<p>I wrote “including from applicants who were not on the waitlist.” And yes, I know a student who was rejected from a UC campus, then called a coach and offered to play on his team, and was subsequently admitted after the regular notification date.</p>
<p>Also, btw, Jian Li was rejected from Harvard, and subsequently admitted.</p>
<p>hm..yeah, I guess the loopholes for athletes doesn’t surprise me. </p>
<p>What happened with Jian Li and Harvard? In the news, they reported that he was rejected there… I thought he was rejected from Harvard, Princeton, and MIT and admitted to Yale. I never heard anything about a reversal. Do you know anything more about why they changed their mind?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have no reliable information on this subject. I agree with the general proposition that people respond to incentives, and indeed I would like to see that all young people in the United States enjoy both incentives and resources to prepare themselves well for challenging college studies.</p>
<p>[Investigation</a> into alleged admissions bias expands - The Daily Princetonian](<a href=“http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/06/11/21269/]Investigation”>http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/06/11/21269/)</p>
<p>Post 181:
And also, for the record, he was not rejected from Princeton, but w/listed. (In case someone forgot to mention that recently.) Waitlisted means you are “qualified,” – not underqualified, not held to a higher standard – but that there is no compelling reason despite paper qualifications, to admit you. Happens to students from many races, ethnicities, nationalities. Very often (according to admissions officers, live & through their books they have written), waitlisting results from unconvincing application statements, and/or lack of differentiation from other students with more distinct or memorable applications.</p>
<p>I’m busy right now. I’ll try to address unanswered questions later.</p>
<p>I would think that an unconvincing application statement would result in rejection from an exclusive place like Harvard or Princeton, not the waitlist. I think you’re doing some reverse engineering here. Juan Li was waitlisted, you assume he only had “paper qualifications,” therefore waitlisting requires only paper qualifications.</p>
<p>collegealum, Again I’m referring to the common terminology from the college reps/officers themselves, not “reverse engineering.” This is their own explanation. It particularly tends to be operative when comparing side-by-side candidates from the same class, for example: Students who are practically indistinguishable (minor differences), applying from the same outstanding class at the same outstanding school: the decision will be to admit the most compelling of the (for example, 3) students, waitlist the 1 or 2 quite close to that student, reject any not near those ‘triplets.’</p>
<p>A similar dynamic is operative on the pre-college private school level. Didn’t make it up. It’s in the literature, & also in many other comments on cc. (In colleges which are not liberal with F.A., a w/l can also be a result there – a form of Enrollment Management. However, this would not be true in P’ton’s case, obviously.)</p>
<p>epiphany,</p>
<p>I’m still interested in knowing what you think of Kidder’s statement, “At some elite colleges and universities, Asian Pacific American (APA) applicants have a lesser chance of being admitted than equally qualified White applicants.”</p>
<p>Just to clarify, this is the same Kidder who “refuted” Espenshade and Chung’s research.</p>
<p>^That is an entirely different subject from affirmative action. </p>
<p>If a school pursues greater diversity outside of math/science students and that means asians get disproportionately overlooked, that’s perfectly honorable because race isn’t a detriment. But if a school doesn’t want asian math/science students but still wants “race-less” math/science students that is discrimination targeted against asian students and is not a form of affirmative action.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The title of this thread is ‘Race’ in College Applications FAQ & Discussion. Thus, your point is irrelevant since this thread is about more than just affirmative action.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Although this question was directed at epiphany, Fab I think you know that whether it is through diversity initiatives, enrollment management policies, or other forms of admission policies, the "Gatekeepers, will ensure that admissions will be titrated until the “desired effect” is acquired. That is to say that institutional goals which are kept ambiguous in some regards, will ensure that for most schools, the economic, racial, athletic, and academic factors will vary from time to time to meet those changing parameters. In doing so, Li and other Asians in prestigious schools, will be passed up. A real or perceived overrepresentation of any particular group of individuals has to be managed delicately. For the adcoms, so far so good.</p>
<p>madville,</p>
<p>I must request clarification regarding your post, especially your statement, “A real or perceived overrepresentation of any particular group of individuals has to be managed delicately.” Are you suggesting that treating Asian applicants worse than equally qualified white applicants can be justified? If so, I find that untenable, but I must make sure that I have understood you correctly.</p>
<p>I now agree with Tyler09 that “Asian Pacific American (APA) applicants hav[ing] a lesser chance of being admitted than equally qualified White applicants” is separate from affirmative action. Such a practice is negative action. There is nothing defensible about it.</p>
<p>Ending affirmative action also ends negative action. However, Kidder argues that you can end negative action, which would help Asians, but still keep affirmative action, which would help “underrepresented” minorities. In theory, he’s correct, but in practice, I’m not so sure. Given a fixed freshman class size, how can you increase Asian enrollment without decreasing non-Asian enrollment? You’d have to increase the size of the freshman class.</p>
<p>^By ending “negative action” a school doesn’t aim to increase asian enrollment, it just wouldn’t distinguish asian ethnicity unless it is somehow relevant for additional cultural diversity, for example if the applicant founded an asian culture club or is particularly articulate about asian discrimination.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Jusification, no, but a reality? You know it. The subjective components of admissions at schools that aren’t subject to the Prop 209 scenarios allow various forms of social engineering, if you will. I’m not saying that I’m well versed in the California public school situations, but are there not provisions that allow other subjective considerations other than race? If that is the case as I recall, adcoms keep ORM numbers lower than they probaby would be. In an article that I can’t specifically recall, one result is keeping alum and more specifically, those with deep pockets, from being “too upset” by "too many ORM’s taking up even more spots in the more prestigious public uni’s.</p>
<p>On the issue of accepting “rejected” applicants: I heard of a Presidential Scholar who had her rejection turned into an offer of admission for Yale.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It doesn’t have to “aim to increase asian enrollment.” The idea is that if negative action is outlawed, then Asian enrollment will automatically increase, whether you “aim” or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, you and I both know this is a reality. I originally directed the question to epiphany because she has consistently stated that there is no higher standard for Asians, that negative action doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>You are correct that there are “provisions that allow other subjective considerations other than race.” I’m fine with these provisions. They tend to focus on socioeconomics, which I totally support.</p>
<p>Absent segregation, I don’t think it’s ever possible to have “too many” of any group. I agree with Jon Reider that the question of whether you can have too many Asians is shameful, embarrassing, and truly a racist question ([Source]( <a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/10/asian]Source[/url]”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/10/asian)</a>).</p>
<p>Interesting New York Times article about ethnic trends in the United States: </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/washington/14census.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/washington/14census.html</a> </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I remember those days.</p>
<p>Another article on the same Census Bureau report: </p>
<p>[Census</a> data projects more diversity at work - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2008-08-13-censusinside_N.htm]Census”>http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2008-08-13-censusinside_N.htm)</p>
<p>"the question of whether you can have too many Asians is shameful, embarrassing, and truly a racist question "</p>
<p>Then you should have agreed that when the Ivies considered it shameful, embarrassing, & racist to have too many whites (and they did), that was also racist.</p>
<p>Because not only did the Elites once consider it to be, they continue to consider it shameful, embarrassing, & racist to have too many whites. Just another fact that you conveniently refuse to address.</p>
<p>…and they also consider it unacceptable to have too many Northeasterners, too many students of any particular major/concentration, too many rich students, etc. </p>
<p>You claim that it’s ‘only race’ (origins) which bothers you as a category to be ‘restricted’ (limited). Yet more than once race is highly qualified to enroll at these institutions. When the Elites mention that their freshman classes could be filled 2-3 times over with equally excellent students, they don’t mean that the overflow is only or even mainly Asian. They mean that the overflow is heavily Caucasian & Asian combined. </p>
<p>The only way to determine whether there is something maliciously conspiratorial here in terms of one group in particular, is to examine THREE factors of one group against the same three factors of a different group: numbers who have applied, PLUS numbers who have been accepted, PLUS numbers who have not been accepted. You don’t have the entire set of meaningful data, nor did E&C, btw, which is why there was no “conclusion” to be drawn except that Asians score well. (Duh) </p>
<p>Btw, the CDS also doesn’t provide the 3 essential pieces of data. It provides enrolled data, not accepted data. The offers of acceptance are far greater than the enrollments.</p>