It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court does with race admissions.
This article is spot on. Im not sure why people pretend that Asians are not held to a higher standard at elite universities.
5 Likes
I agree, generally, but not sure that what you are describing is unique to Asian students.
- Students who apply for popular/impacted majors generally face longer admissions odds when compared to otherwise similarly situated students applying to less crowded majors. But this applies to all students who apply to these majors, not just Asian students.
- Likewise, students in geographic areas with an over-abundance of highly qualified students may face longer admissions odds relative otherwise similarly situated students from regions without a relative overabundance of such students. But, again, doesn’t this apply to all such students in these areas, not just Asian students?
In other words, I am still left wondering about the accuracy of the common wisdom suggesting that an Asian student applying for CS would face longer odds than another similarly situated unhooked student.
The UC’s do. See the link below.
As for other colleges, if Asian students do face longer odds at top schools, the results I’m familiar with (honors student matriculating from a high performing Ca school) don’t show it, at least at some top schools. (see my post above.)
At this time, I think the best explanation for what you are seeing is that every unhooked student is held to a higher standard, and since most Asian applicants are unhooked, as a group they face tougher odds than other racial groups where some or all students in that group may benefit from admissions preferences. For example, giving a legacy bump tends to help applicants from higher income white families.
And FYI, I am Asian and generally an opponent of affirmative action and other hooks. Having looked at this carefully over many years, I believe the right way of looking at the current situation is that colleges are discriminating towards certain preference groups, not specifically against Asians.
5 Likes
I agree with most of this but would emphasize . . . it isn’t only that Asian students tend to be unhooked, it is also that Asian students often attend the highest performing schools in the most competitive areas and seek out the most competitive majors. The deck is stacked against them in a number of ways that have nothing to do with race.
Likewise, while I agree that colleges are favoring certain groups, it isn’t necessarily according to race. Colleges are bringing in kids with a huge variety of experiences and circumstances, including first gen students, low SES students, single parent students, kids from rural areas and/or rural states, relatively exceptional kids from poorly performing schools in urban areas, athletes, legacies, URM’s, etc. Some Asian kids fall into some of these groups, but generally they are underrepresented in almost all of these groups, and that is reflected in the test score averages of admitted students.
To reduce it all to race seems overly simplistic.
7 Likes
I believe they do but I admit that none of us knows for certain. The admission processes at many elite privates are much more opaque than those of, for example, the California publics. The Harvard trial has shed some light (e.g. the “personal rating”) on the process, but it’s impossible to decipher individual human conscious or unconscious prejudices and influences of stereotypes. The documentary resonates because it touches on some of these stereotypes. When the academic records (and non-academic ECs) of the “merely” talented (as opposed to the “super” talented, such as the class president Jonathan Chu) are relatively indistinguishable from one another, individual distinctions are blurred and stereotyping becomes more influential.
I agree that the movie exposed stereotypes. It did so by highlighting the uniqueness and complexity of these students as individuals.
So it is ironic that many here have reacted to the movie by doubling down on their desire to reduce admission consideration down to a few factors that, at best, represent an extremely narrow window into who these students are as individuals.
Racheal had much, much more to offer Brown than her 33 SAT score, so why on earth should a standardized test score be used as a primary admission factor? Same for Alvan; his SAT score would tell us absolutely nothing about his compassion, creativity, humor, or funky dance moves. Same for all the highlighted students, and all students everywhere, regardless of race.
4 Likes
You don’t have enough information to make that statement.
1 Like
Yeah, but you’re walking into here. Let’s call out what should be called out: there is a cohort who believes that only GPA and test scores, and maybe their idea of a significant EC, should be considered in admissions. This cohort also assumes that there would be many more Asians in elite schools if that’s how admissions worked.
To be clear: whether they admit it or not, this cohort doesn’t want, or at least tends not to want, things like “compassion” to be factored in … probably not even creativity, and for sure not humor and funky dance moves. Frankly, I’m not sure I want all those things factored in either, but that’s a different thread I guess.
I’m new to this board and for full disclosure I didn’t see the film. I’m Asian, my kids are mixed. I used to think it should be entirely based on grades/scores. I was big on ivy or top schools. But coming on here and seeing just how many kids are 4.0/1500 plus is eye opening. When there are 50k applicants, is there a big enough difference between a candidate that has a 3.8 vs a 3.9 or a 1450 vs 1460? Enough difference to justify everyone being the same race/background?
I can understand the desire for schools to want to broaden the diversity in student body because overall that hopefully creates a richer experience for the kids collectively. It’s not about fairness but creating a rich learning environment for everyone.
Beyond that, I think it’s important to explore why there’s an obsession with ivy caliber schools. COVID was not kind to my kids, like a lot of other kids. Seeing the effects of extreme stress and isolation was also eye opening. As soon as school opened up, being with friends, having well rounded experience was critical for them (to return to good health). I’ve learned that ivy and even top schools sounds real nice because it gives you bragging rights or makes you think your kids are set but it is not for my kids. I want them to be at schools where they can learn, enjoy learning, enjoy their extra curricular hobbies, and be kids, go to the movies, lay out on the lawn on a nice day and soak the sun while they make friends.
As I told them, at the end of the day, I went to a SUNY, my husband went to VA Tech. My neighbor went to MIT. We live in the same neighborhood/similar houses/similar age group. If the end goal is job prospects, they’ll do fine no matter what because they enjoy learning and are hard working and smart. The end goal should be to have good job prospects but first and foremost good mental health, discover their passions, and discover themselves. They’re more likely to do that if they’re not in an echo chamber but surrounded by kids from diverse backgrounds and experiences in a supportive environment.
25 Likes
So by me saying I wouldn’t want to attend a school where everybody looked or were the same (like me) I am being racist? I don’t think so.
I am heterosexual male 2 sport athlete that attended Vassar in the 1980s . I deliberately choose a school and benefited from being around a vast majority of fellow students that neither looked or were like me. I learned the importance of lived experience, realized an unfair world doesn’t treat everyone by default equally and that listening to the unique and distinct perspectives of others in the classroom and dorm room served to educate me.
So I neither think a goal of diversity, stating that goal or achieving that goal are racist in spite of my demographic (and of my kids) having a tougher time as a result of this trend.
For some added perspective, I graduated from Exeter. There I was surrounded by kids that looked and were like me (except SOS). Now consider if an AO walked into this room full of largely white, affluent and well connected kids and said the opposite of what you are tagging as racist… such as we are looking to exclusively fill our school with kids that look like you. Well guess what, they never said it they just did it, and that was in fact racist.
7 Likes
I believe that at some level every individual is better than the rest in something. Some kids are funny, others are compassionate, others are leaders, others are healers, creative, mavericks, etc. Why should the AO have to decide which trait is more valuable? They are all valuable. Ranking and selecting based on character is meaningless - do you rank humor and compassion higher than leadership? Is the kid that helps their neighbor take out the trash less deserving than the kid that is the class president or the kid that played violin since kindergarthen?
This is a process for admission into an academic institution. The criteria should be tied to academic ability.
ETA: Socio-economic status and available ressources should also be part of the selection criteria as an attempt to level the playing field. Nobody can object against admitting Shea into Stanford
5 Likes
The problem is the schools everyone obsesses over never did that. Academic ability based solely on test scores and grades never was the case. Rather, they filled their classes with kids from Exeter and the like. What should they do about the athletes who tend to have lower scores then? Should they fill their sports teams only with kids who get in with the highest grades?
You have to go to schools in India and China if you want that system. Funny, but it seems like many kids from those places want to study here though…
2 Likes
Why should the AOs/colleges have to admit students based solely on factors that some parents insist are most valuable?
7 Likes
The factors considered in the holistic admission are subjective to the point of being meaningless. Consider the “personality” rating used by Harvard. The movie shows that behind the “dull” Asian sterotype, there are a multitude of personalities that are impossible to capture in 3-4 essays. It would be very hard for me to decide whether to admit the likeable compassionate Alvan (who developed such a rapport with this ailing teacher) or the confident smart Sophia (the most stereotypical from the bunch). How can you choose?
2 Likes
There are different systems and none is perfect. If the goal is admission to a highly selective school, the US is more stressful than most others, IMO. I don’t know about China and India but I am familiar with the Canadian one (through my nephews) and the British one (through my daughter who finished her UG in the UK). All this has been discussed before. My point is that every kid is unique and rating “personality” is wrong
8 Likes
Canada and the UK do not have as high a ratio of population / size-of-most-desired-universities as the US.
Don’t China and India have much higher such ratios than US?
Why are you insisting that the factors that AOs you have some meaning or value to you? If they find it meaningful, it’s meaningful.
All criteria are subjective, because there is absolutely no reason to assume a priori that kids with higher GPAs are “better” in any objective measure than kids with average GPA. The entire criteria that a college has for admissions is to get the set of students that fit their mission. The college, not parents, are the people who both determine their own mission and decide how to interpret the mission. Therefore, they are the ones who determine which admissions criteria best match their mission.
So when people come here and claim “no, their admissions criteria are all wrong”, what those people are saying is “we understand the mission of the college better than the people who run the college”. While this may be true for a small set of highly educated and trained education specialists, this is not true for the majority of the people who get involved only when their kids start the college application process.
In any case, can somebody please explain to me the benefit to these “elite” colleges from having a different set of criteria for admissions than the ones which they are using? As things are now, these colleges are swimming in cash and have >5X as many highly accomplished students applying as the colleges can actually accept. What argument would people make to AOs, considering how things look now?
4 Likes
Yes, but @Mumfromca was specifically saying that “I don’t know about China and India but I am familiar with the Canadian one (through my nephews) and the British one (through my daughter who finished her UG in the UK)” in terms of “the US is more stressful than most others”.
1 Like
Isn’t one of the reasons this documentary resonates and this thread exists because the amount of (perhaps unnecessary?) stresses HS students feel, not because these “elite” colleges aren’t doing well, monetarily or otherwise?
1 Like