<p>
</p>
<p>I think that is a topic we wear in spring, around here, starting around April Fools Day, no? :D</p>
<p>Hah. You made me laugh.</p>
<p>oh no… prof. I guess I summarized it totally off.
will I get D- or F?
now I will never get in HYSPM lol</p>
<p>We do discuss samething over and over again on CC, because we are about discussing life. Every year we have new class of students applying to schools. They ask the same questions about FA, common appl, LORs, will they be accepted. All of those questions maybe old to some of us, but they are new to those new comers. It is why some old timers move on once their kids are grown. I have one more kid to go. Once she is in college, maybe I will move on.</p>
<p>I think it is good that some people are raising awareness of difference in admission standard. Even if it’s not something one could change, it is better to go in with open eyes.</p>
<p>^You raise a good point too. I actually don’t mind repetitive advice, as there is a HUGE amount of thoughtful information on CC that is shared time and again. </p>
<p>I think when it comes to endless debates that aren’t resolvable, and the same arguments over and over (often between the same people even)…that wears very thin to me.</p>
<p>If this “Asians are discriminated against, not they aren’t!” argument could be morphed into practical advice in some way, I’d be all for it. Not much one can do otherwise just reading about two different belief systems with entirely different data to back up their claims. </p>
<p>And even more pointless when it emerges completely tangential to the main point of the thread (such as in this case) so people who need it aren’t even going to find it. At least start a new thread so people can find it rather than hijacking a different one. </p>
<p>I feel the same about any threads where the same old unresolvable political issues come up over and over and over again on threads started on entirely different topics. Sigh.</p>
<p>@tega, #74</p>
<p>You say:
<a href=“1”>quote</a>Their model has an R-squared of 0.187(model 7, which is the relevant one). This means that their model only explains about 19% of variation in the admission rates.
(2)In other words, 81% of why students are admitted cannot be explained by their model. Building a model you claim explains admissions rate should at least explain more than 50% of the variation in the data.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The Wikipedia’s definition of R-squared
Your interpretation of R-squared as the fraction of sample that the model explains seems not right. This definition “the square of the sample correlation coefficient between the outcomes and their predicted values” seems to say how good the model is in predicting the outcome. "The most general definition of the coefficient of determination is
R^2 = 1 - Serr/Stot where Serr=sum of (yi - fi)^2=total sum of squares where yi is data and fi is fit (predicted) value; and Stot=sum of (yi-ybar)=sum of squares of residuals, where ybar is the average. In short, I am not statistician, but it is an indicator how good the predicting power the model has.</p>
<p>Also, there are three models (model-1, 2, 3) for public, and three models (model-4, 5, and 6) for private colleges. There is no model-7 in the presentation. If there is issue with his methodology, maybe you should take it up with the princeton faculty member.</p>
<p>There are slides that includes the family income level and its effect on admission of various group.</p>
<p>The most relevant data for Asian applicants is this: the race-based admission (current practice by most private colleges) versus the race-neutral admission has an absolutely huge difference for asian applicants. See ** post #64**.</p>
<p>And I do not see the point of your post at all. The slides discuss various models used in their analysis, and I don’t have time to examnine their methods, and frankly I doubt if you can do it either — especially the data in post #64, which the slides do not specify which model the numbers are based upon.</p>
<p>
I am sorry, poetgirl, what exactly in this statement is offensive to you? Why is it offensive? So, you and the poster that you are talking about basically arguing for the Asian applicants being discriminated against in college admission is not offensive, but saying you are not asian is offensive? I don’t know where you are coming from, but you folks have been arguing that we should accept whatever the college current admission practice and shut up. So you are not offensive to asian parents, but saying the above is offensive? Get real.</p>
<p>
so, a mature adult poetgirl, your attitude is, because you are not an asian, and whatever the college admission practice currently is is somewhat beneficial to your kid’s admission chances, and the Asian american kids, and their parents, …</p>
<p>At least if you wish to debate this subject you could start your own thread and label it appropriately, Then, after hundreds of posts which grow increasingly nasty it could be closed down. Or you could just refer readers to most any post by fabrizio or indianparent and save time.</p>
<p>@toughyear–</p>
<p>I know you believe that the only thing that should matter is STATS in college admissions, but colleges don’t see it that way. They are after a lot of things all at once, and some of those things you may or may not agree with and some of those things I may or may not agree with. However, they have a mission, and it seems to work quite well for them.</p>
<p>I don’t think someone is “discriminating” against my daughter because she needs to have higher stats to be considered for Williams or Swat than a boy would have to have. I consider that the college is attempting to balance the genders. It’s a world view, but I also don’t believe there are only 10 colleges worth attending, either, and happen to have a strong affinity for the good old fashioned state flagship education for undergrad, myself, and only wish it was still as affordable as it was when I was putting myself through ours.</p>
<p>I’m sorry you feel put upon. I feel really, really badly for ORM asian young women above ALL. Tough spot to be in. </p>
<p>But, nothing is worse than the individual who grew up in true poverty trying to compete for these spots while having none of the advantages of some of the rest of us.</p>
<p>In other words, it’s tough all over.</p>
<p>Btw, I do see the value in posting factual information, such as “if you look at the data for college x you’ll see that the asians accepted had higher sat scores overall” or something like that. What I don’t like are the endless debates over the same data and studies. But its still a free world.</p>
<p>Toughyear - why are you so prejudiced against Asians?</p>
<p>(I am the proud dad of an “Asian” kid, with poor (by CC standards) SAT/ACT scores, indifferent GPA, who got into all but one of the schools to which she applied, attended one where her SATs would have been bottom 15% of the class, and finished magna cum laude in three years, and top student in her department); had even poorer GMAT scores, and got into the one graduate school to which she applied, with scholarship money. And is employed by the employer of her choice, with a high salary, where she got the job competing with 200 other candidates, many of whom came from Ivies, and virtually all of whom would have had higher SAT scores. To this parent of an “Asian” kid, your posts are offensive. And frankly, I wish you had even one tenth her intelligence. I know that if I were an admissions officer, I wouldn’t admit you, and I wouldn’t even look at your SAT scores or GPA.)</p>
<p>Toughyear, please just go away. Your emotional rants, personal insults, and ridiculous logic are not helping your cause here…unless you are just trolling for a reaction.</p>
<p>And more seriously, if your comments on this thread are any reflection of your abilities and character in real life, you have a lot more to worry about regarding college admissions than the ethnicity box you plan to check.</p>
<p>@toughyear</p>
<p>R-squared measures how you model fit the data. My definition is absolutely right; ask any economist who runs regressions. R-squared measures model fit, and according to their paper, their model does not explain anything about how students are admitted. </p>
<p>All the things you wrote down simply boils down to model fit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I was thinking the same thing. </p>
<p>Yikes!</p>
<p>@toughyear</p>
<p>
No model 7?, have you actually read the paper? Check page 1428, 1429 and page 1430. Tables 1 and 2. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/webAdmission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004.pdf[/url]”>http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/webAdmission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004.pdf</a></p>
<p>It seems you don’t understand the econometrics behind the paper. I am judging by the the wikepedia thing you posted. I don’t need to contact the “great” Princeton professor about econometric issues because he is not an econometrician. There is a reason why this paper was published in that journal.</p>
<p>I just noticed I posted about exactly the same things as starbright, so I guess I could also be labeled guilty of repetition. So I’ll bow out now. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is funny. People like you have this sense of superiority, this attitude of we are better because we have high stats, or whatever. </p>
<p>You don’t know me, you don’t know the degrees I have; how could you know that I don’t understand what they did?</p>
<p>I think it’s weird how parents of kids who didn’t go to Ivies try to dominate these threads.</p>
<p>OP, just give it your best shot. If you get into a tippy-top it will open a lot of doors. Yes, it’s worth it to go if you get the nod. That said, undergrad is just the beginning of the beginning of your adult life. Nothing is written. (Lawrence of Arabia was a fav movie of my kid when he was applying, actually.) Just decide before hand you won’t let these next few months define who you believe you are. </p>
<p>It is not shameful or lame to care deeply about this. It’s a good thing.</p>
<p>First of all, mini, cherry picking a fullbright stat to “prove” Smith is better than Harvard is really impressive analysis!!! Did you learn that stuff at Oxford?"</p>
<p>I am sorry that regardless of the data point I give you, whether it be graduate school admissions, Fulbright scholarships (relative to entering SAT scores), or actual classroom experiences, you will still dismiss it.</p>
<p>By the way, as I noted, it isn’t just Smith. Now I happen to believe that HYP provide excellent educations to their students. Just not in the top 20 in terms of education offered. Hey, take it as dissing my own kid. Anyone who is paying $50k a year at an Ivy to be taught by my 23-year-old d. - who is very smart and very well-versed in her subject - but still a 23-year-old kid, should hardly believe that is the BEST education available.</p>
<p>Meanwhile there are 87 Harvard Fulbright rejects, and 96 Yalies. I didn’t reject them. The Fulbright people did. And I bet they all had high SAT scores. Much higher than those at Smith and Pitzer. (I have no idea how many were “Asian”.)</p>
<p><a href=“Top Producers of U.S. Fulbright Students by Type of Institution, 2011-12”>http://chronicle.com/article/Top-Producers-of-US/129452/</a></p>
<p>
you just gave more reason to stick around, whatever you are starbright. Your rants are as emotional, if not more, and much less logical.</p>