<p>I understand Asians have essentially a harder time getting into top schools due to AA. Does this include all kinds of Asians in the world? With (I am approximating) 1/4 of all countries in the world asian, are their any asian ethnicity that gets a "fair" chance to go to top school?
HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING: A Philipino person with a 2000 SAT score and 3.6 will be chosen instead of a URM or just a white person who has a 1980 and a 3.4.</p>
<p>AA doesn't work AGAINST anyone -- it just favors a small group. The group that is favored is statistically very small -- if they weren't, they wouldn't be "URM's". That is, if colleges had a large number of applicants from African American and hispanic students, they wouldn't need to give anyone a particular boost in admissions to be assured of a diverse class. So while AA may mean that a student who fits a URM category has an enhanced chance of admission, it does NOT follow that all other students have a reduced chance. </p>
<p>It is NOT harder for an asian to get admitted than a caucasian. Both generally have the same chance of admission. </p>
<p>The two largest categories of students who are getting admissions boosts and at the same time applying and enrolling in significant enough numbers to significantly reduce the number of spaces available to the rest are Early Decision applicants (who generally are well-to-do, full pay applicants) and recruit-quality athletes. So you might as well ask if your chances of admission are reduced because you aren't an athlete.</p>
<p>If you check UCLA's website, there's a separate ethnic category for Filipinos implying that a large number apply and are accepted. At one time, it seemed that college admissions focused on Asian and Pacific Island sub-categories that were underrepresented, e.g., Cambodian, Samoan, but that no longer seems to be the case. Admissions is still a crap shoot, so you shouldn't count on your ethnicity giving you an edge.</p>
<p>Good luck!</p>
<p>I read an article from Princeton, cited on one of the forums here that said, were there no AA, more Asians would be admitted while the number of Causasions stayed about the same.</p>
<p>I suspect (though I don't have hard data to back this up) that, relative to students of other races at roughly the same overall level, Asians tend to have higher SATs and GPAs but less impressive ECs, essays and so forth. The result is that data might show that, say, Asians with 1300 SATs have a lower acceptance rate at College X than white or black students with the same numbers, without necessarily reflecting a real bias.</p>
<p>pyroclastic, That is very interesting. I never thought about it this way.</p>
<p>pyroclastic... actually..I have to agree with you on that. I never thought of it that way. It is so true. I am asian and my other asian friend who were in the top 1 percent did not have any good ec's if not all. Most ec's were violin and piano or if I was lucky, I found an asian guy who played a sport. Asian bum, think about pyroclastic's statement. If you are an Asian with good grades and good ec's (i mean unique not like piano champ) and write good essay, AA or whatever will not affect you.
pyroclastic, you are a genius. <em>clap clap</em></p>
<p>Again, I read very dissapointing misstatements about Affirmative Action on this site.</p>
<p>The truth is that more than a few so-called elite schools kept a lid on enrollment by highly accomplished Asian applicants in order to sustain existing white enrollment levels. Years ago I listened to a Ivy League administrator's off-the-record comments presenting that thought. The numbers of Asian admits wasn't restricted by Affirmative Action.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I read an article from Princeton, cited on one of the forums here that said, were there no AA, more Asians would be admitted while the number of Causasions stayed about the same.
[/quote]
hey someone actually read that article! :D</p>
<p>
[quote]
The numbers of Asian admits wasn't restricted by Affirmative Action.
[/quote]
That's a pretty myopic comment. Just like in physics, everything in life has an equal and opposite reaction. URMs are taking up more spots than they would be if affirmative action wasnt practiced. The colleges must find spots for these URMs, so where do they take these seats from? Whites and Asians.</p>
<p>Let's agree that admissions are a zero sum game since elite schools cannot expand (Princeton is doing so, but not enough to make a significant difference for the majority of students who would like to attend). </p>
<p>Why must it be assumed that it is URMs who are taking spots that would otherwise have gone to Asians? What about legacies (still mostly Caucasians)? athletes? arts performers? Students from mostly white states admitted for geographical diversity (eg. Idaho or Wyoming)? Internationals?</p>
<p>Because the seats will be distributed more equally (actually I shouldn't say that since statistically, Asians will take 4/5 of those spots). Colleges already have enough atheletes. Students from underrepresented states only take up 1 or 2 spots a pop. </p>
<p>However, I do agree that legacies will take a large chunk of those spots. And internationals? Well lets hope so, because I'm one :D</p>
<p>Why does one assume that URMs are taking ANYONE'S spots? It's not like other folks "own" them. Wouldn't the educational value of an institution be distinctly lower if it were made up of folks who grew up in exactly the same circumstances? Isn't it possible that a URM could bring MORE value to a campus - for everyone - and help the institution in carrying out its mission?</p>
<p>It's interesting of course that now some of the prestigious institutions are talking about downgrading legacy admissions, this at the very first time in their history that URMs and women could take significant advantage of them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Colleges already have enough atheletes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not if they don't recruit them. Swarthmore decided to do away with its football team because players were taking too many spots. Look at the range of sports offered by elite schools; Title IX has actually expanded their ranks.</p>
<p>This is not to say that athletes are academically less qualified. Just to suggest that Asians' finger-pointing at URMs does not take into account other groups that have significant hooks.
Dooit: where do you get your 4/5 stats or your idea that geographical diversity accounts for only a couple of slots. Looking at my S's floor, 2 out of 10 are from underrepresented areas. On the floor below are a couple of internationals (who happen to be Asians, but I don't think they are the Asians the OP was thinking about).</p>
<p>At Williams, the percentage of African-Americans who play intercollegiate sports is less than half that of Caucasians.</p>
<p>Take a look at the map at the bottom of the webpage. Less than 10 students arrive from each underrepresented state. </p>
<hr>
<p>Here is an article that I posted on CC in the summer (it's by Princeton, so you can trust their sources): </p>
<p>A summary of my first 2 posts:
"Espenshade noted that when one group loses ground, another has to gain -- in this case it would be Asian applicants. Asian students would fill nearly four out of every five places in the admitted class not taken by African-American and Hispanic students, with an acceptance rate rising from nearly 18 percent to more than 23 percent. "</p>
<p>The impact that it would have on URMs:</p>
<p>"Compared to the fall of 1996, the number of underrepresented minority students admitted to the University of California-Berkeley Boalt Hall Law School for the fall of 1997 dropped 66 percent from 162 to 55.... African-American applicants were particularly affected as their admission numbers declined by 81 percent from 75 to 14, but acceptances of Hispanics also fell by 50 percent. "</p>
<p>But at the prestige privates there is such huge "affirmative action" for rich, white folks to begin with, what would happen if they really leveled the playing field.</p>
<p>The affirmative action debate assumes the so-called standards for rich (mostly white) students should be articulated across the population. It would be relatively easy to construct admissions algorithms where that wasn't the case. (Don't expect to see that in my lifetime, and, as regards the prestige private institutions, I can't see why that would be worth the trouble.)</p>
<p>I'm just glad someone corrected him and spelled Filipino correctly.</p>