Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

"Race" in College Applications FAQ & Discussion 12


Replies to: "Race" in College Applications FAQ & Discussion 12

  • SAYSAY Registered User Posts: 935 Member
    Here is Cal Tech

    White 274 27%
    Asian 454 45%
    Underrepresented Minority * 156 16%
    International 83 8%
    Two or More Races ** 32 3%
    Unknown 2 1%
  • OnceOnThisIslandOnceOnThisIsland Registered User Posts: 8 New Member
    @SAY Affirmative Action isn't the number one reason that Caltech's demographics are the way they are. The University of Georgia did away with AA at some point before 2001, and that school is 9% Asian and 12% URM. UofM, UT, U of Arizona, and U of Florida all did away with AA at one point or another, and none of those schools have demographics that match Caltech's. Location is a huge factor as well. Caltech draws heavily from CA. Programs of study is another big factor. Witness MIT's latest freshman profile (32% Asian) vs any Ivy league school.
  • Ali1302Ali1302 Registered User Posts: 293 Junior Member
    edited January 2016
    @SAY Please refrain from describing your opinions as facts or that you claim to know how university admissions works. Keep your ignorant views to yourself especially when such accusations aren't met with sufficient evidence they are worthless, baseless conjecture.

    I've already had this debate with you previously especially on the topic of UCLA and UC Berkeley. Now you've changed the discussion to Caltech. Asians are overrepresented not only because of test scores or GPA. The overrepresentation of Asians is mainly due to demographics since 38% to +40% of applicants to Caltech are Asian then I'm not surprised by this overrepresentation or feel that this should equal Asian entitlement to university places.

    Demographically speaking Asians make up 12%-15% of the population in California and around 35%-40% of applicants to top schools there. Whites are actually more demographically represented as top highschool students but apply at a much lower rate in comparison to Asians. This proves demographics is the main reason for Asian overrepresentation not simply merit. in fact, interms of test scores and GPA there's hardly any difference between Whites and Asians that would result in any major or even minor Asian advantage in admission.

    Actually, in terms of merit Whites are underrepresented since they get test scores equally as good as Asians but only make up 27%-30% of students at these universities. Again, the main reason here is demographics since White aplicants only make up 26% of applicants they can only end up making around 30% of the entering class max. The main causes of overrepresentation in all universities is mainly attributed to demographics than merit, When it comes to college representation demographics is the major factor.

  • SAYSAY Registered User Posts: 935 Member
    edited January 2016
    Ali I wish you the best but a knowledgable discussion of this topic requires an understand of statistics that you have not yet studied. ThisIsland there are a number of reasons for the mix of Cal Techs entering class but the lack of AA is a major reason as compared to say Stanford. The other schools you mention are not elite schools and are state schools with much lower tuition for in state students and therefore are not relevant in this discussion.
  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 11,660 Senior Member
    You're putting words in my mouth.

    In which of my posts did I argue hooks don't exist, openly or otherwise?

    When did I compare the relative importance of athletic hooks and being URM?

    SAY I know you claim to be a parent but you really, really post like a high school student.
  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 11,660 Senior Member
    The other schools you mention are not elite schools and are state schools with much lower tuition for in state students and therefore are not relevant in this discussion.

    Last I checked UCLA/UC Berkeley and UMich were elite state schools in states without AA.

    Why are they not relevant?
  • SAYSAY Registered User Posts: 935 Member
    edited January 2016
    OHMom UCLA and UCB both are over 40% Asian but were not the schools mentioned by Island. All are fine schools but none have elite admissions comparable to the top schools. Your have confused yourself because you have clearly stated a few posts ago that being a URM is not a significant hook at the elite colleges. No serious person believes such nonsense. The information has been widely disseminated and is not a personal opinion. My argument with your posts is not about the use of AA but rather the fact that I think the posts should be accurate so it can help new readers to learn about how elite college admission really works. This is the only way they can prepare their optimum personal strategy for admission.




    https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/webAdmission Preferences Espenshade Chung Walling Dec 2004.pdf

    If you're African American and from a lower-class background, you're 1,087 percent more likely to be admitted to an elite U.S. college than a white applicant from a lower-class background.
    "Elite universities give added weight in admission decisions to applicants who have SAT scores above 1500, are African American, or are recruited athletes,” this Princeton University study found. “A smaller, but still important, preference is shown to Hispanic students and to children of alumni." The study found that the likelihood of admittance for lower-class African Americans is 87 percent, compared to 8 percent for lower-class whites. But, Moyer says, “it's not because we all feel bad,” it's because colleges consider racial diversity an asset to the entire study body. The odds of second-generation Hispanic students being admitted to elite colleges "are almost three times as high as they are for comparable white applicants," add the researchers.
    Thomas Espenshade and Radford, Alexandria Walton with Chang Young Chung. No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009, p. 128.

  • Ali1302Ali1302 Registered User Posts: 293 Junior Member
    edited January 2016
    @SAY You offer no counter to my argument other than stating I don't know how statistics works??? Well I'll counter by stating you don't know how demographics or statistics works.'

    You mention UC Berkeley and UCLA even though I state clearly the reason is demographics. Asians make up 38%-40% of applicants to UC Berkeley and 30%-35% of applicants to UCLA. The overrepresentation is expected purely do to demographics NOT merit. Please stop ignoring and address this point.

    You post three news articles and an old outdated Princeton study as proof that no one can argue against your point, can't you see how ignorant that is?

    The first article is based off of the opinions of certain Asian students as well as refers to the Princeton study. I'm not even going to bother discussing it because it shows rather irrelevant anecdotal evidence

    The second article you post really doesn't prove anything it actually supports my point that there is hardly any difference between Asians and Whites on test scores. The university of Wisconsin Madison has Asian students get in with a 1370 and Whites with a 1340. That's a 30 point difference in scores? Do you know how trivial this is in the scope of admissions given that GPA, AP scores, extracurriculars are considered? In this case there is no valid reasons for Asians to even have a minute advantage over white applicants.

    The third article is completely irrelevant to the topic discussed and lists factors that may increase your admissions chances. There is no mention of being a URM. it actually states that African migrants have a better chance of admission than African Americans mainly because they tend to get much higher test scores and GPA.

    Now to the Princeton study that you reference here and come up with this absurd conclusion that URM are over 1000% more likely to be admitted. By the way the study is from 2004, already a reason to be skeptical but I'm sure there's some useful data here. First, lets look at the number of applicants of each race according to the study there were 60,620 White applicants, there were 28,754 Asian applicants, there were 6,906 Hispanic applicants and finally 6,618 African American applicants, I'm going to ignore the others in this case. This means Whites make up 48.7% of all applicants, Asians make up 23.1% of all applicants, Hispanics make up 5.6% of all applicants and African Americans making up 5.3% of applicants. Although the data is relatively outdated it clearly shows that the proportions are similar to the admitted profile that is 52.5% White, 19.35% Asian, 8.24% African American, 7.02% Hispanic. A relatively small overrepresentation of Whites, Hispanics and African Americans from the applicant. While Asians have a small underrepresentation from the original 23% of the applicant pool at 19.3%

    Again when you look at differences in SAT scores between Whites and Asians they are trivial with White applicants scoring a 1347 and Asians a 1363. That is a trivial difference of 16 points? Again, there is no valid reason as to why Asians should have an advantage over Whites because of test scores at all. In fact, since White applicants outnumber Asian applicants, the Asian applicants should be at a disadvantage both in terms of merit and demographically speaking. Therefore, if Asians are less likely to be admitted than Whites that is to be expected given the number and test scores of White applicants.

    The study is also flawed in that it seems to control admissions rate with SAT scores only and ignores many other subjective factors in the admissions process. Yes, it does show the advantage of recruited athletes and legacies but doesn't show what percentage of URMs or whites or Asians fall into these categories of applicants. The study also completely ignores socioeconomic factors in university admissions such as income or first generation student status and bases its whole conclusion purely off of SAT scores.

    Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying that ivies don't give URMs a boost in admission but this advantage is grossly exaggerated. When you take into account what percentage of Underrepresented minorities are recruited athletes, low income applicants or first generation applicants than the advantage is quite small. Ignoring these factors isn't adding to this study's validity nor does the fact that data from the 1990's is referenced here.

    My conclusion is that this study is flawed in its attempt to demonstrate a so called major racial advantage. The White advantage over Asians would be expected given the relatively similar scores that Whites have and their demographic advantage. The African American boost in admissions could also be the result of socioeconomic factors, the fact that most are recruited athletes or first generation applicants, even with this advantage African Americans and Hispanics are only slightly overrepresented from their original applicant pools. Finally this data is very outdated and is back when Princeton had a +20%admit rate which was probably in the 90s, it is completely irrelevant to the super selective Ivy league schools of today that may have different admissions processes and more importantly data.

    You only prove how ignorant you are when you dismiss others points and only seek to spread this faulty irrelevant data on the topic of race and admission. I have to ask what is your stake in this argument? Are you one of those Asians that happened to be rejected from Harvard and do you use this forum as a form of emotional release of all that anger you have against these institutions? This isn't the first time I've argued with paranoid Asians that blame institutions for their problems and claim some form of entitlement.

  • Ali1302Ali1302 Registered User Posts: 293 Junior Member
    @OnceOnThisIsland Don't waste your time with @SAY he's delusional beyond comprehension. He ignores all data and any logical point made against him that are contrary to his race rules admissions belief. There is little point in arguing with ignorant individuals on this forum who clearly have an agenda in this case the Anti-minority, Pro-Asian bandwagon with the belief that Asians are entitled to all top university places.
  • OnceOnThisIslandOnceOnThisIsland Registered User Posts: 8 New Member
    @SAY UMich is ranked 29th. NINE spots below Berkeley. How is that not elite?? And don't *all* public colleges have lower tuition for in-state students lol?
  • SAYSAY Registered User Posts: 935 Member
    ThisIsland Univ of Mich is a very fine school. But for the purposes of CC it doesn't qualify in most people's mind because the admission rate is around 50%. The elite college admission game is mostly limited to just a 2-3 dozen schools with admission rates under 20%. The most elite schools have rates near or under 10%. This is where the real competition exists. If a HS student has strong grades and scores they will almost always be admitted to the schools ranked 20-30th. UVA is probably he most elite public college especially for an OOS student. UCLA and UCB have high standards for many students but because of holistic admissions they dramatically lower the standards for some students. The real lowering of the standards however occurs in the way they handle transfer students. UCLA and UCB are awarding thousands of degrees to students that have SAT scores 300-500 points below what is required for standard admission for non-hooked students. Keep in mind Ali above is a HS student. You can evaluate her interesting understanding of statistics for yourself.
  • websensationwebsensation Registered User Posts: 1,627 Senior Member
    edited January 2016
    Is the question asking the applicant the race with which he identifies most, or is the question asking what is the predominant racial makeup of the applicant? What if I have 25% Native American blood and 75% Asian blood? Can I put down Native American, especially if I identify with Native American culture more? What if you don't know exactly the makeup of your race? Can you decide not to check this section? Personally, I think they should do away with this question.
  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 11,660 Senior Member
    @websensation - you can put both or one of them (or don't answer the question at all), but in the case of Native American, you may get follow-up questions as that is one race that seems to require some "proof" - many colleges want to know tribal ID/membership.
  • GMTplus7GMTplus7 Registered User Posts: 14,567 Senior Member
    Is the question asking the applicant the race with which he identifies most, or is the question asking what is the predominant racial makeup of the applicant?

    What if I have 25% Native American blood and 75% Asian blood? Can I put down Native American, especially if I identify with Native American culture more?
    Yes, if you're registered with a tribe

    What if you don't know exactly the makeup of your race? Can you decide not to check this section?
  • DavidVazquezDavidVazquez Registered User Posts: 1 New Member
    My mom is half black, half Asian and my dad is white. Would I check off just white; white, African-American, and Asian; or white and African-American because that would give me an advantage? My mom only checked off African-American when she was applying to college, but I feel like for me this is unfairly gaming the system, since I've never dealt with the racial discrimination that black people (like my mom) have dealt with.
Sign In or Register to comment.