<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. I believe in a policy that is more inclusive of a wider range of objectively assessed factors that may impede individual achievement - rather than simple stereotype or unverified superficial labels.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since Asians are not helped by AA, then it could be asserted that 95% of that 24% got in soley based on merit.</p>
<p>In that light, no it would not seem unusual to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK so now Dartmouth is reserving its funds for students from poor families.
The truth still remains that some Asians and Caucasians come from families earning less than $75,000.</p>
<p>My own parents’ incomes combined can only hope to reach 50k, let alone 75k.</p>
<p>As far as demographics go, are you saying that a 22% is comfortably low so that we anti-AAers should stop complaining, or that its surprisingly low and should be higher?</p>
<p>I have no problem with a school with a 22% URM make-up but I do have a problem with one person that would’ve been rejected in the absence of AA getting admitted.</p>
<p>In my views, if AA were eliminated and Dartmouth still retained a 22%, then that number would be surprisingly high.</p>
<p>Given the number of applicants to Dartmouth–a well-known school with a very high standard of excellence–I can’t imagine Dartmouth as an institution that had to suddenly resort to applicants in group B because it had already admitted all the applicants in group A.</p>
<p>Jaddua’s only opposition to a socioeconomic AA was that it would place strain on schools’ financial aid budgets, but considering Dartmouth still had to curb its finaid policies as is, then it’d be fair to assume that we would not be placing further strain.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cosign.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In each of those other facets of society, help is not appropriated on an “African American/Hispanic only” basis; an Asian unemployed single mother would still be helped.</p>
<p>Such is not the case with affirmative action. I suppose the ideology follows some a mantra along the lines of “AA fixes problems before they start,” and yes, I know how hard it is to break out of cycles but AA is too tendentious in that it applied to URMs because they check off a box and not because they have suffered from the afflictions of poverty and discrimination.</p>
<p>To preempt any “but there is discrimination” apologists who may incorrectly cite Johnson v Transportation Agency of Santa Clara, I cannot call upon my limited knowledge to bring up one case post *Johnson v T.A.S.C<a href=“and%20some%20might%20argue,%20post-1964”>/I</a> in which a person was outright denied an opportunity just because he or she was African American. So what discrimination are we combating then?</p>
<p>In full circle, Asians and Caucasians also suffer from those very same afflictions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>EDIT: I didn’t forget to respond to that quote; I just included it because it sums up my points very well in a traditionally mifune fashion.</p>
<p>Thanks for the suggestions for updates to this thread upon next posting. Does anyone have any other suggestions of recurrent questions to cover in the next revision of the FAQ posts?</p>
<p>News commentary about the President filling out his Census form. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100503/harris-lacewell[/url]”>http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100503/harris-lacewell</a></p>
<p>Interesting op-ed from the New York Times: </p>
<p>[Op-Ed</a> Contributor - How to End the Slavery Blame-Game - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/opinion/23gates.html]Op-Ed”>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/opinion/23gates.html)</p>
<p>While much of the discussion here on CC revolves around how the college admissions process typically factors in race - it usually involves comparisons of URMs to White and Asian applicants. Usually, even in Tokenadult’s threat on “Race in College Admissions” , there was a tremendous amount of emphasis on the URM debate - while not discussing White/Asian applicants unless in context of URMs.</p>
<p>How do College Admissions officers and committees typically view Asian and White applicants? Interestingly enough, there seems to be a range of opinions. I was browsing through a Princeton Chances forum today and saw this quote:</p>
<p>"^
Being Asian is the equivalent of having 150 points subtracted from your SAT score, just for them to view your application the same as a white applicant.</p>
<p>2240 is somewhat low for an Asian applicant"</p>
<p>Does such a statement hold any degree of veracity? While the argument for URMs is easy to make and supported by a great deal of evidence - it seems harder to support the argument as to why Asians should be sidelined and marginalized to work for higher scores, just to be in the same running as a White applicant. While Asians are ORMs, White’s are simply the majority and making any distinction seems difficult to support purely on factuality. </p>
<p>Opinions? Thoughts? Comments? Insights? Linked threads because CC’s search function is severely lacking? I’d just like to see some discussion.</p>
<p>The general consensus is this:
As it is, Asians are disproportionately represented at top universities. Generally, these colleges are about 20% Asian while the general population is 4-5% Asian. Consider that whites at these same universities are close to the population proportion. Accordingly, Asians are likely at a disadvantage as there seems to be an Asian surplus.</p>
<p>White/Asian applicants are not discussed as URMs because they are technically considered ORMs (OVER represented minorities) for the reasons that christiansoldier explained. But don’t let that discourage you. Competition is tough no matter what your race, though it may be slightly easier for those who are minorities. Clearly, though, if Asians are so overrepresented at these top schools, then a lot of them must be getting accepted.</p>
<p>I know an Asian (family friend) who got accepted to Columbia and Penn and his SAT score was 2120. He had some interesting passions though and that’s what makes you stand out because 2400/4.0/36 don’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Tokenadult’s threats” is an apt spelling, because not only have his threads tended to focus aplenty on white vs Asian admission, but he has been an activist in directly and indirectly promoting that subject through postings on CC and elsewhere, going as far as to encourage admissions discrimination complaints to the Office Of Civil Rights (of the US Dept of Education), i.e., sequels to the Jian Li case. Such complaints, even when groundless, can be quite costly for the universities accused.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People quoting such SAT-equivalents as fact are usually repeating them as second-hand rumors of studies they have never seen. Such rumors are readily accepted and very rarely challenged in US (and some overseas!) Asian communities, insofar as they provide quantitative- and objective-sounding support (“Princeton studies have shown” ; “150 SAT points”) for pre-existing discrimination theories. </p>
<p>A far smaller number of the people propounding those SAT-equivalents have looked at the studies from which the numerical assertions originate, i.e., Thomas Espenshade’s work with Princeton sociology grad students, published in 2004 and in book form in 2009. Of this category, most have faith in the study and its methodology only to the extent that it provides easy and ostensibly “objective” rhetorical weapons in support of ideas that they believed, or considered likely, prior to reading the studies. When elements of Espenshades studies are pointed out that contradict the discrimination theories, one starts to see those aspects challenged, uncomfortably avoided, the ominous spectre of racism raised, and so on — the Anything But Data school of interpretation. We’ve seen this in CC when discussing the data on Asian underperformance (you read that correctly!) in “admissions” selections represented by elite math competitions and other high-level measures.</p>
<p>What none of these discrimination accusers will tell you, is that Espenshade also found the same type of statistical evidence, corroborating what was long noticed in upper levels of academia, of Asian over-preparation prior to admission, and academic under-performance by Asians once in college. The latter is usually a signature of affirmative action (in this case, seemingly in favor of Asians), but it is also consistent with universities discriminating to a lesser extent than a meritocracy would require, maybe because of legal constraints. For example, if Asians in fact face a disadvantage comparable to 150 SAT points, but a pure academic merit selection, based on predicted college performance given the high school credentials, would actually impose a 190 point deduction, that would be equivalent (in Espenshade’s SAT sense) to 40 SAT points of affirmative action for Asians, relative to a pure academic merit selection. This is, in fact, the only simple explanation consistent with all of Espenshade’s findings as well as external data from the math competitions and other analogous selection processes that are known or presumed to be race-neutral.</p>
<p>Having said that, “150 SAT points”, or 140 which I think was the figure from the book, is off by a substantial factor, such as 2-3 or even 10, even if you accept Espenshade’s findings as correct. In fact, he found 50 points in his earlier 2004 study. There are reasons why both figures are inflated, though it’s unclear whether they are so inflated as to nullify the negative Asian effect (my guess is that a smaller but still substantial effect would remain after correcting any methodological errors). The 140 points, however, is gigantically inflated because the 2009 publication used regressions with several different academic variables beyond SAT, and this weakened the effect of each unit of SAT on the predicted admission probabilities.</p>
<p>I’m an admissions officer and one of the things we absolutely hate to see are asians who try to hide their identity by changing legal last names to something like Johnson or Cunningham and then not check the race box in order to not get disadvantaged in admissions. It’s absolutely unethical to imply you are a different race and when we meet them face to face after admissions (we do for every applicant to confirm their race) we see that disparity we will often rescind their acceptance.</p>
<p>In other words - be proud of your race and BE HONEST</p>
<p>I call BS. Admissions committee members aren’t allowed to guess races if students have not indicated theirs.</p>
<p>So basically you rescind acceptances because you see that they have a white sounding last name, accept them and find out they aren’t white? What if they were adopted by two white parents? And honestly from what I have read, Asians are a bit devalued at the college level and trying to avoid this seems perfectly fine to me. </p>
<p>I think this is a ■■■■■ however.</p>
<p>■■■■■. 10 char.</p>
<p>I call ■■■■■, but affirmative action still kind of sucks. One of my good friends is Indian (well, half-Indian). He was born here in the U.S. His dad is from the Gujarat region of India, while his mom is from Arkansas. Because his dad lived for 3 years in Kenya, he’s intending to check the “African-American” box when he applies to college, which is obviously total BS. Is it bad that, if we end up applying to some of the same schools, I might consider e-mailing the admissions office to call him out on it?</p>
<p>KMG3448 snitches get stitches!! But really just try and dissuade him from doing it, but don’t be that guy that tells the colleges that your friend falsified his race, it makes you look desperate. Since you are applying there well, it makes you look like you are trying to weed out the competition and if he found out, well he might not be a “good friend” anymore. Also he could possibly pass as a lighter skinned African American(no offense)…</p>
<p>kmg3448 - It would be a mistake to ‘e-mail the admissions office to call him out on it’. You just end up looking bad. They may or may not pick up on it, that is their job. </p>
<p>There are many things in the admissions process you may not find ‘fair’. Focusing on these things will not change a thing. Focus on presenting yourself in the most positive light possible. Your GPA, test scores, class rank are only part of the picture. Your LOR are important. Have you made a good relationships with teachers who will write you recommendations showing you as candidate that would be an asset to their university? Your essay is important. Spend energy making sure this conveys who you are. They are reading thousands. You have to stand out.</p>
<p>In admissions, there are some things you can control and some you cannot. Focus on the ones you can control. It is far more productive in moving you towards the top of the list of candidates at any university.</p>
<p>Good luck!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Isn’t the 150 points thing from the Epenshade study? Sorry if I’m wrong; it’s been a while since I’ve read it, and I don’t really feel like scouring my computer files for it. But I’m sure, as you are, that most people saying it here have not read it.</p>
<p>Everybody knows the white male is at a disadvantage in college admissions. </p>
<p>Hey, I’m a ■■■■■ now.</p>
<p>In the first of two threads just merged into this FAQ and discussion thread, a participant quotes a statement from a college-specific forum and asks a follow-up question: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Another reply from before the thread merger has mentioned an underlying study from which this kind of statement is inferred. Leaving aside the methodological issues discussed in that reply, it’s not clear whether the phenomenon generalizes to other colleges, or even whether or not it is current for the college(s) studied previously. Most colleges must gather data from which it is possible to make inferences about the weight of different admission factors in the overall applicant pool, but those data are not usually made accessible to independent researchers, so much of what is discussed in public about such issues is based on guesswork or anecdotes. There have been [court</a> cases](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064033895-post9.html]court”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064033895-post9.html) in which the finding of fact was that illegal racial discrimination occurred, but sometimes colleges quietly adjust their practices to fit the results of the latest court case without those colleges’ particular practices ever being subjected to litigation. </p>
<p>My overall answer to a participant with a screen name “IndianOptimist”: keep right on being optimistic. It may be that you will not be admitted to one or more college that you desire to attend. At a college with “holistic” admission (which would be all of the colleges that use the Common Application, and more), that could be for any legal reason, or for no particular reason at all. The nature of being “highly selective” is that some colleges admit many fewer applicants than apply. If you prepare well for college, by getting good grades in thoughtfully chosen, challenging high school courses; gaining reasonably high scores on required standardized tests; pursuing deep involvement in extracurricular activities; and demonstrating “roommate qualities” in your outside-of-class personal life, you may or may not get into your first choice college. But if you do all that, you will be well prepared to thrive in whatever college(s) admit you, and you will definitely be admitted somewhere. The majority of colleges in the United States admit the majority of their applicants. Many offer good opportunities to students who have particular learning goals in mind. What I write in the thread-opening post in these recurring threads sums up my main advice for applicants. </p>
<p>
</p>