<p>Why would that be “nice”? I thought that a high admissions rate for URMs was a bad thing, since they were being unduly favored at the expense of others.</p>
<p>
This is beyond my pay grade, but I think that most of the admission directors around the country will be able to produce a class that a school want with the holistics process. For example, recruiting can be a significant part of it. If anybody doubts about this, see what WashU admission has done. In the SF Bays area where Stanford is located, there are consistent rumors among Asian communities that it is tougher for Asian kids to get into it. People working for Stanford even perpetuates the rumors. Stanford never dispells those and as a results, many of the Asian kids instead of going early with Stanford choose some of the East Elites first.</p>
<p>It is NICE if you are Hispanic to have a 20% admit rate at a school with 6.4% admit rate.</p>
<p>Pardon me if I’m missing something, but I think the numbers that Professor is looking at only add up to 91%. Where did the other 9% go?</p>
<p>No matter which way you look at it, there seem to be about 1,000 students unaccounted for (due to International, race unknown, mixed, and MIA). That’s about 15% of the student body. Certainly some of them are Asian - either because they are from Asia (international - didn’t I read that 50% are from China?) or race unknown (a good possibility that half of them are Asian).</p>
<p>If the 23% figure is correct, then I do not understand what Professor is upset about, because it is only a couple of percentage points off his “ideal” profile for Stanford.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Regarding “mixed race:” Keep in mind that the US population is 330 million (last time I checked), so while the mixed race identification is certainly increasing, it is still a tiny percentage of the overall US population. (.54% ??)</p>
<p>Bay - The discussion seems to be about the reclassification of students in the data set which only show 16-18% Asians vs 23% in the fact sheet. There is some kind of new rules that classify students differently in datasets.</p>
<p>If I am not mistaken, Professor is saying Stanford underadmitted Asians last year while Xiggi says they just changed classification of some of them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Recruiting. Anyway, I know that as soon as I throw some numbers there, people will get excited. We are at Post #2123 and without some oxygen, the thread will die.</p>
<p>PG’s hypothesis was that what is the applicant pool is only 2% Hispanic (that translates to 700 out of 35k). Current classifications seem to indicate 14% Hispanics at Stanford which gives over 200 students. So if we assume the numbers to be accurate as PG suggested, they have actual student population of 200 out of 700 applicants.</p>
<p>Theoretically, they would have admitted 250+ students since the yield is around 70+ percent.</p>
<p>^^^
Yes, I deleted my post because I realized I was responding to the wrong statistic. I have no idea if those stats are correct or not, but if they are as you say that’s correct… Actually, better than 20%.</p>
<p>Reading over, I get the impression PG was saying “what if” not saying, “this is how it is.” But my post is off base regardless.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I see that. But under the reclassified version, there are still 1,041 students who are not tagged as any race, and that is still 15%. If half of them are Asian, then even under the smaller accounting, 23.5% are Asian. Am I right?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the third time, minimum, on this thread that you have assumed some objective ability to ascertain who is “winning” the argument or “prevailing,” or what is “working” (or not). How would you know that? Have you asked all the contributors and all the lurkers how they feel about this discussion? How would you identify the invisible readers of this thread and their private opinions which they have not shared with you?</p>
<p>For you, it is “not working.” Wow, we never would have known that.</p>
<p>As to the ‘nastiness,’ or perceived supposed ‘nastiness’ of the supporters of holistic admissions versus those who believe they have a private superior way of admissions (which incidentally each one of them has refused to share with the rest of the debaters, although challenged to), we have been accused over and over, for 142 pages, of assumed ‘anti-Asian’ bias. The colleges and universities which are the subject of cutthroat attempts at admission by the very people who excoriate them, have been accused of “racism,” read it, racism, by the detractors of current policies. I don’t know anyone who rationalizes that as “being nice.” I sure don’t. It’s pretty insidious. And I’ll say again, that it is difficult to prove a negative. (Prove that you are not a Communist sympathizer.)</p>
<p>The OP opened the thread with frankly an incendiary question. It was up to that OP and to all who agree with such an incendiary assumption, to prove it. So far, judging from the discussion – not judging from some invisible poll somewhere or my own private opinion – the contributing opponents of that suggestion remain unconvinced that the original question has been answered affirmatively.</p>
<p>In order to establish credibility, it’s important to have integrity. If the elite colleges of this land are such revoltingly racist places, so “unfair” and so “unjust,” I wouldn’t be caught dead allowing a single student I know even to apply there, let alone enroll. Anyone who is so morally on their high horse that they believe they are morally superior to such institutions, you should be demonstrating that supposed superior morality by not associating with them. Always, the most effective thing consumers can do is to vote with their feet. Apparently there is not enough moral conviction in this country rising to the level of boycotting the elite institutions in the land, or the world would see it in the form of reduced numbers of applications.</p>
<p>So this whole ‘righteous indignation’ trip just smells phony. It does not have the air of genuine moral conviction whatsoever. </p>
<p>I have certainly known plenty of minorities in my lifetime who have refused to patronize businesses whose policies such minorities, believe --or have experienced --discriminate against them. Get some spine and stop supporting with tuition payments, then, these supposed bastions of shockingly Draconian racism.</p>
<p>Adding that:</p>
<p>If half of the race-unaccounted-for students in texaspg’s figures are Asian, then Stanford is actually 30.5% Asian. Am I right?</p>
<p>Now I understand why Professor wants this thread to die.</p>
<p>It appears that even fabrizio has left the building. ;)</p>
<p>It seems like a lot of people left the building.</p>
<p>30more</p>
<p>Many of you all seem very well-informed on the topic of how race affects college admissions; therefore, I was hoping that some of you all would please respond to my posts on page 4 of this thread: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/1162764-how-disadvantaged-asians-4.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/1162764-how-disadvantaged-asians-4.html</a>
I am not trying to complain or incite any anger over this topic. I am actually quite curious as to what a reasonable explanation for some of my observations might be. I personally cannot fathom a logical explanation other than clear racially-motivated discrimination.</p>
<p>I left the building and went to a graduation party of a kid leaving the rat race in US and going abroad to do 6 year medicine directly after high school. It actually sounded a lot cheaper compared to going to college for 8 years in US.</p>
<p>Bay - If you give 30% to Asians at Stanford, they won’t complain on CC for a few years!</p>
<p>Bovertine - PG is asking if it would be right to admit 25% Hispanics if they ended up being only 2% of applicants (as you say, a hypothetical on her part). My view is that were the case now based on current admits, i.e., only two percent of the applicants are hispanic, they should be very happy to get that kind of admit rate. So I applied PG’s whatif question and applied it to the current hispanic percentage to arrive at the high admit percentage. If you bumped it to 25% hispanics with 700 applicants, they will need to admit 550 (2200 total admits before yield) out of 700!</p>
<p>
Would you reevaluate your opinion if I told you that at my kids’ school, Asian kids did better than equally qualified white kids in terms of getting admission to top Ivies this past year? If that wouldn’t persuade you, why would your example persuade me?</p>
<p>The real answer is that if you go read the results threads for Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, you will be amazed at the qualifications of kids of all races who are rejected and waitlisted.</p>
<p>silverturtle does break the stereotype that whites would be preferred over Asians at HYPS, despite his perfect scores and being number 1 in his school class.</p>
<p>Awwwww hell.</p>