<p>
There’s nothing to be lost either. </p>
<p>If it’s only worth it because of the minimal chance that the applicant won’t receive the admissions disadvantage that officially-marked Asians face, then so be it. Even the slightest uncertainty is better than the certain pitfalls of marking oneself as Asian.</p>
<p>MODERATOR’S NOTE: </p>
<p>Just a general reminder here that especially when we discuss issues on which not all participants are likely to agree (and this must be one of those issues [sigh]), it is important to follow the part of the Terms of Service that says </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I may think that I have an absolutely reliable “theory of mind” about why someone else writes or thinks as the other person does, but I might still be incorrect in that theory of mind. The Terms of Service remind us all to be welcoming to one another, so I will say to all of you (this word “you” is plural and addressed to all participants in the thread) that you should be especially careful when you write sentences that include the word “you” (the singular word “you,” addressed to a specific participant) and should completely refrain from speculating about the motives or deeply held beliefs of someone whom you have never had the privilege of meeting in person. It is enough if the totality of persons participating here, who definitely do not see eye-to-eye on all issues discussed in this thread, practice civility to those who are posting, and practice clarity and thoughtfulness and caution of statement in the view of those who are lurking. Maybe you can win someone over to your surely correct opinion 
if you keep your posts factual and informative rather than personal and feisty. </p>
<p>Now let’s return to the previously scheduled discussion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As other participants kindly advised you before I just merged your question into the FAQ thread, read the FAQ thread. The question is ill posed, because there isn’t any college application form this year with a choice “I do not wish to answer.” There are simply questions that you can answer or decline to answer as you wish. A college has no idea whether intention or inadvertence is the reason why a particular applicant has not answered the federal ethnicity questionnaire questions, and [many</a> colleges admit many students whose ethnicity is unknown](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063172559-post8.html]many”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063172559-post8.html) because those students didn’t mark an answer for those questions (for whatever reason or for no reason at all).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks to the participant who above posted this quotation from the controlling opinion of Justice Powell in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). This is still the law of the land.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Golden’s book has no details whatsoever of structural discrimination against Asians compared to whites (quotas, a different application reading process, “comparing Asians against Asians”, or other manifest differences in the handling of white and Asian applications). He discusses disparate impact upon Asians of ostensibly race-neutral criteria such as athletic and legacy preferences and geographic distribution.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Golden’s information is 10 to 20 years out of date. His data, when he presents it, works against the idea of a white/Asian gap in admissions procedure, and supports only the idea of disparate impact (fewer Asians being in the non-racial preference categories). For example, he mentions that Harvard’s Asian enrollment had fluctuated between 14 and 20 percent for a decade, which doesn’t sound at all like your picture of fixed year-to-year quota numbers. That’s unlike the URM numbers, which are engineered to stay nearly the same or to go up each year.</p>
<p>As we know from multiple sources, some of them cited by Golden, the Asian share of high test scores is around 40 percent. This is entirely consistent with the Asian enrollment at Berkeley after Prop 209 (a bit over 40 percent), the proportion of Asians who pass the entrance exams for Hunter College High School (40 percent, according to Golden), and the Asian share of applicants with over-1400 SAT rejected by Berkeley (about 45 percent, says Golden).</p>
<p>Golden also leaps to conclusions at several points, such confusing cause and effect when claiming that because biology majors (pre-meds) and Californians have lower admissions rates at Harvard, this must be due to discrimination against Asians. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He quotes the infamous Marilee Jones making a series of almost clairvoyantly accurate evaluations that are borne out by Golden’s own reporting in his Wall St Journal article and his book. He also quotes a substantiation of Jones’ remarks by a guidance counselor at a public school (Hunter College High) explaining at some length why it is hard to tell apart the Korean applicants graduating from the school each year, and how this makes it hard to write recommendation letters. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Golden claims no such thing. His “50 points” is from the Espenshade & Chung study, which again may be an indicator of disparate impact, discrimination (stereotyping), or outright meritocracy (correctly weighing credentials relative to inferrable preparation).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>siserune, can you elaborate on the “…outright meritocracy” part? I don’t understand.</p>
<p>You could be correct. But what’s in his book, both things he presents as facts and quotes from high profile adcom, is damning.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, there are two different ways race is considered. One has nothing to do with overall class balance (which includes majorities & ORM’s): its impact (i.e., URM) is indeed tiny. The other way – very different – way that race is considered is after URM’s have already been determined as definitely or most likely admitted; the remaining gigantic pool of qualified applicants of many regions, races, nationalities, income levels, extracurricular interests, and academic interests, is further shaped to produce a class varied along all of those lines.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…proving that despite your acknowledgement that I don’t represent admissions committees or colleges, you in fact believe I do. I don’t have a dog in the fight, as I am not a minority race at all, nor am I promoting any particular student who is. These aren’t “my” arguments I’m relaying; they are the arguments or philosophies researchable to the general public, including to cc posters. I said at least 3 or 4 times on this thread alone, that AA is a mixed bag, with upsides and downsides and is by no means a perfect solution or a permanent solution or an ideal method for providing opportunity. I merely believe that so far I have not seen proposed (including on cc) credible, realistic alternatives in the short run. In the long run, naturally, a more satisfying effort would be the reduction of several-hundred-point differentials between some URM’s and most non-URM’s who apply to Ivies. Just note the following, though:</p>
<p>(1) that there are URM’s who are sons & daughters of CC parents who have been admitted to the Ivy League, and recently, whose scores significantly exceed various Asian and various white posters on CC, including some posting on this very thread and who complain so bitterly about the admission of URM’s “less qualified” than some, many, or even most Asians. </p>
<p>(2) Similarly, there are Asian URM’s admitted to the Ivy League whose scores are not competitive with the scores of the majority of Chinese, Korean, Japanese applicants to Ivies. Yet there is no outrage expressed here about these “preferred” Asians. (Just a refusal to acknowledge that it happens.)</p>
<p>(3) There are whites of various income levels who are accepted with scores not as competitive as those of other whites, as those of most Asians in the “ORM” category, and which are even in the range of many URM’s who are admitted. Yet there is no outrage expressed about that either. </p>
<p>I’ve been abundantly clear in one of my recent previous posts in stating the flaws in the lack of current, identifiable, quantifiable data points by which to measure the qualifiers “over” and “under.” I have gone through a rather extensive explication of the dangers of doing that. Yet still there is one poster here who insists on misrepresenting my statements, and in fact claiming that I state the opposite. I do not defend fuzzy terms. But I am insulted for being the messenger.</p>
<p>This will probably once again leave me open to attack, even though it is not my policy, but it does appear that the policy as to “over” and “under” – or their reference points – is a flexible one. </p>
<p>As to balance not applicable to URM representation per se – ie., the elements of balance among non-URM candidates, the reason those have to be fluid is because obviously there is a different pool every year. If one year there are several white harp players from Nebraska, all applying to the same program and none with any economic disadvantage, it is unlikely that all of them will be admitted, but if one of them takes a gap year, he or she may have a better opportunity the following year. There are no fixed quotas when it comes to non-URM balance, because the variables are constantly shifting.</p>
<p>The widely held suspicions that Asian American student enrollment are capped by de facto quotas at elite colleges are largely based on anecdotes and circumstantial evidences. The denials of the existence of such quota on CC, however, are solely based on faith. </p>
<p>Such suspicions can easily be dispelled; all these colleges have to do is simply make admission data open. After Jian Li’s discrimination complaint, Princeton pledged to release admission info upon request to prove the fairness of its admission process, the pledge was promptly reneged on when such requests were made.</p>
<p>Espenshade and Chung’s study (2004) examined the effects of ethnicity, legacy, being recruited athletes, and SAT scores on admission at 3 elite colleges (presumably HYP) using the admission data (1994 and 1997) of these schools. Espenshade and Chung concluded that when all these factors were taken into account, asian students had significantly lower chance (0.691) of admission than whites. The validity of Espenshade and Chung’s work is not disputed by any researcher.</p>
<p>I really appreciate siserune’s moderate post 365 and his superior understanding of research and “studies.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, “URM” admissions are determined before white and “ORM” admissions? They are not determined together? This sounds like a two-tiered admissions system based on racial classification, and I’m not sure if it’s allowed under Grutter.</p>
<p>Significant numbers of URM’s are selected in the first go-round of Colleges and U’s with Early Admission Rounds (ED or EA), as this is the stage for “hooked” applicants (URM’s, certain donors, celebs, athletes). That’s also the round in which the mega-qualified on other measures are likely to be admitted. In your worldview you could call them two “tiers.” Most people call them two phases, which is what they are. Not all URM’s who apply to a particular U will be accepted in an early round if they apply. Depends (just like the regular round, or ED 2 where that also exists) on who else is applying. College admissions is always comparative when not “rolling.” URM’s not as clearly qualified as some can be pushed (deferred) to the regular round for further evaluation against a larger pool of URM’s and non-URM’s altogether.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong. And my posts make that evident.</p>
<p>I do not have a strong opinion on URM policies per se – either for privates or for publics. I wonder how many times I have to repeat the obvious fact of my ambivalence.</p>
<p>Apart from the URM issue, I support an admissions policy which includes a long list of factors when balancing a class of highly qualified applicants – a list which exceeds by a factor of 4 or 5 for the Elites – those who can be contained within its walls. I certainly would never support a policy which balances – among that group – on a single factor of race or ethnicity alone, or heavily weighted toward race or ethnicity among a narrowly similar range of qualifications.</p>
<p>I have a very strong opinion about the attempt by anyone on any discussion board to create an argument over admissions procedures which do not occur based on suppositions which are not in fact in operation. Whether that person is from this country, whether that person is from a neighboring country, whether that person lives overseas. </p>
<p>I also have a strong opinion on people who misstate my position repeatedly, and then try to create arguments over a misstated position.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t recall such a pledge, which would have occurred a few years ago, and I don’t recall press reports of any response to such a pledge. Could anyone who has links to press reports on this issue kindly provide those as replies to this thread? The last news report I have seen on that story </p>
<p>[Department</a> of Education expands inquiry into Jian Li bias case - The Daily Princetonian](<a href=“http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/09/08/21307/]Department”>http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/09/08/21307/) </p>
<p>indicated that an expansion of the original inquiry has occurred, but to date I have not heard of any finding from the inquiry, and I have not heard of any announced schedule for concluding the inquiry.</p>
<p>Re #368</p>
<p>I present my argument once more in a hopefully less ascerbic tone.</p>
<p>As I understand it, outlawing the consideration of race as a factor will cause the “two different ways race is considered” to be rendered null. That the first way can no longer be used is not of much concern; it “ha[d] nothing to do with overall class balance [for] its impact is indeed tiny.”</p>
<p>Thus, “AA does not have a huge impact on student body composition at Elite U.S. colleges.”</p>
<p>However, that the second way can no longer be used is of great concern, for the second way affects the “remaining gigantic pool of qualified applicants…” What’s more, “…the numbers of ORM’s and majority applicants who are well-qualified to enter such universities hugely exceeds the numbers of URM’s who are both qualified and who apply.”</p>
<p>Thus, forbidding the consideration of race will result in “severe unbalance in racial/ethnic representation.”</p>
<p>But, wait! If forbidding the consideration of race results in “severe unbalance,” how can it not have “a huge impact on student body composition”?</p>
<p>As I understand it, epiphany has defined “AA” to only include the first way race is considered, which has “nothing to do with overall class balance.” However, while she omits the second way from the “AA” definition, she includes it when discussing the effect of abolishing “AA.”</p>
<p>Thus, keeping “AA” means only practicing the first way, but ending “AA” will terminate both the first and second way race is considered.</p>
<p>I view this as an unfair argument, as it is a two-headed coin with no tails.</p>
<p>Re #369</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see this as avoiding responsibility. If Abdul always refers to “overrepresentation” and “underrepresentation,” why shouldn’t he be expected to explain what those terms mean? It doesn’t matter if Abdul is merely an interested observer with no tie to any institution. If he frequently uses those terms, it is entirely fair to ask him to define them, is it not?</p>
<p>The three points mentioned in #369 are all straw men. They presume that the disgruntled whites and "ORM"s described believe that quantitative measures determine everything, when there is no evidence for such a bold (and incorrect) claim.</p>
<p>Re #374</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I remain unconvinced of this “ambivalence.” If Stefan actively espouses his viewpoint and passionately defends a policy, can he with any justice claim to not have strong opinions and to not have decisively cast his lot with one side of a controversial matter? I don’t think he can.</p>
<p>I make no bones about my position on the issue: I oppose racial preferences. I’ve discussed this issue for several years now, to the point where nothing in Neil Rudenstine’s supposedly “powerful” [url=<a href=“http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~sica/reading.htm]essay[/url”>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~sica/reading.htm]essay[/url</a>] on the merits of diversity was novel to me. I’d heard it all, multiple times, over the past three years here at CC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t imagine how this could be possible without invading the privacy of the applicants.</p>
<p>Examining just the SAT scores, or just the GPAs, would not give you the full picture of a particular applicant. The colleges would need to disclose details about ECs, awards, high school courses taken, essays, recommendations, income information, geographical, legacy, development information, alumni interview notes, etc for every single applicant (20,000+), because that is what they look at to make their decisions, in order to evaluate whether discrimination had occurred.</p>
<p>I don’t see how that would be possible without compromising the identities of many applicants. Redacting certain information to protect identities, like “Youth World Pole Vault Champion,” would not give the whole picture of the applicant, and would be untenably time-consuming. I think it would be impossible to do.</p>
<p>An earlier participant: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bay’s response: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know just how “open” the other participant proposes to make college admission data. And I agree with Bay that in the general case a student ought to be able to submit highly personal information to a college admission (for example, about stressful family circumstances that are legitimate adversity factors) without that information becoming generally available to the public. Many other examples could be mentioned. </p>
<p>But there may be, and I say this on the basis of actual publications, ways to do statistical studies </p>
<p>[Amazon.com:</a> The Early Admissions Game: Joining the Elite (9780674016200): Christopher Avery, Andrew Fairbanks, Richard Zeckhauser: Books](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Early-Admissions-Game-Joining-Elite/dp/0674016203/]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/Early-Admissions-Game-Joining-Elite/dp/0674016203/) </p>
<p>or observational studies </p>
<p>[Amazon.com:</a> The Gatekeepers: Inside the Admissions Process of a Premier College (9780142003084): Jacques Steinberg: Books](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Gatekeepers-Admissions-Process-Premier-College/dp/0142003085/]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/Gatekeepers-Admissions-Process-Premier-College/dp/0142003085/) </p>
<p>[Amazon.com:</a> Creating a Class: College Admissions and the Education of Elites (9780674034945): Mitchell L. Stevens: Books](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Creating-Class-College-Admissions-Education/dp/0674034945/]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/Creating-Class-College-Admissions-Education/dp/0674034945/) </p>
<p>or historical studies </p>
<p>[Amazon.com:</a> The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton: Jerome Karabel: Books](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Chosen-History-Admission-Exclusion-Princeton/dp/B0027VT0HE/]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/Chosen-History-Admission-Exclusion-Princeton/dp/B0027VT0HE/) </p>
<p>or other overviews of the admission process </p>
<p>[Amazon.com:</a> The Price of Admission: How America’s Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges–and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates (9781400097975): Daniel Golden: Books](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Price-Admission-Americas-Colleges-Outside/dp/1400097975/]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/Price-Admission-Americas-Colleges-Outside/dp/1400097975/) </p>
<p>that result from scholars or journalists having some access to college admission office files and procedures not usually granted to the general public while still maintaining the confidentiality of individual applicants. I think such views from the outside can be helpful for almost any profession–not just college admission, but law, medicine, quantitative finance, and so on–in providing perspective on hidden assumptions practitioners have that only become explicit when observed by an outsider. Previous studies of the college admission process have been helpful in improving the college admission process (and also helpful in dispelling misconceptions about the process) and as college admission procedures continue to evolve, it will be worthwhile to have independent researchers examine their evolution.</p>