<p>Ok yah sure but I’m a URM?</p>
<p>the country’s Rwanda</p>
<p>I’d prefer the Asian style of admissions. While it has its flaws, it is much better than the “holistic/discriminatory/subjective” style advocated by American institutions. One test (with variations based on intended concentration), one or two chances, and student placement in universities and majors solely dependent on test scores.</p>
<p>This asian style you are talking about is basically the same as the UK university style.</p>
<p>In terms of name value and tradition, UK universities stand on par with American colleges. However, a lot of UK universities are starting adopt the American style. It’s obviously not because American colleges had more power or prestige, so it may because they thought the American way may be more effective</p>
<p>The problem with the Asian (or UK? but I don’t know anything about the UK version) is that it doesn’t distinguish people enough in the top layer. There are probably 10 times as many people with qualifying test scores as actually can fit in the college. There needs to be SOMETHING to pick out the best of the best, which is why bribery is so prevalent in the Asian system. (Also, China is starting to look at extra-curriculars in addition to the traditional test. I don’t know if “starting” is the right term, but uh, they currently do).</p>
<p>My main objection to the holistic approach is that it is so opaque. It’s like playing a game where you have vague guidelines about rules and no indication as to where any applicant stands. While not proposing a strictly-by-a-test Asian approach, I would like to see the aspects of an application that are not subjective to be transparent. Lay out the rules - x percent or points for SAT/ACT, y for GPA and what’s the formula for the difficulty of the curriculum, z% for EC, such-and-such for this hook or the other, etc. At least the student knows where they stand, and what specifically they need to do to improve.</p>
<p>Dad<em>of</em>3 , </p>
<p>I am also for a more objective approach. </p>
<p>I am interested in the university of California system, where race is not an issue in the applications process. Perhaps Tokenadult could explain its finer points. It seems to me that the hugely different asian percentage at Berkeley and UCLA ( 41%) vs 10-12 % at Ivies, HYPSS, would point to what happens to racial diversity when race is taken out of the equation, i.e., this is what would happen to the school’ student body if there were no affirmative action in the admissions process. However, these schools, with their academic contributions ( Nobel winners, national authors, largest # of accepted students into med schl, by and large a contented student body.) seem to be doing rather well,contributing to the academic development of this country,…so where is the apocalyptic event if AA were eliminated ? Where’s the beef?</p>
<p>To all posters who might be thinking this, or have already done so, please be careful when you use the word “racist” in a public forum. It could construed as be libelous, especially when incorrectly applied.</p>
<p>Here is a post rom the blog in the times re: quadruplets admitted to Yale, not written by myself, but I feel its points merit further consideration:</p>
<p>Dear Mr. Steinberg,
When I read your article concerning the unprecedented early admission acceptance of four siblings at Yale, I expected to read a litany of unusual accomplishment. Maybe three were tied for valedictorian, and the fourth a nationally ranked athelete or Olympian. Perhaps one was a Westinghouse (now Intel) Science Talent competition finalist and maybe two who were accepted to Juiliard or Curtis. In fact, there is no evidence in the article of any unusual accomplishment with the exception of a highly cultivated sense of what would tickle the fancy of personal essay readers. Nor, was there any indication of an immense struggle against adversity in their lives. These were not children who escaped from a North Korean prison camp or were late arrivals in America from Cambodia who did not speak English. Both parents are middle class and college educated. The probability of acceptance to Yale with GPAs that placed them at a class rank of 13th through 46th versus their peers would be minimal unless there was evidence of significant other accomplishment. Unless you are prepared to publish further details that would allow a reasonable reader to conclude that they each possessed a record of such accomplishment, one is forced to conclude that there was another factor(s) at play. One obvious candidate is race.</p>
<p>I had no intention of commenting on the original article since it was so obviously a case of special treatment. However, since you chose to diagnose some respondents as having a racially tinged meaness it can only mean that you believe that a merit-based admissions policy is not socially equitable. Many Americans would disagree with you and they are not racists.</p>
<p>UC schools don’t just have a higher % of Asians because they threw AA out the window. UC students are primarily Californian and California is 12.5% Asian. Compare that to an East Coast state like where there is an Ivy League school: Connecticut is under 4% Asian. Of course Ivies have a lower percentage of in-state students than UCs, but most Ivy students are from states that, like Connecticut, have low percentages of Asians.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone’s been talking about an apocalyptic event, though, admittedly, I haven’t been reading this thread very much. But in the UC system, just what people thought would happen when AA was eliminated happened; the percentage of URM students dropped dramatically. It’d be hyperbole to call that apocalyptic. People aren’t saying the quality of the schools would decrease dramatically or that the colleges would no longer produce successful students. It seems to me that people are simply interested in diversity for its own sake and the sake of all it brings.</p>
<p>Millancad, that’s exactly what I meant, there is no apocalyptic event. Berkeley and the UC schools have done great anyway without AA.</p>
<p>Not an “apocalyptic event”, and perhaps even a welcome one to some, but African American students in California with the wherewithal (money, scores, etc.), are taking it elsewhere. I’m guessing no skin off anyone’s teeth. I get that…Well maybe… we got lots of calls, emails from Cal about why D wasn’t coming. We get lots of requests for money from my and H’s alma maters; Howard University, Albert Einstein, Colombia, USC, Cal, and UCLA. Votes are votes, but I still like to vote with dollars.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess the reason why they’re doing it is to avoid people thinking that a specific number of ECs and the specific combination of hooks guarantee admission. It might be too hard for the admissions officers to quantify why a certain student was admitted over another one when they have the same grades and scores and similar but not identical ECs and they’re worried that if they get nailed down then they’ll get thousands of tennis-playing Model UN delegates who all work at the same homeless shelter in Detroit for precisely 11 hours a week Mondays, Tuesdays, and Fridays and play clarinet on weekends.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the UC system as a whole, the magnitude of “underrepresented” minority students actually increased. Some commentators (e.g. Thomas Sowell) have argued that blacks did not disappear from the UC system; they simply went to other campuses within the UC system.</p>
<p>Is this a “bad” thing? Depends on who you ask. Richard Sander, a law professor at UCLA, would say it’s a good thing as these students would be at schools that fit them better academically, where they would be more likely to graduate with honors. Tim Wise, an ardent advocate of Arthur Fletcher-style affirmative action, would say it’s a terrible thing, as it in effect creates tiers within the UC system.</p>
<p>Re 429</p>
<p>A search for past incarnations of this thread as well as related older threads reveals that it is common to encounter the scare tactic of, “If we abolished affirmative action, universities would be 90% Asian. Who wants that?” While that’s a possibility, it’s exceedingly improbable. No university in the California public system is remotely close to 90% Asian, and if theirs aren’t, then no other state’s will be.</p>
<p>Washington and Michigan are also forbidden from using racial classification as a factor in their public universities’ admissions policies. Recent freshman classes of the flagship universities of those states were 28% and 14% Asian, respectively. In 2005, Washington was about 8% Asian, whereas Michigan was about 2.5% Asian. Due to state executive order, Florida does not use racial classification in its public university admissions. A recent freshman class at the University of Florida was 10% Asian. In 2005, the state was also about 2.5% Asian. Neither The University of Georgia nor Georgia Tech claims to use racial classification according to their Common Data Sets. A recent freshman class at UGA was 8% Asian. In 2005, the state was around 3% Asian.</p>
<p>The point of those examples is to show that in states where Asians make up less than one-eighth of the state population, you probably aren’t going to see freshman classes that are 42% Asian, like at Berkeley. Asians will still be “overrepresented” relative to the state’s population, but they aren’t going to make up two out of every five freshmen.</p>
<p>What happens if you don’t use racial classification at an elite private university? I myself am unaware of any elite private university that does not employ racial classification as a factor in its admissions. So, I don’t know. Even Caltech claims on its CDS to “consider” racial/ethnic status. If you take a look at a Caltech recent freshman class, though, the percentages closely match what Espenshade predicts would happen if admissions were purely based on the SAT and did not consider racial classification. You get roughly equal percentages of whites and Asians and some “underrepresented” minorities, around six percent or so.</p>
<p>Going to repost this to see what people think.</p>
<p>-</p>
<p>Instead of looking at whether affirmative action is “justified” or not, let’s look at what affirmative action is supposed to do, or its goal.</p>
<p>The goal ought not to be to solely increase minority representation at top colleges; the goal SHOULD be to eventually have a significant minority representation at top colleges without the use of any discriminatory means. To put it in other words, the goal should be to eventually have it so that there is no rational desire for affirmative action. I think this gets lost in the heat of the debate but it is crucial that we acknowledge it; if you don’t accept this statement for whatever reason, do mention it.</p>
<p>Most likely this won’t just happen by itself. Heck, I don’t think anyone really knows what to do, other than a vague “education reform” and “encouraging minorities to pursue their intellectual curiosities.” If we put our collective mind into considering this, though, isn’t it conceivable that there is a viable solution? One that might be able to restore the racial disparity?</p>
<p>People say affirmative action is necessary for diversity. They also say that it’s necessary to attract top minority students because of the paucity of high-scoring minorities. Won’t both naturally be the result of an alternative solution geared towards improving education? It would be gradual and perhaps it would be a delayed reaction, but I’d estimate that a couple of years after minority “stats” increase, minority representation at top schools will greatly increase.</p>
<p>So why not affirmative action? For one, it’s morally objectionable; I hope everyone here can appreciate that. But there are other issues. Are we really naive enough to believe that there isn’t a sort of crutch effect created by affirmative action? And this is in no ways an attack on minorities; it is something that humans universally experience. But it seems like, if anything, the minority disparity has been increasing or, at best, stagnant. Isn’t the goal, as I stated above (which you are welcome to object to), to have it so that a significant percentage of minorities can get into top schools without racial prejudice? Obviously, there’s the irony of using discrimination to reach the goal of no discrimination, but perhaps more damning is the fact that minority test scores are falling further behind Caucasian test scores.</p>
<p>Look; affirmative action, I agree, works as a solution towards the former goal that I think everyone has misunderstood as the real goal. And I will concede, as much as I despise it and think it impedes our abilities to think rationally and intelligently, that there is the aspect of political correctness that makes affirmative action more attractive. But if we are genuinely concerned about the minority disparity (and I speak not of the representation at top colleges disparity but rather the academic qualifications disparity) then I cannot see how we can continue to use affirmative action. How long, I must ask? If we continue to treat the situation with affirmative action, when do we plan on getting rid of it? 50 years? 100 years? Is there any removal in sight? That nobody can logically provide an end to it is pretty scary, and that’s why we need to consider alternatives now. Racial affirmative action has no beneficial future.</p>
<p>“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” - Lao Tzu (not sure who you are, but I love this proverb!).</p>
<p>It’s plainly illegal under the fourteenth amendment for a state university to exclude students on the basis of race, which many once did under the overruled “separate but equal” doctrine. So every state university, at a minimum, will provide opportunity for students of all races to apply and to be admitted. Most state university systems (perhaps not the “flagship” university in the states that have flagship universities, but some state university) are usually happy to admit most students who apply. As a historical matter, quite a few of the Big Ten universities have NEVER, in any era, excluded students by race, and the earliest graduates from my alma mater who were part of what are now called “underrepresented” groups graduated before my late grandfather was born. </p>
<p>So what people are arguing about isn’t really access to higher education in general, but access to particular colleges. EVERYONE in the United States has some access to some colleges. The most desired colleges, of course, are most desired in part because they are selective, but they will be selective on some basis as long as they have more applicants than spaces in their entering classes (adjusting for “yield” of admitted students). No amount of changing admission policies will completely solve a problem of demand exceeding supply.</p>
<p>@monstor344: I’ve known that proverb for a long time. Completely agree with what you are saying and have thought the same thing for quite a while as well. I’m not as eloquent, but as a current senior trying to get into college, it is increasingly frustrating to see people of equal socioeconomic status but considerably lower stats and extracurriculars get in because they are of a certain ethnicity. I feel that AA is ironic because as monstor344 says, it is “using discrimination to reach the goal of no discrimination.” But more than that, no one really, especially not the minorities who worked so hard for equality before, complains because it’s politically correct.</p>
<p>“no one really, especially not the minorities who worked so hard for equality before, complains because it’s politically correct.”</p>
<p>I think it’s because “complaining” is of limited value, and because we see a lot of other things to put our efforts into. From where I sit, the percentage of minorities benefiting from any leway in elite admissions is just not worth thinking about. But that is from where I sit.</p>
<p>It’s probably true that the percentage of AA admits may not be ridiculously large, but all too often do I hear friends talking about their URM friends getting into elite schools with rather average stats. (Of course, I would assume that a majority of minority applicants who get in are just as good as any other applicant, but what I described tends to stand out.) The way I see it is, if it doesn’t really benefit minorities, and also encourages prejudicial thoughts, then might as well do away with it. Just my thoughts though… not like the admissions process will ever change.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is absolutely true. I don’t oppose racial preferences because I think it will result in Asians’ having zero percent rejection rates at elite universities. I oppose them because I oppose all forms of discrimination, be they positive or negative; and because I believe that “if race is the problem, then race is the answer” is a fundamentally flawed mindset. To me, the only way to solve the problem of racial discrimination is to de-emphasize racial classification as opposed to continuing to use it in the hopes that eventually, it won’t be needed anymore. Now, of course, I’m not saying that the change will happen immediately. It will take a lot of time. But logically, if you stop caring about it, it won’t be important.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But you are a beneficiary of the existing policy. Do you find it strange in any way that you consider it “not worth thinking about”?</p>
<p>Out of curiosity, do you think Jian Li was wrong to file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights?</p>