The Magnitude of Asian Discrimination.. I mean Affirmative Action.. at Stanford Admit

[macmill]

<p>@MrMeursault,have you ever sat in on a Stanford admissions committee meeting and heard them say they are admitting a black person over an asian because of colour?Have you gone through every single transcript and SAT score to very your claims?Clearly not-so why dont you STOP making wild assumptions and sit your +++ down and edit your essays or something?That would probably help your chances more than complaining about URMs whose backgrounds you dont know.</p>

[noimagination]

<p>[FAQ</a> : Stanford University](<a href=“Page Not Found : Stanford University”>Page Not Found : Stanford University)

11. Does Stanford practice Affirmative Action?
    Stanford has a strong commitment to admitting and enrolling a student body that is both highly qualified and diverse. We read all applications with a sensitive awareness to the applicant’s personal experiences, family background, and potential to add to the rich and dynamic texture of our campus. We recognize special circumstances, and we pay close attention to the unique educational contexts and life experiences of students from low-income families and nontraditional backgrounds. We believe that diversity is essential to the educational process and that it affects the student body in all of the ways that our students experience the University. At a place like Stanford, where students learn so much from one another, a dynamic range of perspectives and experiences influences learning both in and out of the classroom. We are committed to making Stanford as strong a university as possible, and this entails enrolling the most promising students from all backgrounds.

[Statement</a> on Affirmative Action](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/951004affaction.html]Statement”>Statement on Affirmative Action)

There are no restrictive quotas of any kind and [size=2]admissions are decided without regard to an applicant’s economic resources. Stanford seeks undergraduates of varied ethnic, social, cultural, and economic backgrounds whose talents, achievements, and characters suit them for leadership. In the case of every person admitted, there has been a judgment that the applicant is “deserving and exceptional.”</p>

<pre><code> A few categories of applicants - certain ethnic minorities, legacies and athletes - receive special consideration provided they meet these requirements. Children of Stanford alumni receive preference among applicants of approximately equal qualifications, as do children of eligible faculty and staff. Furthermore, Stanford is committed to a substantial presence of African Americans, Mexican Americans, and Native Americans in the undergraduate student body. Finally, the Department of Athletics may designate outstanding athletes for special attention. The Dean of Undergraduate Admission and Financial Aid has final authority over all admissions.

All applicants receive careful consideration and the admissions review takes individual circumstances of the applicant into consideration. These efforts aim at a class characterized by diversity in terms of academic interests, artistic and athletic accomplishments, leadership qualities, and ethnic and social backgrounds. Why should we look for such diversity? The main goals are two. First, we want a rich educational environment to challenge our students. Students learn much from one another. Second, we want to be faithful to our task to educate leaders for a diverse and complex society - a society that will, we hope, overcome the undue tendencies toward stratification. This cannot be done unless the country’s demographic diversity finds a presence on campus.

We do not admit minorities to do them a favor. We want students from a variety of backgrounds to help fulfill our educational responsibilities, not, to my mind, to address the effects of historic discrimination, although that might be a result. University admissions offices are not set up to sit in judgment on what injustices society should compensate for and who should pay the price. Furthermore, who possesses the wisdom and insight for the task? Admissions decisions, on the basis of an applicant’s demonstrated achievements, should be forward-looking. We must not admit some and thereby exclude others because we arrogate to ourselves the power to sort out who owes what to whom.[/size]

</code></pre>

[MrMeursault]

<p>

As for the wealthy black kid, that IS somewhat of a hole in the AA system. But honestly, how many URMs are incredibly wealthy?

I’m not even talking about incredibly wealthy, just upper middle class. There are plenty of pretty well off URMs, and there are a few studies that show most URMs applying to top colleges are in this “upper middle class” designation.

Anyways, there are other factors besides socioeconomic situation that go into making a URM’s life difficult.

And how is this different for ORMs? Last I checked, both groups are still minorities.

Racism is still highly prevalent in this country. Maybe that wealthy black kid didn’t have to get a job to support his family, but at the same time maybe “subtle racism” prevented him from becoming captain of the golf or polo team at the snooty country club. There are a lot of country clubs (LA country club is notorious for this, for example) that find reasons to deny membership to blacks and Hispanics. Suddenly the preppy white kid looks better with his great leadership.

Replace black/Hispanic with Asian in your statement. What’s the difference?

Beyond that, diversity simply promotes a more complete college campus. Imagine if there is no AA, and a poor but brilliant black kid is one of a small handful of blacks who get in to Stanford due completely to their merit. Suddenly stepping into Hong Kong does not foster a healthy environment. URMs bring culture and diversity to a campus.

Diversity can be achieved in more ways that just race/ethnicity, and to think that skin color should be the primary determinant for so-called “diversity” is pretty stupid. I’d argue that diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and a substantial international population do far more to promote “campus culture and diversity” than a few URMs from American suburbia.

You can complain all you want but there’s nothing you can do about it. These “unqualified” URMs are going to keep “stealing” spots, and you probably will never understand the reasons why.

I didn’t create this thread, nor did I come here to complain. I was first prompted to post on this thread because some other poster was labeling people “ignorant” for pointing out the faults of AA. AA does have its merits, but it has many substantial flaws and there are viable alternatives that I believe would be better to “promote diversity and culture”.</p>

[MrMeursault]

<p>

BillMc, I’d disagree. Stanford takes into account your socioeconomic status.

See noimagination’s post.

Also, remember QuestBridge is all about poor people who have done extraordinary things. That’s not a bad deal for people who have overcome a lot. Sure, they’re still at a disadvantage.

And how often do you hear people complain about the unfairness of the Questbridge program? Exactly. People understand that opportunities are limited for those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and fully agree that said people should be considered in a different context than your NE boarding school genius. What irks people about the current AA system is that, for the sake of “diversity”, your NE boarding school URM genius is given a handicap.</p>

<p>

@MrMeursault,have you ever sat in on a Stanford admissions committee meeting and heard them say they are admitting a black person over an asian because of colour?Have you gone through every single transcript and SAT score to very your claims?Clearly not-so why dont you STOP making wild assumptions and sit your +++ down and edit your essays or something?That would probably help your chances more than complaining about URMs whose backgrounds you dont know.

No, I have not sat in on a Stanford admissions committee, but I am able to read the statements Stanford gives on its own website. No, I have not gone through every single transcript and SAT score to verify my claims, but I can cite an article in which two researchers did implement such a study. Here you go:
<a href=“http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/tje/espenshadessqptii.pdf[/url]”>http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/tje/espenshadessqptii.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
So clearly, I’m not making any wild assumptions, I’ve provided factual support for my claims, whereas you, and a few other posters, have continued to resort to ad hominem attacks and baseless attacks.</p>

[noimagination]

<p>[Experiment</a> Finds Race Trumps A Prestigious Degree - Daniel Fisher - Full Disclosure - Forbes](<a href=“http://blogs.forbes.com/danielfisher/2010/10/19/experiment-finds-race-trumps-a-prestigious-degree/]Experiment”>Experiment Finds Race Trumps A Prestigious Degree)

An experiment designed to test perceptions of affirmative action found that independent observers rated companies significantly lower when they were told the top executives were African-American graduates of prestigious universities, instead of white. The difference went away when the executives were said to have graduated from less selective schools, and when the evaluators were told that the more selective schools exercised race-blind admissions.</p>

<p>The study, by researchers at Clarkson University, the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business, and the May Group Family Fund, suggests that people assume minority candidates receive preferential treatment at more selective schools and discount their professional skills as a result.

</p>

[macmill]

<p>@Mr Man please thoroughly re-read the AA statement generously provided by noimagination.It clearly states that no URM is admitted<<just to=“” do=“” them=“” a=“” favour=“”>>,so what part of that is a puzzle to you?The problem is that you refuse to accept that black people can be gifted,because after all,only whites/asians have brains about them.Good luck with that open-minded,tolerant,inclusive and intelligent ability to generalize whole races into neat imagined boxes-I totally get you now-ALL URMs are not talented enough to attendStanford.THAT.MAKES.SENSE.</just></p>

[Hamburglar]

<p>“I’d argue that diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and a substantial international population do far more to promote “campus culture and diversity” than a few URMs from American suburbia.”</p>

<p>That’s really easy for you to say considering you’re white/Asian. Imagine stepping into the hood, or imagine yourself at Xavier. That’s how isolated we URMs would feel at your dream campus. That environment would be completely intolerant and close minded.</p>

<p>Also, where you earlier said to replace black/Hispanic with Asian, it’s not even close to the same. Blacks and Hispanics face much more discrimination.</p>

[system]

<p>If they are a poor family, then their “personal experiences” will show how they have defied adversity. Sure, they wont look and say “He’s in the <20k category, accept him.” but, “wow, he came from a rough neighborhood, managed to stay out of jail, and look what he’s done despite everything. This kid can succeed.”</p>

[MrMeursault]

<p>

That’s really easy for you to say considering you’re white/Asian. Imagine stepping into the hood, or imagine yourself at Xavier. That’s how isolated we URMs would feel at your dream campus. That environment would be completely intolerant and close minded.

There are plenty of Asian/White neighborhoods that are essentially “the hood”. In saying that you (as in URMs) would be incredibly isolated without race-based AA, aren’t you just implicitly stating that URMs are worse applicants? I know plenty of incredibly intelligent URMs that would get into great schools regardless of AA, and I am a proponent of socioeconomic AA (which would disproportionately help URMs anyway because the lowest socioeconomic classes have a plurality or at least a large percentage of URMs), a system that would bring in low-income students from “the hood” just as effectively. I don’t understand how a smaller URM population equates to intolerance or close-mindedness, care to explain?

@Mr Man please thoroughly re-read the AA statement generously provided by noimagination.It clearly states that no URM is admitted<<just to=“” do=“” them=“” a=“” favour=“”>>,so what part of that is a puzzle to you?The problem is that you refuse to accept that black people can be gifted,because after all,only whites/asians have brains about them.Good luck with that open-minded,tolerant,inclusive and intelligent ability to generalize whole races into neat imagined boxes-I totally get you now-ALL URMs are not talented enough to attendStanford.THAT.MAKES.SENSE.

Either you have a serious lack of reading comprehension skills or you’ve just ignored everything I’ve said thus far. I explicitly said that no applicant is admitted over another, per se, just that the existence of a race-based AA program is undeniable, as shown in Stanford’s statement. Please show me any post of mine where I stated or even alluded to the fact that “black people can’t be gifted” or that “All URMs aren’t talented enough to attend Stanford”. At this point, the only one intolerant or close-minded is you, in your inability to even consider the opposite side of an argument.</just></p>

[MrMeursault]

<p>

If they are a poor family, then their “personal experiences” will show how they have defied adversity. Sure, they wont look and say “He’s in the <20k category, accept him.” but, “wow, he came from a rough neighborhood, managed to stay out of jail, and look what he’s done despite everything. This kid can succeed.”

Sure, we can leave it up to adcoms to have to deduce this from the information given, but what are the negatives to changing the current system of AA into entirely socioeconomic AA? The benefactors will all be low-income kids, who’ve fought adversity, and the majority of them will be URMs anyway since the lowest socioeconomic classes tend to have large percentages of URMs. It would have essentially all the benefits of the current system and eliminate the loopholes of wealthy URMs with plenty of opportunities or kids claiming 1/8, 1/16th Hispanic ethnicity and the like.</p>

[Hamburglar]

<p>Of course I am “implicitly stating” that URMs are on average worse applicants. That’s undeniable, for socioeconomic/cultural reasons. Perhaps my example was a bit off. I don’t think a system of socioeconomic AA would be bad. I’m sure that would work just fine, because minorities would be relatively fairly represented.</p>

<p>Either way, I think the current system, in which there will be some holes (wealthy URMs), of AA is MUCH better than no AA at all, which is more what my hypothetical situation was pointing to.</p>

<p>Your ideal system may be more fair, but the current system is not far from it. And there is no changing it, so there’s no point in complaining.</p>

[NJDS]

<p>this conversation is bound to not go anywhere. </p>

<p>people’s opinions on AA rely heavily on their own selfish needs at the time, their current position in life, and their personal backgrounds. </p>

<p>few people’s minds are going to be changed by reading a ranty CC thread.</p>

<p>i stand by my statement that you will be admitted if you deserve it. if you can’t accept that, then don’t apply because then you will just incorrectly feel that you have been cheated out of acceptance when really it was your own application that didn’t make a large enough impact on admissions officers</p>

[macmill]

<p>@MrM :Academic excellence in the Asian population is very much driven by cultural factors too. In fact, that is what many supporters of AA commonly argue. Because Asian kids are all raised in this “culture of academic excellence”, those whose cultures do not often prioritize academics should receive a handicap. </p>

<p>In this post you are unequivocally implying that “other cultures” do not engender academic excellence.you have compartmentalized all “other races” to be people who do not prioritize academics.Where do you get that almighty statement from?That’s clearly a sweeping statement,and it IMPLIES that you believe only Asians and some other races you consider superior are capable of prioritizing,and therefore excelling at,academics.This is a persistent UNDERLYING theme that I condensed from your posts.So,how is that tantamount to me having inferior comprehension skills/ignoring your posts?But hey,I’m black,so this should be consistent with your theories.If you do end up at Stanford,I hope you will encounter minorities that will help you realize that they were not admitted on the basis of color but personal merit,which extends well beyond the confines of a test score or GPA.</p>

[kimathi]

<p>Everyone is entitled to their opinions. :)</p>

<p>@ MrMeursault are you applying to Stanford?</p>

[BigKev]

<p>I’d like to say that what most Asian parents, and their kids don’t realize, is that there’s more to being a person than having 2400’s/36’s/4.0. I have none of those, and as an Asian kid, I feel like I am better for it. Am I an academic all-star? No. However, I am far more well rounded as a person than those study robots could ever be. And that’s because I followed something I loved to do.</p>

<p>Asian parents do not encourage team sports at all. Yet I feel like I’ve learned the most from them, whether it be playing football or even running track. These activities have taught me dedication, hard work, and perseverance in a way regurgitating academics never could have. Am I the greatest at any of these sports? Hell no. But I’ve developed further than a lot of Asian kids I know because of it.</p>

<p>So even though I’m Asian, I don’t mind Stanford’s stance on AA. In fact I completely agree with macmill. A lot of URM’s are just as smart as your typical perfect score Asian kid, they have just been raised in a culture that encourages them to express it differently. In the real world, personal people skills and fast decisions will get you farther than data and graphs ever will.</p>

<p>Sorry about the longwinded rant, but that’s how I feel on the whole situation. As an Asian male. I don’t feel disadvantaged by the process at all, and anyone who is simply is too insecure about themselves as a person.</p>

[NJDS]

<p>^ i think the majority of the argument against “anti-Asian AA” is built for other groups of Asians who are ~4.0, 2200+, and “excellent” ECs/recs/essays, not just grades and scores</p>

<p>i just want to say that not everyone with excellent grades, scores and ECs is qualified and/or deserves to be admitted. there are other factors, even besides recommendations and , etc.</p>

<p>personally, i think something is to be said for the motivation behind a student’s excellence and the context of their achievement. there is most definitely a difference between the student who participates in activities because they love them and proceeds to be a leader within those because he/she wishes to contribute more and the student who becomes involved in activities they think would look good and take positions of leadership to build a resume. to us on CC, we can’t see the difference because we don’t see their essays, their activity’s advisor’s supplementary recommendation, or other things that help to build CONTEXT for the pile of information that we see on decisions threads. there are always reactions like “omg i can’t believe YOU didn’t get in” or “if YOU didn’t get in, i don’t know how other people will” or even the really hurtful “obviously you got in because of AA”, but when do we ever really know those applicants well enough to judge whether they are really qualified? We don’t know the context of their schools, their geographic location, their true interests, etc. </p>

<p>there is a lot to be said for student 1 (URM or not) who scores a 2000 from a school where students rarely score above 1500 and not as much for student 2 who scores a 2250 from a school where the average SAT score is 1800. (yes a ~2250 is a good accomplishment, but student 1 shows that he/she was able to make the most of the limited resources available to him/her and was able to stand out among his/her peers) although not always immediately recognizable, you will see that there is a sizable population of students like student 1 at stanford and its peer institutions. [this is a simplification, and SAT scores were just easier to demonstrate, but it could be applied to ECs as well]</p>

<p>even if affirmative action were to discontinue, in the interest of their student population, stanford would still likely pursue similar policies to ensure diversity among undergraduates. many holistic admissions policies include characteristics of diversity, including first-generation status and legacy status, different topics that do heavily relate to affirmative action. many cases that appear to be affirmative action based on race could also be 1st-generation AA or athletic preference.</p>

<p>one other point i would like to remind people of is your motivation for participating in the college admissions process. do you want to be paired with your best match institution, or do you just want to get in to a place because it is a big name or you think it would be good for you? if your primary goal is to help your future career by having a particular name on your resume, you may be disappointed. some people will argue that it is everyone’s goal and it is stupid to think otherwise, but i disagree. to many students, their primary goal is to be paired with the best match for them. yes, getting rejected by a college will still suck, but they will appreciate that their choices are more suited to them. to most of the people on stanford threads, you will likely end up going to a great college, regardless of whether it is stanford or another place. you just have to accept that the colleges you do get into are more suited to you than the ones to which you were not accepted.</p>

<p>you know, once in a while, admissions officers do know what they are doing. not only do they try to see if you would be a good fit at stanford, they also have clear goals for the incoming class of freshmen. The Dean of Undergraduate Admissions & Financial Aid at Stanford often has faculty panels, focus groups, etc., that target particular issues on campus and try to formulate ways to help fix them. Dean Shaw also works a lot with the VPUE office, the President’s office, etc., for the same purposes.</p>

[macmill]

<p>ΛExcellent summary of the whole argument.Great job.</p>

[decrescendo]

<p>OP, if you’re still listening, this is probably the most argued topic on the CC forums among HS users.</p>

<p>To understand why Asians are discriminated against and Latinos/Blacks/Native Americans are given a boost, imagine that you’re a Stanford admissions officer for a moment. Every day during the admissions season, you read application after application of the same thing. Upper middle class White or Asian applicant who plays violin or piano, tennis or golf, has two or three leadership positions, 2200-2350 SAT, 3.9+ GPA, decent essays, decent recommendations.</p>

<p>Stanford adcoms (and those at the Ivies as well) are so used to this very specific type of applicant that it’s almost impossible to not do some eye-rolling after reading through seven consecutive applications of what seems to be the exact same person, so that when they get a Native American applicant from a reservation in Montana or a Latino kid from Los Angeles or an African American from Louisiana, they’re going to sit up in their seat and take notice. Is it racist or biased that they do that? Yes, perhaps a little. But the majority of Asians at top colleges are of a very similar mold, and schools like Stanford want the most diverse student body possible, so they’re going to limit the number of those types of people that get in. But, I mean, still, Asians are over-represented by 450% at Stanford, so you can’t complain too much, can you?</p>

[MrMeursault]

<p>

In this post you are unequivocally implying that “other cultures” do not engender academic excellence.you have compartmentalized all “other races” to be people who do not prioritize academics.Where do you get that almighty statement from?That’s clearly a sweeping statement,and it IMPLIES that you believe only Asians and some other races you consider superior are capable of prioritizing,and therefore excelling at,academics.This is a persistent UNDERLYING theme that I condensed from your posts.So,how is that tantamount to me having inferior comprehension skills/ignoring your posts?But hey,I’m black,so this should be consistent with your theories.If you do end up at Stanford,I hope you will encounter minorities that will help you realize that they were not admitted on the basis of color but personal merit,which extends well beyond the confines of a test score or GPA.

Are you serious? That was a response to your post in which you said

ΛLOL…the reference was to intellectual talent.Something like basketball would be more of a niche because its driven by cultural factors eg a lot of kids in the <<hood>> play <<ball in
order to get their minds off their hardships."

So in this post, you are unequivocally implying that black people are better athletes and that all other races are incapable of producing anyone with academic excellence. You have compartmentalized all “other races” to be people who do not prioritize academics. Where do you get that almighty statement from? That’s clearly a sweeping statement, and it IMPLIES that you believe only Blacks you consider superior are capable of prioritizing,and therefore excelling at, athletics. </hood></p>

<p>Seriously, your attempt at a response just further validates my assumption that you aren’t even trying to comprehend what I’m saying. How does my post possibly imply that other races are inferior? I simply stated that the Asian culture, especially that of first and second generation Asian immigrants to the U.S., places an extreme emphasis (sometimes even too much) on success in academics. Parents drive their kids to do accelerated programs starting in middle school, they pressure kids into doing certain extracurriculars, and foster an environment where the kid feels that the only way to success is through grades. I made no implications in this post, in fact, I only cited this “culture of academic excellence” in Asians because it is a point that supporters of race-based AA often use. You seem to have serious delusions of some serious “underlying theme” in my posts about the racial superiority of Asians/Whites. I obviously do have an underlying theme in my posts, it’s called “I’m against the current system of AA”. You keep trying to classify me as some ignorant, racist bigot, even resorting to trying to pull support out of thin air, it’s quite pathetic really.</p>

[MrMeursault]

<p>

To understand why Asians are discriminated against and Latinos/Blacks/Native Americans are given a boost, imagine that you’re a Stanford admissions officer for a moment. Every day during the admissions season, you read application after application of the same thing. Upper middle class White or Asian applicant who plays violin or piano, tennis or golf, has two or three leadership positions, 2200-2350 SAT, 3.9+ GPA, decent essays, decent recommendations.</p>

<p>Stanford adcoms (and those at the Ivies as well) are so used to this very specific type of applicant that it’s almost impossible to not do some eye-rolling after reading through seven consecutive applications of what seems to be the exact same person, so that when they get a Native American applicant from a reservation in Montana or a Latino kid from Los Angeles or an African American from Louisiana, they’re going to sit up in their seat and take notice. Is it racist or biased that they do that? Yes, perhaps a little. But the majority of Asians at top colleges are of a very similar mold, and schools like Stanford want the most diverse student body possible, so they’re going to limit the number of those types of people that get in. But, I mean, still, Asians are over-represented by 450% at Stanford, so you can’t complain too much, can you?

What about the upper-class Black student who plays an instrument, tennis or golf, etc. etc.? What’s different between him and the upper-class Asian/White kid? And how about Asian kid from South Dakota or the Chinese immigrant in the projects of New York? Why don’t they get the benefit of AA?</p>

<p>And this whole idea that Asians are “overrepresented by 450%”, really? Racial quotas?</p>