<p>I think what would be interesting is to see accepted Asian students’ stats vs each school’s common data.</p>
<p>You’d need to see applicant pool data too.</p>
<p>Which is why the UC examples are simply irrelevant to elite private discussions. The applicant pool to the UCs is heavily Asian because it is a heavily Asian state, which is not the case for the majority of elite colleges. Besides, this will come as a shock to Californians, but few people outside the state really care how you run the UCs. You’re just another state.</p>
<p>Hunt
Thank you for bring this up.
“One of the brightest students I’ve ever taught. Works very hard and is always well-prepared. Excellent writer." And, you could add “shy and quiet but very well respected by his/her peers”.</p>
<p>I have been thinking about this for a while.</p>
<p>There are two pieces of information (most) applicants do not see.
Teacher’s Rec and GC’s Rec.</p>
<p>Is it possible that teachers or GCs unconsciously stereotyping Asian students.</p>
<p>Also, are there many Asian admission officers at top colleges? I am just curious.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So in other words…you’re supporting racial preferences for Asians? Serious question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What makes you think your kids wouldn’t meet “us” if racial preferences weren’t used?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s a hard decision that’s not at all obvious; I don’t know. Do I think their thought process would be different if they didn’t know the racial classifications (compared to if they did)? Yeah. And that’s the thing for me; you shouldn’t admit Candidate Y because you think being a “URM” is a hook. You should admit him because he’s an excellent writer in addition to being strong in math/science. And the reverse is true; you shouldn’t admit Candidate X because you think being a “URM” is a hook. You should admit him because he’s high-scoring and “quick and unpredictable.”</p>
<p>The voters who passed civil rights initiatives in California, Washington, Michigan, Nebraska, and Arizona? They’re fine with kids getting admitted because they’re high-scoring and “quick and unpredictable.” They’re just not fine with kids getting admitted because there might not be “enough” whites / blacks / Latinos / Asians at school X.</p>
<p>fabrizio, that thought experiment has nothing to do with URMs. But you knew that.</p>
<p>And one additional note: if colleges stopped asking for ethnic identify on the application forms, how would anybody know if they were discriminating or not? Or would you still like to have statistics on the ethnic makeup of classes?</p>
<p>20more - Interesting question about adcoms. I have been attending local presentations (since I live in a major city pretty much most well known colleges show up every year) for the past three years and have been to about 13 of the top 25 colleges so far.</p>
<p>I don’t remember coming across a single Asian adcom (may be one or two at MIT but they might have been just student helpers). Since most of the people who become adcoms as a stepping stone to other professions like law or business (marketing?) right at their alma maters just after finishing college and tend to be liberal art majors, does it point back to Asian bent for STEM majors for the lack of Asian adcoms?</p>
<p>“Which is why I’m never fully convinced by the “but they benefit the son of two black physicians in Greenwich” argument.”</p>
<p>Of course, he will go to a top prep school in Connecticut with Amy Chua’s daughter but needs to be admitted for being African American and not merit because he wrote an essay about how horrible life was having to compete with Amy Chua’s daugther?</p>
<p>
It is possible. It is also possible that for cultural reasons there are a lot of hard-working studious Asian kids who are shy and quiet–you could add “polite,” probably. This is not the same as being “featureless,” exactly, but if schools are looking for “quirky” or “innovative” or “thinking out of the box,” then if you come from a cultural group that doesn’t particularly value those traits, you may be put at a disadvantage. I know some kids who are “quirky” in terms of their personalities, but it wouldn’t come through on their resumes, because their activities are all quite standard–because that’s what their parents want them to do. Are those parents wrong? That depends on what they are trying to accomplish.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So your point was…what, exactly? That decisions aren’t easy? Yeah, they aren’t. That doesn’t mean you need to consider racial classification.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How can you discriminate on the basis of racial classification if you DO NOT CONSIDER racial classification?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is this culture group exactly?</p>
<p>
It is my observation that Chinese parents, especially those who are immigrant parents who are professionals, impose a substantial degree of conformity on their kids when it comes to studies and activities. I’m sure there are some–many, even–who don’t do that. But different groups have different cultural norms, and there are sometimes problems when people from one group are judged by people from another group.
I’m amazed that you are such a trusting person. It would be quite easy. How did Harvard discriminate against Jews? You think it is hard to find out somebody’s ethnicity just because it isn’t noted on a form?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good question. From [url=<a href=“Getting In | The New Yorker”>Getting In | The New Yorker]Gladwell[/url</a>],</p>
<p>“Starting in the fall of 1922,” Karabel writes, “applicants were required to answer questions on ‘Race and Color,’ ‘Religious Preference,’ ‘Maiden Name of Mother,’ ‘Birthplace of Father,’ and ‘What change, if any, has been made since birth in your own name or that of your father? (Explain fully).’”</p>
<p>Gee, with questions like RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE, how could they not have discriminated against Jews?</p>
<p>Oh, and this:
My point was that colleges applying “holistic” criteria will look at all sorts of things, including whether you raise goats or not. They may value have some goatherds over having another violinist or even another very high-scoring math/science person. If you come from a demographic that doesn’t include many goatherds, this may affect your admission chances.</p>
<p>Have it your way, fabrizio–racial discrimination will disappear if you just change the box on the forms. Would you really stop looking at the stats then? What if Espenshade did a study of schools that had eliminated the box, and found the same disparities? What would that mean to you? That even more insidious discrimination is going on, or that there was never any discrimination in the first place?</p>
<p>Fabrizio:
</p>
<p>This is usually where I part company with my Libertarian friends. Not only does everyone get to keep their tax money, but, government loses its ability to leverage public works, affordable safety nets for people who can’t work, and in the case of discrimination – even monitor whether discrimination is occurring. About the only thing it could do is pay for the Defense Dept. Ron Paul is a very charming man, but, I wouldn’t want him as President.</p>
<p>texaspg
“I don’t remember coming across a single Asian adcom”</p>
<p>I had similar experiences. I toured about 10-13 (top) colleges and I saw one Asian admission officer at Swarthmore.</p>
<p>High number of Asian audiences but no Asian admission officer.
Most of the admission officers were Whites but they seemed to have good number of African American or Hispanic admission officers though.</p>
<p>Hunt
“But different groups have different cultural norms, and there are sometimes problems when people from one group are judged by people from another group.”
I think that is a really good point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that is fine! You can look at “all sorts of things.” There’s no problem with that. But you don’t HAVE to look at racial classification to build a well-rounded and yes, DIVERSE class.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s very possible that there was never any discrimination in the first place if he found “the same disparities.” I’ve told you multiple times now, I’m fine with FEWER Asians being admitted under a race-blind system. You can reject an Asian applicant because you already have too many students who are STEM violinists from California. Fine. But I don’t want to be reading comments like “yet another Asian…” or “I don’t want another boring Asian.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you believe that the Chinese as a group, especially those who are immigrants, does not value innovation and “thinking out of the box”? </p>
<p>And I believe this kind of thinking is not uncommon, uneven among members on the adcoms, such as Marilee Jones. If they think that certain culture group, like the Chinese, do not value innovation (i.e. robot-like), any wonder such a group would be discriminated against in admissions? And rightfully so in their mind.</p>
<p>Slightly higher scores for admitted Asians alone cannot be viewed as discrimination against them in college admissions. Asians value education so much that their scores should be higher regardless. If a college thinks anyone with a SAT score of 1950 can do the job and graduate, then an average of 2200 for one group and 2100 for another makes no difference. Other factors come into play.</p>
<p>The same argument can be made for Jews and students from elite private feeder schools. I suspect that all scores and other measures among the three groups are similar. If there is any difference in admission rate, then that may have something to do with ones ability to pay tuition and make donations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which do I think they’d take? Well, probably Candidate Y. Which would I take? Probably Candidate X.</p>
<p>They would assume that Candidate X is boring, of course, and that Candidate Y is “quirky” and “lively”, etc. </p>
<p>Cynical me would suspect that Candidate Y has a college admissions consultant or parent obsessed with CC who helped with the crafting of the application, interjected the man hole covers and goat farming touches for that element of surprise and fun.</p>
<p>Seriously, though, I’d look carefully at the courses taken. If one of them paced themselves, took AP stats rather than calc or AP environmental science v. Chem, that sort of thing then I’d treat the equivalent 4.0 gpa’s differently.</p>
<p>Finally, I think just the topic of the essays is not enough to go on. Was the lab internship in dad’s lab at the local U or was it through some sort of competitively selected program? Is there a letter from the internship supervisor about the kid? Was there a publication. And as for raising the goat, well, I guess if the essay is uproariously hilarious or emotional then okay, but generally I’d say that kid was very schooled in how to “stand out”. </p>
<p>Last, I’d say candidate Y upon his rejection or deferment from the Ivy League will go to Caltech or Harvey Mudd or Colorado College of Mines and end up earning an excellent living, and possibly participating in a biotech start-up that goes on to become Genentech or Amgen, or going on to medical school at Harvard and running the FDA some day. Or probably just become extremely well-educated in the physical sciences and pursue a fruitful though not spectacular career – and give generously to his alma mater. </p>
<p>Candidate X will make obscure and quirky documentary films or teach English overseas for a few years, probably kick around at internships in the arts or nonprofit social support organizations, try to get published, maybe freelance for an online magazine. If there’s family money, it will be fine and s/he will have quite a pleasant life. If not, then s/he is likely to go on for an MBA or law degree, accrue a lot of debt and then hope the economy picks up so s/he can eventually get a job with a retirement plan.</p>
<p>The Ivy League is producing a lot of Candidate X’s these days. In the old days they came from families with money. Not so much today. It will be interesting to see how this impacts the perception of the Ivy pedigree in a generation or so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I were the head of a midwestern LAC that offered an excellent education but for some reason was not terribly appealing to Asian-American students, and I found myself lagging behind my peers on the amount of diversity on my campus, and that in turn hampered my ability to compete with other top colleges, sure, I might then go make special efforts to court Asian-American students – make sure I hit up California on my tours, make sure I offered specific welcoming programs for Asian accepted students, ensured that I had clubs and student associations that were culturally relevant, and so forth. And I might say, all else being equal, if I have a choice between yet another midwestern white kid and a Californian Asian kid, then maybe I want to preference the Californian Asian kid. Why wouldn’t I?</p>
<p>Here’s the dirty little secret - there probably already ARE places that are doing that. What do you think Vanderbilt did with Jewish students a few years back? They explicitly courted Jewish students from the Northeast. Not that Jewish students aren’t well represented in elite schools - but Vandy felt they were at a disadvantage relative to their peers in terms of getting them because there wasn’t a critical mass.</p>
<p>So why wouldn’t I, as the hypothetical head of a good midwestern LAC, consider doing the same?</p>