remarks to me and other CC’ers who do not share your preference for substituting your own measures of admission for those held by Elite U.S. colleges, I see no reason to PM you with information that I thought you would have found helpful to an understanding of U.S. college priorities, including which high-scoring Asians do get in and which high-scoring Asians do not, and why.
I know you despise the American college admissions process, but those who understand it and those who see it as mostly okay are not responsible for the process and the decisions made within it, so if you want to have serious conversations with others about the topic you are so singularly focused on, and which others might call “an obsession,” you’ll have to suspend your practice of insulting others. The fact that you transfer your contempt for the process to contempt for individuals who don’t share your point of view eliminates you from meaningful, respectful dialogue about it.
epiphany I did not call you a fool, I stated that being a voice for an opinion for which you claimed to GMT was not your own was foolish.
I do not despise the American college admission process, I just do not like the discriminatory behavior that some colleges exhibit in its admission process. As long as the process is fair, I have no problems with it. BTW I have never advocated a straight admission based solely upon GPA and SAT for holistic schools. I have only advocated that the process is applied fairly to ALL applicants and that these schools be more transparent and not opaque.
I do not have contempt with the process, but with some colleges that discriminate based upon race who use “holistic” to hide its discrimination. As Justice Roberts stated “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
VOR “Wouldn’t it make more sense to accept lower stat Asians who aren’t going to get accepted to their first choice elite schools if yield protection was really at work here? Or are you saying that W&L is a crappy school that no self-respecting Asian would attend without a huge scholarship?”
No. I believe the majority of Asians applying to W&L (a school that has an Asian student population around 4%) are seeking merit aid and/ or are looking for a safety school (with or without merit). The fact that the admitted Asian students are super high stats suggests that these students would be in the running for the full ride Johnson Scholarship offered there. With the chances of winning a full ride to school being about 1:10 for admitted students, I bet a fair amount of all the applicants (Asian, White, whatever) are using the school as a financial safety. The mid level stats kids (Asian, White, whatever) are probably not realistically in the running for that full ride. We even looked at W&L on paper because of the Johnson Scholarship before dismissing it for D’13.
Do you really think there are no schools between 1st choice elite school and safety school? Those mid level Asians likely have many admission choices before safety level.
"Doesn’t it bother you that you appear to be an apologist for W&L’s discriminatory admission policy? "
Not at all. I have simply offered a possible explanation but I see you don’t really want to know why you just want to complain. So do you even want to attend W&L or is it the only school you could find with data that “support” your arguments?
@voiceofreason66 I have a problem with people putting an asterisk on admissions as if acceptance is a guarantee for anyone. That bothers me. It’s very disrespectful.
Not that it matters, but TJ and Blair HSs have slightly more NM finalists and Intel winners respectively than Stuy. That data may be a few yrs old, though.
We are discussing AMERICANS, not people in Korea and China.
Do u expect hispanic americans to seek a job in venezuela or spain? African Americans to seek a job in Liberia? European americans to seek a job in england?
It’s sad. I bet almost all of the parents and students who say this so nonchalantly would instantly bristle with outrage at any person who said that he wishes to avoid a school or an area because it is “so heavily black” or “so heavily Latino.” But say this about Asians, and it’s all good.
Now, I’ve been discussing with people like epiphany long enough to know what the follow-up is to this: oh, I’m not interested in HBCUs, does that make me a racist? No, it doesn’t, but the UCs aren’t HACUs, so the comparison is inappropriate.
If anyone were to say that a non-HBCU were “too black” or “too Latino,” the same people who say it’s OK for people to not apply to the UCs because they are “so heavily Asian” would immediately bring out the pitchforks, cry racism, and say such an attitude is why we “still need” “affirmative action.” This is a double standard against Asians. If it is not OK for a person to say that a non-HBCU is “too black,” then it is not OK for a person to say that a school, in the United States of America, is “too Asian.”
I’d like to see an example of a student or parent saying that a non-HBCU will not be considered because it is “so heavily black” or “so heavily Latino,” and this comment will have no follow-up cries of racism.
As for the distinction, it’s not a surprise that many HBCUs continue to be majority or almost exclusively black. They were, after all, founded when discrimination against blacks was legal and commonplace. I don’t consider it racist that a male student says he is not interested in Morehouse because he is not black and Morehouse is 95% black.
But if someone were to say that he is not interested in Rutgers because he is not black and Rutgers is 17% black, I would consider that racist. What is wrong with a university being 17% black? Nothing.
Now, if you disagree, by all means, show me a comment from a student or parent which says that a non-HBCU will not be considered because it is “so heavily black” or “so heavily Latino.” (It should be obvious, but let us also exclude schools that are classified as “Hispanic serving institutions.”)
My point is simple: the excuse is bad. “I think HBCUs are ‘too black’; does that make me a racist?” is an inappropriate response because the UCs are not HACUs. So the right point of comparison is whether it’s OK for someone to say that a non-HBCU (e.g. Rutgers) is “too black.”
I think it’s not OK, and moreover, I think the same people who think it’s perfectly acceptable to say the UCs are “so heavily Asian” in a bad way would immediately savage anyone who said that Rutgers was “so heavily black” in a bad way. You disagree. Please give me an example of a student or parent who said that a non-HBCU was “too black,” and where this student or parent was not denounced as a racist.
What % are Asians at UCs? Assuming it’s more than 17% but less than 95%, it’s possible that people will fall somewhere in the middle of your two examples.
I tried searching to see if anyone complained about Georgia State being “too black.” [It turns out that yes, there are some complaints.](Is white student disengagement a problem at Georgia State University? | Creative Loafing) But whereas people like epiphany casually justify people saying that the UCs are “so heavily Asian” in a bad way, as if it is completely fine to say that, in the case of Georgia State, I did not see such an attitude. To the contrary, the attitude was criticized as being subtly racist:
What a surprise. Say that a university that’s 40% black is “too black,” and people rightly argue that such an attitude betrays racist thinking. Say that a university that’s 35% Asian is “too Asian,” and hey, no problem. Totally understandable. Not racist at all.
No, actually I agree that both positions are racist, or rather that they are the same position. Most white people are used to being in the majority and experience discomfort when they are not. Or perhaps when their majority feels too small.
What is perhaps interesting is when an Asian student believes a school to be “too Asian”. I think that may be more about the power structure/status of race groups in the US - most aspire to be where the money/power/prestige is and at this point in the US, that’s still largely white.