<p>Maybe an 'asian' university would bring its own prestige with it. Interesting thread.</p>
<p>There already is one...it's called UCB!</p>
<p>Irvine has a higher proportion of asians.</p>
<p>Caltech fits the bill too.</p>
<p>Duskstamper, I don't disagree with you. My point is that it is not the fact their Asian that works against them....rather any minority group is unlikely to achieve a big % of the student body anywhere. Suppose hispanics were chart busters re: grades/board scores/etc. - can you imagine Tufts 45% hispanic? Even if they were the best candidates their will be a threshold they can not breach. Asian kids are just out of luck. And the more there are the worse it will be.</p>
<p>
[quote]
interesteddad, your argument is reminiscent of the racist early 20th century college admissions era.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Just to be perfectly clear, I am not in favor of the current quota system at all. I am not in favor of the current mininum quotas in place for African-American or hispanic students and I am not in favor the corresponding maximum quotas that may be in place for Asian-American students. </p>
<p>As a matter of philosophy, I am uncomfortable with the current race-based admissions system. I do not believe that a college app should ask a student's racial or ethnic background.</p>
<p>Having said that, I do think that diverse college campuses are theoretically beneficial to all students (although, in practice, self-segregation undermines the value). I understand why the current quota system is in place and I struggle to come up with an alternative that would be less philosophically troubling than race-based admissions.</p>
<p>A supposed historical fact that is taught to law students in a footnote in one constitutional law textbook is that the geographical diversity policy Harvard adopted not quite a century ago was a back-door way to reduce the percentage of Jewish admittees. In that era, most Jews in the United States were still concentrated in the northeast, so when Harvard starting actively recruiting applications from Midwestern and western states it could be reasonably sure that the applicant pool wouldn't include many Jewish people. Today it would be considered very odd and offensive to explicitly track the percentage of Jewish applicants to a school by a question on the application form. The odious history of the "Jewish quota" in American higher education can be found in James Gleick's biography of Richard Feynman, [url=<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679747044/%5DGenius%5B/url">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679747044/]Genius[/url</a>], among other books.</p>
<p>I doubt it. There are some opportunities right out there such as Olin, the new engineering school. A big part of the allure is the name of the school. Brandeis was founded on the desire to get the top grade academics that Jewish families wanted, that the kids deserved and were not getting because of the quota. To this day, Brandeis is underrated because it does have the reputation of being a Jewish school, even though it is a fine college. Like it or not, a goodly part of being a top rate college is the diversity that a lot of people complain about.</p>
<p>An interesting quote from an editorial in the Boston Globe about a year ago:</p>
<p>"Brandeis used to be known as the Jewish Harvard. Now Harvard is the Jewish Harvard.</p>
<p>Yes to the extent that Brandeis is under rated it is due to top Jewish students having a lot more choices. When the Ivy's had formal or informal quotas on Jews there were a lot of very qualified kids with nowhere to go. Situation is analagous to the old Negro leagues in baseball. You couldn't have a Negro league today and even if you could it would have nowhere near the talent the old league had because there is no bar or quota on five tool guys in MLB. So if Brandeis and CCNY aren't quite what they used to be it is because the kids they used to get have a lot more choices.</p>
<p>As for the Yellow Peril it is going to very shortly be joined by the Hindu Peril. All people may be created equal but all cultures aren't. Talmudic scholarship, Confucism, and the Vedic tradition have long put a premium on scholarship and a reverence for learning and the teacher. It is no surprise that Jewish, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and Hindus should prosper in an academic meritocracy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Duskstamper, I don't disagree with you. My point is that it is not the fact their Asian that works against them....rather any minority group is unlikely to achieve a big % of the student body anywhere. Suppose hispanics were chart busters re: grades/board scores/etc. - can you imagine Tufts 45% hispanic? Even if they were the best candidates their will be a threshold they can not breach. Asian kids are just out of luck. And the more there are the worse it will be.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I apologize. </p>
<p>I think the best way is to simply get rid of that race box for college admissions. There's proof stating that some URMs might be better off at lesser colleges where students might learn at a slower and more personal pace. If you would like me to dig up some proof, I'll find it for y'all tomorrow. If college admissions did it for the Jews, then why not the Chinese/Japanese/Filipino/Hmonga, Pakistani/Indians/etc? It's basically the same situation.</p>
<p>It's not a question of diversity. The asian "tag" encompasses many different cultures; the Chinese culture is nothing like the muslim culture of pakistan or the hindu culture of india. </p>
<p>Creating "economic action" is out of the question too. Affirmative action pretty much helps upper middle class and middle class URMs. If economic action were implemented, then low income asians and whites would benefit the most.</p>
<p>Devaluating the SAT doesn't help either. Look at Berkeley's "Comprehensive Review", which lessened the importance of the SAT, made the SAT II more important (backdoor way to get more hispanics, as they tend to do well on the Spanish SAT II), and included factors like obstacles overcome and family income. Asian enrollment jumped from 40% to 45% in one year.</p>
<p>So just get rid of that race box and make America a true meritocracy.</p>
<p>If their was an upper ceiling and transparent quota for rich white folks, everything else would fall into place, or at least everyone would know what they were up against. As it is, in the "prestige" institutions, we've had a century of affirmative action for rich, mostly white folk. Make no mistake about it: that's what gave them their prestige.</p>
<p>
[quote]
From another perspective. At the few colleges, I've looked at, the acceptance rate for "Asian" applicants is roughly comparable to the acceptance rate for "white" for "undisclosed" applicants. Sometimes a little higher; sometimes a little lower. But, in the same ballpark.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Asians have it much harder than whites. </p>
<p>The percent of African American and Hispanic students in selective college freshman classes is often higher than the percent of applicants from that group, while the opposite is true of Asian Americans. In 2001, 20.3 percent of applicants to Brown University's class of 2005 were Asian American, but only 16 percent of the acceptances were. The percent of white applicants and acceptances was about the same, 66 percent, while African Americans comprised 9 percent of the acceptances and only 6 percent of the applicants, and Hispanics had 9 percent of the acceptances and only 7.1 percent of the applicants.</p>
<p>i.e. 14% for asians, 20% or higher for everyone else. </p>
<p>2/12/01 The Daily Pennsylvanian (<a href="http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com%5B/url%5D):">www.dailypennsylvanian.com):</a> Asian American applicants represent 31% of the 19,086 applicants for the University of Pennsylvania?s Class of 2005 but only about 23% of the acceptances. UPenn accepts Asian Americans at a lower rate than any other group.</p>
<p>Mini</p>
<p>Welcome to the next century. The one you refer to ended about 30 years ago. We're one third of the way into a new one !</p>
<p>In fact, isn't that actually what this discussion is about ?</p>
<p>"As it is, in the "prestige" institutions, we've had a century of affirmative action for rich, mostly white folk. Make no mistake about it: that's what gave them their prestige."</p>
<p>Spot on, Mini. And they maintain it by legacy, athletic and development emphasis. And note that much of Harvard athletics (<a href="http://gocrimson.collegesports.com/%5B/url%5D">http://gocrimson.collegesports.com/</a>) is for sports NOT found in typical urban HS. Crew? Lacrosse? Water Polo? Skiing? Squash? Sailing? Hint, hint - what kind of kids can afford to develop HS level skiing skills?</p>
<p>newmassdad: I certainly agree with your point, particularly about prep sports. Living in one of the prep capitols of the world, the Philly suburbs, and having put a couple of kids through the program, I can attest that from an early age lacrosse, squash, and crew are consciously viewed by parents and kids alike as a way to get in to the most desired schools, and it works even better for girls than it does for boys. Football, Baseball, too much talented competition, basketball, don't even go there, but the above plus sailing, water polo and field hockey produce the desired result at a high rate. Hence, the impressive rate of top school admission that these schools boast. Back out the prep sports recruits and legacies and the picture would be very different. One local academy got five into Princeton: two squash, a field hockey, a rower, and a legacy laxer.</p>
<p>"My prediction is that the U.S. will soon get a Saudi funded conservative Islamic college with a wide international AND American student body and that it will be very controversial. State? Maybe Michigan, New Jersey."</p>
<p>There was a story in NY Times about an Islamic scholar who is of Swiss citizenry who got a job teaching at (I don't remember, but I'd like say) George Washington University. He was not allowed to travel to the US once the State Department got a hold of some of his writings. He was supposedly conservative in many ways but also rebuking Islamic countries for their lack of direction in the need to reform from within. In any case, I thought he was pretty harmless but in this climate, he could not travel to the US. So a Saudi funded school in the US is likely to generate a lot of interest but I don't think it is happening, imho. Once I get a hold of that article, I can post it.</p>
<p>"Welcome to the next century. The one you refer to ended about 30 years ago. We're one third of the way into a new one !</p>
<p>In fact, isn't that actually what this discussion is about ?"</p>
<p>Sounds great. Let's make it a level playing field. Since the benefits of affirmative action for rich, mostly white folks accrued over a long period (you seem to agree), it probably makes sense, in the "new century" to level the playing field. Not affirmative action, just level the playing field, with a cap on those who have been the beneficiaries of AA for 100 years. Let it be transparent - make it clear that the admissions odds for a middle-income white person or Asian-American at Yale is about one out of 20. If folks knew that in advance, they'd be less likely to waste their time and money - hey, they're ending up going elsewhere anyway, right?</p>
<p>Here is an extract of that article (and it is University of Notre Dame):
"World Briefing | Europe: Switzerland: Barred Islamic Scholar Gives Up U.S. Teaching Post </p>
<p>By H</p>
<p>"So just get rid of that race box and make America a true meritocracy."</p>
<p>Some people feel the race box is still needed, to support affirmative action for those groups who remain underrepresented. They feel it is in the national interest to help fully enfranchise these other groups to the extent possible.</p>
<p>I think your main objective would be served by simply taking Asians out from being a separate box. Lump them in with caucasians.</p>
<p>This would make sense to me.</p>