<p>Hunt - I suspect lot of people may have already moved to Idaho. Timbuktu quota might be still open though!</p>
<p>Don’t personally know about Idaho, but do know that some people have moved to Kansas and Nebraska to advantage themselves better.</p>
<p>Hunt, texaspg and epiphany, we messed up our children’s chances for Harvard years ago by thoughtlessly graduating from college, choosing to live in a nice suburb with excellent public schools, by providing a stable, middle class family life, by not having any legacy to an elite college, by not insisting they conduct or publish any original research, and by not insisting on jazz tap in second grade. We’ve been bad, bad parents.</p>
<p>Written with a smile.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you, “collegealum314”!</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>Plenty of families that fit the above profile have children who “made” it at Harvard. But then, so did Amy Chua’s daughter. </p>
<p>Not everybody spends a lifetime micromanaging the development of future HYPS students. Or obsessing about punching the tickets to unending riches.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And why should the “reasons” why affirmative action exists be listed in this thread?<br>
Isn’t this “debate” about the racism and discrimination Asians suffer in college admissions?</p>
<p>eastcoascrazy - I am in the same boat living in Texas and having done all of the same things as you did. I was somewhat kidding about Idaho but from what I have heard, a lot of people have moved from California and Oregon to Idaho (I would n’t suggest that they planned ahead for HYPS though). The only action I was able to take to improve our kids’ chances (could mess them up completely if they don’t perform) was to move to the center of the city from the safety of the suburbs to get into one of well known public schools that feeds the elite colleges. A pitfall is that the high school is so fiercely competitive that you automatically lose your chance at a state flagship (top 10%) with a few Bs in the AP classes. I do know a lot of parents who regret sending their kids there because those kids could have been in the top 1% in another school and now they can’t get into University of Texas.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, you said that “Affirmative Action in admissions is still desperately needed.” sm74 asked you to expound on that, and I too am curious to read your answer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am very much in favor of these kinds of summers, and it pretty much describes my S. There are plenty of kids who did this plus other amazing things they pursued without regard to college admissions. My Ds didn’t seriously pursue their EC interests until 9th and 10th grade, and doing so had nothing to do with college. They were not even interested in the elites at the time.</p>
<p>Fabrizio, nice try. I do not see any need to “expound” on my statement. It is what it is. Oh, and feel free to offer your commentary on why I ignore the (repeated) question. It will probably be along the lines …See, he cannot justify his position. Be my guest!</p>
<p>The reality is that I see no reason to waste a few keystrokes on explaining my statement, let alone on trying to convince people who have expressed their position on AA quite clearly. A position that calls for the abolishment of affirmative action based on … principles.</p>
<p>If I remember correctly, sewhappy’s S was from an underrepresented state. I don’t recall which one.</p>
<p>^I suspect the kid’s perfect scores played a bigger role.</p>
<p>No doubt about it; but it could explain why sewhappy’s S got in and Jian Li didn’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Answering with a smile… :)</p>
<p>One of the problems with some of the assumptions about students who are attractive to colleges is that the parents were responsible for the decisions about activities. In many cases (our family’s, for example), it was the students who even suggested/initiated the activities. I had nothing to do with it (except to agree that it was OK, given cost & location). I do know that there are parents who “manage” their children – make their decisions for them, or heavily persuade them, shall we say – but an awful lot of “unprogrammed” students get into elite universities. Ditto for those living in suburban areas with comfortable incomes, no Ivy legacies, and engaging in traditional student activities. Nevertheless, it is true that given two “equal” students, academically and activity-wise, the one whose income is signficantly compromised will have a slight advantage, theoretically, over the one who is “comfortable.” </p>
<p>The problem is that, again, there is no single measurement of evaluation. There are so many measurements and so much to put together about any single student that overwhelmingly the student who is more persuasive from academic and e.c. credentials combined, is the one who is ‘advantaged’ to be admitted, versus one less accomplished, regardless of residence, income, personal origin, and everything else. The ones who are clear choices merely tend to be the ones who ‘have it all,’ especially versus applicants from their own senior class, but additionally are economically challenged and not geographically over-represented.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I’m sure you can justify your position; you just haven’t.</p>
<p>For whatever reason, you feel like you have a right to expect others to expound on their positions while for you, “I do not see any need to ‘expound’ on my statement. It is what it is.”</p>
<p>xiggi–the master of the double standard!</p>
<p>fab,
It seemed like earlier in this thread you were hanging your hat on post-Prop 209 UC admissions activity as evidence of discrimination against Asians, but now that siserune has obliterated that theory, it appears you are using the Inside Higher Ed article as your prime evidence. Does that sum up your position accurately?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Doubtful! As I often written, only the people who have access to an entire class of applicants AND are part of the decision making DO know why someone is accepted or rejected. All of us who look from the outside are left to speculating about various elements of the applications. </p>
<p>No matter how much we try to identify patterns, our efforts will be futile, especially when dealing with a number of anecdotes. Yes, yes, this is the time to repeat that data is not the plural of anecdote! Joking set aside, while we can express surprise when a brilliant young man such as Silverturtle fails to convince HYPS that he should be admitted, the reality is that we do not know how he framed his perfect 2400/36 scores and academic excellence. I think he would be the first one to admit HE has no idea why some schools did not admit him and others such as Brown rolled out the admit mat. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that WE do not know, but the adcoms do know why they had to make final choices that exclude a stellar candidate. </p>
<p>For what it is worth, one ought to wonder what could have happened if Silverturtle was … Asian as opposed to be White and Hispanic. How long would it have taken for his case to be the new CC Jian Li? How long for him to be defined solely on the basis of his race, and OTHERS (he would not do it) to claim discrimination? </p>
<p>Just saying!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“everyone should know their rightful place in society”? You sound like a true master!</p>
<p>So the immigrants should just appreciate the better life you ALLOW them to have and stay quiet and timid? They are not supposed to pop up at forums like this and argue with masters like you on a topic that involves their interests? Unbelievable. This long thread has been passionate, and heated at times (nothing wrong with that), but no one has sunken so low. </p>
<p>BTW, by rightful place, I am sure you don’t mean our respective original continents.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No double standard at all, Fabrizio. </p>
<p>I did NOT come here to write an expose on AA. I did not come here to convince people that AA is still needed. I made a comment, and I am perfectly happy if people consider such comment to be lacking in substance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please reread what I wrote in post #2184: “I am not saying that the increase proves that discrimination against Asians occurred.”</p>
<p>As I told Hunt, if you aren’t going to read my posts, which you already admitted to previously due to their length, then why discuss with me?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The next part of what I wrote in #2184 was “…Rather, given that there was no proof of discrimination pre-209 at UCLA’s graduate math department, and assuming that this lack of discrimination was true throughout all the UCs, why didn’t the percentage of Asians stay the same after 209? Why did it rise and stay there?”</p>
<p>siserune’s response was demographic changes. In other words, the rise would’ve happened anyway. Despite our differences in the past, I found his explanation to be quite plausible. We’d need to know how how quickly the Asian and white populations grew in California during that time, but again, the answer is reasonable.</p>
<p>siserune observes that the ratio of Asian to white admission rates didn’t change between 1997 and 1998. It didn’t. You apparently interpret that as “obliterating” something I never said in post #2184. Well, your choice.</p>
<p>As for your insinuating that I am “now using” an Inside Higher Ed article, I first referred to it article in post #1934, which predates my post #2184. I have no problems discussing with you, but if you don’t want to read my posts, then don’t discuss with me.</p>