More spaces taken by legacies, development and athletes at elite colleges and universities…where’s the outrage about the admissions advantage given to those who need it least?
“I assume you are referring to some Asian American students in question here, please provide some evidence and data to support this instead of using racial profiling and stereotyping”
No I wasn’t, I was just showing that it is not in the best interest of elite universities to rely (100%) on a measurement that can be gamed. There are unpolished intellectual gems of EVERY race and the only way to try to find them is by looking beyond GPA and test scores.
@noplayallwork, You make some huge assumptions about me considering you don’t even know me. Really think you should stop drawing false conclusions.
We are arguing over semantics.
And yes the answer is BOTH except that I cheated reality (predicted future in my hypothetical example…) and said the second one rose to the intellectual stratosphere (afterwards). But IRL outcomes like that are typically the norm and not the exception.
@notigering If your idea is to pick “.unpolished intellectual gems of EVERY race” then administering a simple IQ test will do. I think most people would be shocked at such proposal. Colleges are on record saying they want to see the effort in a good student; nobody wants slackers even if they are naturally smart.
BTW, studies have shown that repeated testing and prolonged preparation have only marginal effect on standardized test scores.
" If your idea is to pick “.unpolished intellectual gems of EVERY race” then administering a simple IQ test will do…"
Wrong. IQ tests are just as limited, SAT was originally designed as a specialized IQ test. The A in SAT used to mean aptitude and was eliminated for good reason. And mind you, I don’t think standardized tests and GPA are worthless, just that they don’t tell the whole picture.
And no, I am not saying that schools should just admit hidden gems, that would be ridiculous. Just saying that looking at a broader view is a clearly superior method for an imperfect process.
^Nobody is saying it must be one dimensional, including only GPA and test scores. The schools can certainly use a multi-dimensional approach that includes essays, ECs and LORs as extra dimensions. People are simply saying that extra dimension cannot be race. Schools like UCB and UCLA, unlike what most people believe, use holistic approach (with those traditional dimensions) to evaluate candidates with racial information redacted in the process. I think anyone who is truly for a “broader view” should favor such approach.
@jzducol you might want to go back and re-read as that is precisely what @noplayallwork is arguing. I will provide you with a tldr version:
He first wrote that Asians have “superior performance” and more “merit” so I asked him for a definition. His answer was that I was possibly “deluded” and that “of Asians having a higher academic performance statistically, it’s common knowledge with the racial gap in academic performance” and then (as proof) added a link showing Asians having higher GPAs.
I responded to that by giving him reasons as to why using stats (I expanded from just GPA…) is not a good idea and posted a hypothetical example of a highly talented vs a hard working kid competing for admission. YOU jumped in saying I was stereotyping Asians (I wasn’t ) and then defending using stats. Then in another post (90) argued that I was wrong and that standardized tests can’t be gamed.
@notigering “… starts doing practice SATs at age 6 and goes nonstop until 17…ridiculous game of treating academics as if it was a rat race” I assume you are referring to some Asian American students in question here, please provide some evidence and data to support this instead of using racial profiling and stereotyping.
I actually thought notigering was talking about Asians for the second type of applicants. I know a few Asians who “strolled” into the SATs in 8th or 9th grade and got a 2250 (old scoring), without studying, which is what a 1510 in today’s scoring? They needed a standardized test for HS summer programs I think and hadn’t taken one yet. But these kids are not slackers by any stretch in their coursework, which was another characteristic of this intellectual yet lazy applicant.
The hypothetical example was just meant to illustrate two extreme cases. If I add those Asians you know to my hypothetical pool of two then everything changes.
Come on OHMomof2, you’ve been here long enough to know that complaining about legacies and dev admits is a favorite CC pastime.
“In order for an Asian to come to the United States, they typically have to have intellectual accomplishments. Essentially, they were at the tippity-top of their respective countries in terms of academic accomplishments.”
Wow! That makes a bold assumption on when these Asian Americans were first generation, how they got there, etc.
I guess we could make the same assumption about all immigrants, then.
Sources, please.
Nice screen name BTW. 
For what it’s worth, we live in Silicon Valley CA and my kids attend a large Catholic high school.
The honors and AP courses are overwhelmingly Asian and Indian.
There are plenty of Black and Hispanic students but very, very few in the AP sections-especially math and science.
Whites also are weakly represented-maybe 2 or 3 out of 25 in advanced science courses.
Are Asians smarter or do they merely try harder?
It is hard to compete with the most elite Asian kids because they do put in a lot of effort,and rarely focus on multiple sports or other non-academic pursuits.
Out of about 20 NMF each year nearly all are Asian/Indian.
I don’t know about other places.
"Myself…
I am not even close to the smartest Asian people, yetI was doing better in college than ALL international students from non-Asian countries who were supposed to be the best and brightest in their countries. I also didn’t put as much effort into my academics than the non-Asian international students.
You can not assume that one country’s smartest people are equal to another country’s smartest people. That is way too bold of a generalization."
Ohhhkayyyy. Well, that’s really credible! We can extrapolate from there to all asians, regardless of country of origin, SE group, year and even decade in which they first arrived on the shores of the USA…not too bold of a generalization.
But, since you are a prime specimen of the master race…
Why do so many white and asian guys complain about college preferences for URM’s, but never complain about all the schools who have to ease the admissions bar for men because they are only 43% of the incoming population, but the schools prefer a 50%/50% split?
Asian guys typically apply for STEM where they’re not given any admissions advantage, in fact, they’re at a disadvantage wrt women that apply.
I don’t understand the question, why would anyone complain about something that benefits them? If men are held to a lower standard in admissions why would men complain about that? It would be women that would complain about being held to a higher standard. And complaining sounds like it’s whining, posters in CC have brought up this point legitimately, without it being complaining.
If anyone should complain about the more general preference for men, it’s women - of all races. If anything those men should complain about the preference for women in the handful of STEM schools.
But I think both are convinced of the advantages of more even gender distribution, but not as much of a more even racial distribution.
The admissions advantage to men is not out of some sense of social justice, it’s because neither men nor women want to go to a school that has too many of either sex so the school loses applicants if the balance gets too out of whack.
@OHMomof2 "But I think both are convinced of the advantages of more even gender distribution, but not as much of a more even racial distribution.
The admissions advantage to men is not out of some sense of social justice, it’s because neither men nor women want to go to a school that has too many of either sex so the school loses applicants if the balance gets too out of whack."
I think you are probably right on both counts. However, it undermines their claim that the best candidate should always be selected and that the idea of class building is not relevant.