<p>My last name sounds as if it was a typical Hispanic last name, such as Alvarez or Fernandez. (Due to confidentiality, I won’t actually say it.) However, I am actually Asian American. I know that most colleges look for a diverse student body and that Hispanics/Latinos are a URM. Since I won’t actually lie on my application and say I was Hispanic, if I didn’t report my ethnicity, would the adcom assume that I would be Hispanic and be more likely to accept me? Or will they not care or will that action actually work against me in any way? Or should I just say that I’m Asian? (For now, I would just put Asian, I’m just interested in what you think.)</p>
<p>I’m actually in a similar predicament. >.></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. If one is trying to gauge, say, IQ or “intellectual ability” or “academic merit”, it makes sense to discount SAT scores where there are exogenous factors inflating the scores, such as retaking the exams many times, extensive test prep, attending afterschool academies, participation on the math team, more time spent studying, parents excusing student from summer or afterschool work obligations, etc. If Asians have more such factors operating and admissions can detect those effects and account for them, the statistical effect will be equivalent to an “Asian SAT penalty” when you perform the Espenshade & Chung logistic regressions.</p>
<p>The same is true, by the way, for white prep-school applicants, the rich, and other presumed advantaged populations. The difference is that for those categories, admissions officers have said clearly that the SAT discounting exists. The principle is exactly the same, and the intent is apparently to have an academically stronger class.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not knowing who “Abdul” is, I will say again that the responsibility for defining terms rests with those who invented the terms and who apply, implement the terms. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As to the other fictional character, that is just as irrelevant to this discussion, since again you misstate my position. I do not espouse AA “passionately,” but ambivalently. I wonder if that makes it maybe the 6th time I’ve stated this? There are, however, numerous other posters on CC, students and non-students, who have communicated passionate support. Perhaps you would like to challenge them on why they dare be so passionate, when their passion is in opposition to your own?</p>
<p>Is anyone else having a problem understanding that I do not represent a particular college admissions policy, or do I not make myself clear?</p>
<p>^ Perfectly clear. You do a great job of explaining the subject and how it works; some just don’t like it!</p>
<p>If you can avoid putting Asian, and your last name doesn’t give it away, DO NOT put Asian.</p>
<p>Edit: Obviously don’t put Hispanic either. Just don’t give your ethnicity.</p>
<p>Many filipino people seem to have spanish-sounding names…</p>
<p>Do not put your ethnicity, join Latino Club and other hispanic activities, and refuse all interviews. </p>
<p>Oh yeah, don’t send an additional photograph as well :]</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don Joe, a Florida lawyer and an activist for Asian Americans, started an [online</a> petition](<a href=“Petition Online - Petition Online has been retired”>Petition Online - Petition Online has been retired) calling on Princeton to release its admission statistics.</p>
<p>Part of Princetons response was that We dont release information on our ethnic groups because no one in the public has asked, Joe said. We decided to start this petition Jian Li and myself and some other people trying to put pressure on Princeton to release statistics. (links [here](<a href=“Private Site”>Private Site) and [here](<a href=“http://www.radiopinoyusa.com/immig_read.php?id=NEWS-00411]here[/url]”>http://www.radiopinoyusa.com/immig_read.php?id=NEWS-00411)</a>)</p>
<p>If my memory serves me correctly, one of the vice presidents or provosts of Princeton made such a statement at a press briefing right after Jian Li’s complaint.</p>
<p>Lol…that’s pretty lucky!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lol, I really like this idea.</p>
<p>Re #382</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter who Abdul and Stefan are; what matters is their behaviors, which fit at least one poster here.</p>
<p>“Underrepresented” and “overrepresented” are problematic terms as they are comparative terms. Consequently, by themselves, they are absolutely meaningless. They become meaningful only when the standard of comparison is defined.</p>
<p>I find it a massive cop out to repeatedly use these terms and yet adamantly refuse to define what the benchmark is. If one doens’t know what the benchmark is, why use the terms? My philosophy is to avoid using words whose definitions I do not know. Am I being unfair if I expect this of others?</p>
<p>Perhaps I have different criteria for distinguishing between “passionate” and “ambivalent.” To me, one who</p>
<ol>
<li>Frequently participates in affirmative action discussions</li>
<li>Has hundreds of posts related to affirmative action</li>
<li>Consistently points out certain arguments against affirmative action as wrong or misinformed</li>
<li>Has nothing but disdain for a young man who dared to challenge affirmative action</li>
</ol>
<p>CAN NOT be called ambivalent, lest the word be stripped of its proper meaning. Actions speak louder than words. A person can claim to be ambivalent all she wishes, but if those four criteria apply to her, I would take her claim with a huge grain of salt.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Red herring. One does not need to represent a particular college admissions policy for one to be expected to define what “underrepresented” and “overrepresented” mean. As long as one frequently uses the terms, it is fair to expect one to explain what the benchmark is.</p>
<p>I do not see any injustice whatsoever in expecting people who use jargon to define jargon.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>siserune, I’m curious. Do you agree with this practice? I don’t find it to be defensible on any level.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Private elite colleges do make available information on admission, student grades, financial aids, graduation etc. for selected studies and researchers, as in the case of National Study of College Experience (NSCE) done by Espenshade et al. If they can make these data more widely accessible to other researchers and journalists and in a more timely manner, it will go a long way towards making admission process more transparent. Rules and regulations for accessing private information are well established to protect confidentiality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If SATs are so unreliable in measuring anything (despite the fact there is a positive correlation between SAT score and freshman GPA), why not get rid of their necessity for all groups?</p>
<p>Even if Asians do the above activities more than any other racial group as a whole, why in the world should any individual who just happens to be Asian have their SAT score discriminated against?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correct. But partial information (if not the whole gamilla) is insufficient for comparing admissions **results<a href=“offers”>/b</a>. So all the data would need to be available: essays, recs (extremely private), e.c.'s and even interview content/critique. Much of that would end up being data that could identify the applicant, so waivers would need to be acquired for all of that. Without the full pool of decision elements – including info on those who were ultimately W/L’ed or rejected – a massive effort – conclusions are invalid.</p>
<p>Now, if one is going to compare strictly quantifiable data, that’s fine. Perhaps no waivers, etc. are needed. But that would an exercise with limited value, since many more admission elements are qualitative (and privacy-invasive) than quantitative.</p>
<p>The information is probably on your high school transcript.</p>
<p>Re post 385:</p>
<p>I can’t help you if you don’t understand me, and are now bringing in threads which are not being discussed here.</p>
<p>Apparently other people are not having great difficulty understanding me. </p>
<p>The effort to persecute or villainize other posters is against TOS, by the way. I think you need to calm down here and single out posters who really do wholeheartedly support AA in all its aspects. Or, as I have said in the near and distant past, take these matters up with the colleges themselves, who are the ones responsible for creating the jargon, explaining the jargon, defining the jargon, and implementing a long-standing policy prior to my coming of age. You did promise us all to do so before you matriculated to Georgia Tech, and I think it’s time to direct your anger to the proper sources.</p>
<p>Taking a look at what Harvard considers in making admissions decisions, according to Collegeboard.com:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, it would be impossible for colleges to divulge this type of information about each applicant without violating the applicants’ privacy.</p>
<p>With regard to SATs, it is my understanding that at most elite private colleges (like Harvard), they are but one element that is considered, and not necessarily a primary one. Thus, comparing only SAT scores gives an incomplete picture of the applicant pool and those admitted.</p>
<p>Again, I am in favor of eliminating SAT scores, or setting a threshold above which higher scores are irrelevant. I think elite colleges actually do this as an unwritten rule, and give extra weight to the high-scoring applicants by virtue of their high scores, thus offsetting a deficit in the other articulated areas, but that is just my hunch.</p>
<p>^ (And similar lists can be found on many of the CDS for the various Elites.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, that is what they do, according to what they themselves say they do.</p>