<p>In 30 years, it won't matter whether you went to Harvard or the community college "down the street"....Let's all remember that....</p>
<p>I agree with your post #240, wmalum. And that's part of the problem. It actually is quite detrimental to Asians that they do this. What it does is overload their applications within a narrow range of colleges, relative to what others groups are willing to do, overall. Thus it ramps up the <em>intra</em>-Asian competition at these very schools, making results more reachy relative to applicant numbers.</p>
<p>You pretty much summed it right there epiphany. In addition, Some states' flagship public universities have a high percentage of Asian students, and if there is a comparable private university (similar student body in terms of SAT scores and the like) in that same state, in many circumstances, there is a lower percentage of Asian students. Many Asian people tend to believe that they would be wasting money by spending a lot more money on that private university because its students have similar academic records to the public university, so their son or daughter applies only to the public one. </p>
<p>Examples:</p>
<p>In Virginia:
UVA (11% Asian) - Flagship public school
William and Mary (7% Asian) - comparable public university, but not hard science heavy
Washington and Lee (3% Asian) - comparable liberal arts college
Richmond (3% Asian) - comparable liberal arts university</p>
<p>In North Carolina:
UNC (6% Asian) - Flagship public school
Wake Forest (4% Asian) - comparable private university
Davidson (2% Asian) - top 10 liberal arts college</p>
<p>In California:
Berkeley (41% Asian) - Flagship public school (all the UC's except UCSB are at least 35% Asian)
USC (21% Asian) - comparable private university
Claremont McKenna (15% Asian) - very reputable liberal arts college
Harvey Mudd (17% Asian) - very reputable liberal arts college</p>
<p>NOTE: I didn't include Duke in North Carolina's comparisons because it is clearly better than UNC. Same in California with Stanford and Cal Tech vs. Berkeley. I hope you're seeing my trend. Of course there are a plethora of Asians in California, but 21% Asian at USC is a lot less than the 41% at Cal. Also, with North Carolina, there aren't many Asians.</p>
<p>I'm making a database of the top 50 doctoral universities, the top 50 liberal arts colleges, and the top 5 masters' universities in each region to see if my very rough hypothesis is supported (I don't plan on making a paper, but I want to see how far the trend goes).</p>
<p>Very interesting, wmalum. I'd like to see your results when you're done.:)</p>
<p>However, in my own thinking I was merely limiting it to privates. It's logical to me why anyone would choose a respectable public, let alone a really great public like UVA or UC or UMich, over a private, because of value. What I understand less is the concentration on pure reaches (HYPSM + Berkeley). The ramifications of such concentrations backfire on any group that will be over-represented in the applicant pool of that institution. It will be tougher to be admitted, actually, 'against' one's own group, and one is always competing even more within one's similar group than the larger pool.</p>
<p>I also completely understand anyone's interest in focusing on schools with particular strengths (such as engineering, or biotechnology, or finance, or poli sci). But as you say, look at Harvey Mudd for engineering. (Or Case Western Reserve) It's a lot easier for an Asian male to get accepted to one of the Claremont Colleges (esp. from a NE address) than for the same student to get accepted to Princeton's engineering program. U of Rochester has a great poli sci program. Middlebury has a great language program. Why does everything <em>have</em> to be HYPSM?</p>
<p>My guess why they want to go to HYPSM is because of their super rep. Also given that Asians' avg. SAT scores are higher than Whites I believe, it can be safely assumed that they will go for better schools. HYPSM aren't just good colleges, but have excellent grad programs too, and that's what gives HYPSM their name. Sure, Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore are great colleges, but that's all they have...college degrees, and that limits what they can do to make their names big, though they are just as good as the Ivies. Korean and Chinese immigrants who move here to America in the hopes that their kids have a better education will not have heard much of small liberal arts colleges, because of their limitations. The fact that private Southern schools, except Duke, Emory, and Rice can't attract many Asians is still baffling even a good generation or two after Asians were called the "model minority." </p>
<p>Ironically, I am Asian too, but I never really had the desire for HYPSM because of my parents' educational background at Duke (dad) and Wake (mom). So I preferred the smaller college environment.</p>
<p>Harvard Yale Princeton Stanford MIT</p>
<p>correction to my 244.</p>
<p>....harder to be accepted if a large applicant pool of an over-represented ethnicity than if less represented... IF it's a private, or if it's a public with no AA.</p>
<p>Re your post 245:</p>
<p>Again, there's nothing surprising about wanting a school with a "better" reputation. There's something ill-advised about insisting only on such schools, and more importantly, if affects one's chance of admission. Do you think if every single Vietnamese student (still a URM category) applied to Harvard, they would all get in? Of course not. The odds of admission would decrease as their applicant numbers increased.</p>
<p>Also, remember that reputation does not equal quality of program or content of education & range of opportunity. Lots of previous discussions of this on PF.</p>
<p>Affirmative action is just unfair. People just try to mask it by saying that race is only considered when two applicants have comparable stats and achievements, but that is just a blatant fallacy. This is especially apparent for medical school admissions. Just go to the career services center at most universities and you’ll probably be able to find a database regarding where med school applicants applied to, where they got accepted, what grades they had, how they scored on the MCATs, and what activities they did in school. Actually, I have never heard of a cogent argument for affirmative action.</p>
<p>these are good questions to consider why Asians, the ORM's are focusing a bit narrowly...a lot of them can't be explained through numbers alone, but I don't think the reasons will be surprising as to why they apply to the big name schools with HYPSM quality. As you implied before, it's also the many other great schools out there with low Asian enrollments (and continue to have low enrollments) that are also the issue.</p>
<p>I guess you noticed that I edited post 245 because I realized what HYPSM was. :)</p>
<p>"Sure, Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore are great colleges, but that's all they have...college degrees, and that limits what they can do to make their names big, though they are just as good as the Ivies."</p>
<p>And that's a valid point. (I think what you're saying, a large research U with several great grad programs is not equivalent to an LAC.) Agreed. Some people have needs, desires for that research U. But those are not limited to a handful. The number of fine U.S. Universities are in the double digits.</p>
<p>"Korean and Chinese immigrants who move here to America in the hopes that their kids have a better education will not have heard much of small liberal arts colleges, because of their limitations. "</p>
<p>I've heard this, too. But i.m.o., it's no excuse. They don't have a responsiblity to Americans to know that there are more than a handful of excellent institutions (Universities, as well as LAC's). They have a responsibility to themselves to learn this after they arrive, if not before. Information is flowing in the streets. They're ignorant about U's other than HYP? If so, they're not ready for HYP.</p>
<p>epiphany,</p>
<p>I have a question. I agree that "they [Asians] don't know about other schools" is a lousy excuse.</p>
<p>Would you agree with me that the argument for ending early admissions, "they [so-called under-represented minorities] don't know such policies exist" is also a lousy excuse?</p>
<p>First off, are there any "over-represented" minorities besides Asians?</p>
<p>After thinking through where my Asian friends (Class of 2010) are currently attending, I notice that most AREN'T at Ivies and heavily considered other schools. Several are at Duke. Several others are at other Southern schools. The majority are at Georgia Tech.</p>
<p>I think some of you are overblowing the "Asian obsession" with the Ivy Leagues as well as the supposed indifference toward LACs.</p>
<p>Several of my dad's co-undergraduates are now in the United States. All of them are very familiar with schools like Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore. During my search, they encouraged me to consider LACs in the Midwest and South, citing younger colleagues who were alums of such schools as being "more educated."</p>
<p>But, who knows? Maybe my dad's friends are anomalies and Asians only consider a handful of schools while shunning the rest. I mean, there are more Asians at non-Ivies than Ivies, yes?</p>
<p>Hi, fabrizio. I think a word or two might be missing in your short question to me, which I'd like to answer but want to make sure of the question.</p>
<p>Btw, I am absolutely not a fan of ending Early admissions. I like the Early options (EA, SCEA, ED I, ED II). I think their existence helps overall, by reducing the number of applications overall. I think education about Early admissions options should be widely available, indeed. (No more than information about the U.S. applic. process in general, however. I think the U.S. falls short of informing all immigrants about this important aspect of American institutions. There is an actual journey to full assimilation, & I find the current U.S. policy appalling. There is not enough appropriate support, i.m.o. <em>after</em> an immigrant arrives here.)</p>
<p>I'm in favor of expanding Early programs to provide greater options for colleges & for students -- both immigrants & nonimmigrants.:)</p>
<p>fabrizio, I agree that Asians' "apathy" for the LAC's and Southern schools is dropping and overblown, but it's still there. Given that there are a growing amount of Asian college age applicants with parents who are also educated in America (my parents being an example of this) and more aware of how many great schools there are besides the Ivies, this apathy will drop. Law school is an example of how Asians are looking at other options besides business and med school. In the last 20 years, Asians haven't been applying to law school at the same rates as with med school or B school, but today, there are more Asians in law school than any other minority. So, it's going to happen with colleges too gradually. </p>
<p>Still, Asians still tend to concentrate toward the hard sciences or quantitative majors (ie-business administration, economics). As with your Asian friends in Georgia, you said that most are at Georgia Tech, which has a large Asian population. UGA has a lot less Asians in their body proportion-wise (15% vs 5%), considering that UGA is a great public university in and of itself. What can explain this disparity besides rank, and in the hard sciences? Tech only offers BS degrees if I am not mistaken from friends I knew from Atlanta. And Georgia also has a sprawling Asian population, esp. in ATL. </p>
<p>Perhaps many of the Asians at Tech are out of state, but still, I'm pretty sure among Georgians at Tech and UGA, GT is proportionately more Asian, probably more concentrated toward Asian guys, since men overall tend to be into science than women.</p>
<p>epiphany,</p>
<p>I'll try my best to clarify.</p>
<p>Last fall, when Harvard announced that next year's class would not have the option of SCEA, I recall reading statements like "Students from poorer backgrounds, particularly minorities, are often unaware that they could apply here through our early action option. To make a more level playing field, we are ending this discriminatory policy."</p>
<p>(There were other reasons, as well. Most of them centered along the "level playing field" argument. The only remotely decent reason I read came from a student who stated that some high schools just can't send out all the materials that early.)</p>
<p>So, my question is, do you also believe that the excuse "some students don't know about our early admissions policy" is unacceptable?</p>
<p>To me, such an excuse insults the intelligence of the supposed beneficiaries. Apparently, they aren't smart enough to be able to read an application and ask questions. What's wrong with the following scenario?</p>
<p>A talented youth from a poor family flips through the Common Application and the Harvard supplement. He sees the page detailing the Single Choice Early Action option. He's never heard about it before, so he reads the page. He learns that if he chooses this option, then he will have to submit his application earlier, and he can apply to no other school that notifies students before December. He heads to his library and finds that the book The Early Admissions Game isn't available at his library but is available at another one in his state. He asks his librarian for an inter-library loan request form and fills it out. A week later, he gets the book and skims through it, noting that the percentage of students admitted in the early rounds is higher than in the regular rounds, particulary for early decision schools. The student decides that this is the plan for him and sets about getting his materials ready for the deadline.</p>
<p>If a student can't read and ask questions, then he shouldn't be at Harvard or any college for that matter.</p>
<p>wmalum2006,</p>
<p>Sure, I'll admit that Asian applicants are still considering research universities more so than liberal arts colleges.</p>
<p>I would guess that the development of the relatively large Asian student body at Georgia Tech began several years (decades?) earlier when Asian students were virtually only considering engineering and science degrees. Naturally, most picked Tech over UGA. As the numbers rose and stabilized, Asian applicants may have felt more comfortable at Tech; they may have thought that the school was a better fit.</p>
<p>A preference for quantitative subjects may explain the development of the Asian student body, and its current size may explain its sustained growth.</p>
<p>I have never bought into the published reasoning behind that particular statement about Early admissions. (Doesn't/didn't know it existed.) Part of it is for the reasons you stated: Can't figure it out? Dont belong at an Elite. I also don't buy the business about only rich students are advantaged. For ED maybe, but not for EA. Even for SCEA, one has nothing to lose -- except for the possibliity of additional apps which may then be eliminated! In fact, for the elites in particular, it may be a slight advantage for an economically disadvantaged student to apply in the Early Round under EA. We have some local evidence of that.</p>
<p>i would believe it only because only those stupid smart kids would be CCers... sad</p>
<p>i hate it when CCers go on about how bad they did on their ACTs.. OMG I GOT A 35!!?!?? .. ***! i was happy with my 30.. now..not some much..</p>
<p>i don't care if they write URM on their apps, this is the only problem i have with CCers</p>
<p>
[quote]
For ED maybe, but not for EA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>epiphany,</p>
<p>I absolutely agree with you here.</p>
<p>I recall reading an article from the NYT about how the majority of ED applicants to UVA didn't even bother completing the university's financial aid form.</p>
<p>A few weeks ago, I received a newsletter from UGA. This year was the first time that more applications were received during the early action round than during the regular action round. (The difference was several thousand.) It seems to me that more students are educating themselves about the process.</p>