<p>@PantherPride: Be careful about knowing what Senior and freezingbeast are each saying. Do you really think that admission officers would admit someone purely based on their race? I really can’t bring myself to “reach that scary conclusion” either, but that is basically what Senior is saying. But while one may disagree with him, there is truth in his words, of course: don’t you think there is a “glass ceiling” of sorts for Asians in college admissions? Hypothetically, would Stanford be willing to make 50% of its freshman class Asian? (Not saying that this is going to happen if Stanford is race-blind in its admissions process----I don’t think it would at all. But maybe I’m just too naive :/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And of these students, many will only be African American to a small percentage. Does AA really “guarantee to increase the representation of these minorities in higher levels of education, career, etc”? Superficially, maybe. Is adding 130 black freshmen to Stanford resolving the bleak reality that URM groups underperform in academics as a whole, or adding 100 or so black Stanford grads to the work force meaningfully resolving the larger problem of certain ethnicities being under-represented in professional fields?</p>
<p>(Also, according to CollegeBoard, there isn’t “over 20% Asian” at Stanford. It’s showing that there’re more Hispanics at Stanford alone than Asians…)</p>
<p>^Those charts are really telling. When we compare grad school versus undergrad class profiles, it seems as if the undergrad is tailored to a very favorable composition: 50/50 males to females, and though the racial demographics aren’t perfectly American, it’s close enough when one considers that the Asian percentage can’t be too much lower without raising legitimate concern. </p>
<p>Though I doubt formal quotas are in place, I’m confident that admissions counselors are told (maybe implicitly) to try to accept similar numbers of males and females and possibly also told to accept a similar proportion from each race (35-23-15-10-10-2 = Asian-white-Hispanic-black-international-Native American)</p>
<p>Compare the undergrad pie-charts to the graduate ones and it tells a vastly different story. Males vastly outnumber females, internationals and whites are highly represented at the expense of blacks and Native Americans. </p>
<p>It seems as though gender and race are hardly considered in graduate admissions, but in undergraduate admissions there is clearly some ideal student body. Equal genders, races well represented but kept in check, persons from every state (Dean Shaw will never let South Dakota go unrepresented again, I can guarantee you that), etc.</p>
Wow that is not what I was saying at all. I think race should be enough of a consideration to allow the university to manufacture an ideal student body. In some cases this may be a big boost, in others it may be a minor boost, and in some cases it will hurt the applicant’s candidacy. But it would never be the sole factor. I never said it would be.</p>
<p>
For a university which can control who it admits, I wouldn’t want to attend one that’s 40% black. Would I survive if I had to matriculate there? Yeah probably, and the fact that there are so many black people might hardly detract from my undergraduate experience. But I wouldn’t support that school’s admissions program. I would take offense to it. </p>
<p>BTW I bolded university because this is an important distinction versus K-12 schooling. The latter generally can not control who walks through their doors, but private universities can.</p>
<p>
I’ll say it again my remarks aren’t racist. None of them are. Do some of my remarks support institutional racism? Possibly. But that does not make them racist in the sense you and earlier Freezingbeast referred to.</p>
<p>
If universities are going for a class that exposes people to all ways of life, however undesirable, such that students will be exposed to qualities that they are not comfortable with, then why not admit Nazis, or academic slackers, or homeless people, or felons? Stanford is a relative haven, and anyone who says that it is “imperative” to try to bring together different walks of life here is full of crap. I figure if it’s already this culturally homogenized, why not continue the trend and stop admitting those who lack class? (btw I extensively defined class in earlier posts). </p>
<p>
I know a bit abou t what goes on beyond closed doors actually, as I have two close contacts with strong ties to the admissions office. More importantly I know more in the general sense because I’ve abandoned my fear to accept something that many will perceive as wrong and stupid. I just know more than you. Plain and simple. Sorry?</p>
By the way, I think you never attempted to differentiate the two. When people here the word racism, they don’t assume that one actually means institutional racism. </p>
<p>I’m not even sure it fits with the mold of institutional racism that well. Institutional racism to me has to have more of an underlying pernicious motive. The lack of Asian newscasters, for instance, appears to be a form of institutional racism. There is no real justification for not letting an Asian tell the news, for instance. </p>
<p>But, for another example, is Hollywood guilty of institutional racism for not hiring many Asian actors? Say the predominant genres of the time are Westerns, basketball/football sports movies, and Victorian dramas. Technically, the film industry is still guilty of institutional racism, as a system of inequality based on race is in place. But are they really so guilty? </p>
<p>That’s the problem I have with using a word like institutional racism. There are many justifiable, if not necessary, forms of institutional racism. Just saying that word indicates nothing of the motives, which to me are the most important factor. </p>
<p>Are top colleges keeping Asians out because the admissions staff does not like the Asian race as a whole, or are they keeping Asians out so that other minorities could be better represented to create a demographically diverse class? Both to you would be classified as institutional racism. But to me only one is a problem that would mandate fixing.</p>
<p>Just wanted to point out that the only ethnicity that is dramatically underrepresented at Stanford is Caucasian.</p>
<p>Hispanics and Blacks are VERY slightly underrepresented (Hispanics: 13% at Stanford, 14.5% in US; Blacks: 10% at Stanford, 12.1% in US); Asians are, of course, overrepresented (23% at Stanford, 4.3% in US). Native Americans are overrepresented too (0.9% in US, 2.8% at Stanford). HOWEVER, there is a HUGE difference in the number of whites in the US (65.8%) and Stanford (36%). There are literally almost twice as many whites in the US as at Stanford.</p>
<p>I’m not passing any judgement on these facts, just presenting them for your use.</p>
<p>These are definitely not the numbers that Stanford advertises on campus
and when you are in classes and living on campus, it definitely seems like there are more white people than that.</p>
<p>Thanks, NJDS. I wonder if the great majority of “unidentified” students are actually Caucasian. Adding that 8% to the 36% results in 44%, which does seem much closer to what I see around me everyday.</p>
<p>While I’m visiting this thread, I’d like to offer that I am Caucasian, and have attended prep schools that long encouraged diversity of the type we enjoy at Stanford (through ample financial aid for strong students of every background). I benefited greatly from having friends of every color, creed and “class” in my pre-college years, and I am having the same experience here. I haven’t met anyone, as far as I know, who shares the feelings expressed by Senior0991, though of course he is fully entitled to express his views. I am finding inter-cultural and inter-“class” relations here to be excellent and generally effortless, because of the great student body, and because Stanford seems to try really hard to make sure people’s needs are met. Peace Out.</p>
<p>The reason that there seems to be a lot more white people than 36% is that a sizeable number of the internationals, unidentifieds, Hispanics, and Asians probably look/are white.</p>
<p>
Really? I disagree. I think there is a lot of self-segregation here.</p>
<p>Yes, you’ve made your perspective amply clear on here, Senior, but I’ve had a very different experience so far. I’ve always felt welcome in any setting I’ve found myself in at Stanford, irrespective of the ethnic make-up of the setting. Maybe because I try to project respect for everyone, and don’t have preconceived notions about people? Or maybe I’m just lucky that way.</p>
I take it you think I have “preconceived notions about people” and don’t “project respect for everyone.” </p>
<p>If so I think that’s a terrible conclusion to draw from what I’ve said here. Also I think it’s pretty disrespectful to blame me for my negative experience in terms of self-segregation. </p>
<p>That’s one thing I’ve noticed about Stanford students. If I find something is wrong with the school, my peers who don’t see it the way I do will say it’s my fault. “Well you haven’t been proactive enough” in response to me not getting research offers. Or “Well just make sure to write better application essays next time” when I don’t get into introsems or sophomore college. Or “Why do you care if my teacher inappropriately spends university funds on his students? Why don’t you just find a teacher in your department who does that?” </p>
<p>@Senior0991
while this is not related to the AA topic, I disagree with you about your latest post.
The job of Stanford is not to do everything for us. It is to give us the resources so that we can do everything ourselves.
If you don’t get into an introsem, take your essay to a couple Hume Writing Center writing tutors. If you don’t get a research offer, try going to the CDC to improve your resume, make some new contacts, and learn how to market yourself. While advising, tutoring, and career resources are not perfect, they are very helpful and with adequate effort and assistance, students can accomplish a lot.
I started planning for summer research/internships in October, and I have already started more than 15 applications. I have already met with a CDC counselor and writing tutors about my applications. Other people will probably complain in June when they don’t get anything, but it’s probably because they didn’t take advantage of the resources available to them early enough.</p>
<p>I do agree that Stanford is self-segregated, but people can overcome that. It takes a lot of effort to maintain friendships with certain groups of people, but it is possible. I’m not friends with certain types of people, but while I realize that groups are self-segregated, I do recognize that my lack of effort in socializing with them is the reason that I’m not friends with them.</p>
<p>Freezingbeast I gave a hypothetical scenario. I thought I made that clear by defining the predominant genres of the time, but I guess not. You take things way too literally. </p>
<p>NJDS this is exactly what I’m talking about. You blame me for the schools shortcomings. I notice things that are wrong with the school, for instance how the introsem/arts intensive/sophomore college apps all consist of the same personal essay prompt. This greatly hinders the students who are intelligent and motivated, but are not as gifted in their personal statement writing abilities.</p>
<p>Could I try and work around my deficiency and get tutors and all that crap? Yeah probably. But I think it is the school’s responsibility to make admissions into these higher learning opportunities as open and fair as possible.</p>
<p>i do agree that admission into introsems, sophomore college, etc., should be more fair and less about writing ability. but if writing is not your strength, there are resources available to help you, so no matter how weak a writer you are, you can still get into everything everyone else does. after graduation, you will have to write cover letters, long applications, reports, and countless other things. your bosses won’t care that you aren’t a good writer and won’t say “it’s ok, i understand you’re not a good writer. i’ll change the process for you”, but they will expect you to take advantage of people like HR personnel who can help.</p>
<p>^the main difference is that I/my parents are paying 50 grand a year for me to come here. Versus some job where they’re the ones paying me. Therefore I expect more from Stanford. My friend and both pay the same to come here (actually I’m paying a whole lot more than him), so why should he receive significantly more opportunities just because he is stronger at one particular writing style?</p>
<p>Except race is relevant to the university dynamic. Maybe not for you, but for people like me and Panther and dozens of other students and prospective applicants. </p>
<p>But writing ability for personal statements is not really relevant to the dynamic of the seminar; you get a room full of people who can write great personal statements.</p>
<p>Yet writing is something you can always improve, you simply have to work harder. 8 years ago I didn’t even speak a word of English (I still need to work on that), and I know plenty of immigrants who worked their asses off to become excellent writes. Learning is a combination of perseverance and talent. Sure some people are naturals, you just have to work harder than them to get better. </p>
<p>However, when it comes to race, you are only born into one race and you simply cant change that, and no matter how hard you work; institutional racism has already killed your opportunities. </p>
<p>We can always wine all day about things that we’d like to change about ourselves but are too lazy to do so, but it’s an entirely different thing when a certain person receives limiting opportunities just because they are born of a certain color, and there is nothing they can do to change it.</p>
)</p>