are colleges racist?

[IndianParent]

<p>

I guess you’re stuck in that old-school, work = discrete tasks that have a specific predetermined answer, instead of the new world, where it’s about inventing new answers to questions that haven’t been asked.

</p>

<p>Not at all. But that’s is neither here nor there. </p>

<p>

Unexpected and unpredictable are two entirely different concepts. Nowhere has Candidate X been shown to be flighty, fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants, etc. For all you know, it takes tremendous discipline to raise goats.

</p>

<p>Read the note from the GC.</p>

<p>

“Has a quick and unpredicatable mind. You never know what he will come up with next.”

</p>

<p>I will not put someone like this in front of a client.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

Goat herders think out-of-the-box.</p>

<p>They invent new answers to questions that haven’t been asked.

</p>

<p>But someone who goes to Science Club doesn’t. After all, science is not about answering difficult questions creatively.</p>

[sewhappy]

<p>Don’t forget those man hole covers. Would that fall under “quirky” or “unpredictable” ?</p>

<p>Clearly, Candidate X has his bases covered. Clearly, Ivy material while Candidate Y is just not clever . . .</p>

<p>One of the endless Emperor’s New Clothes moments in the world of elite admissions.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>Well, frankly, neither candidate is better or worse. Schools need a blend of Candidate X’s and Candidate Y’s. So what’s the point?</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

Well, frankly, neither candidate is better or worse. Schools need a blend of Candidate X’s and Candidate Y’s. So what’s the point?

</p>

<p>Hunt, Can you please answer Pizzagirl’s question? I personally didn’t see the point of your question either. Thank you.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

Clearly, Candidate X has his bases covered. Clearly, Ivy material while Candidate Y is just not clever . . .</p>

<p>One of the endless Emperor’s New Clothes moments in the world of elite admissions.

</p>

<p>Here’s the trouble - the admissions folders are read by kids who then judge - based on gut feeling - who they like. Being the class clown wins points.</p>

[avatarmage]

<p>I feel it is highly unfair that colleges base their admission on race rather than economic background alone. There are many rich Africans at my school. Their parents are well educated. Yet they get into better schools because they are considered African American. This is unfair both to real African Americans and races that have a hard time getting in such as Asians.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

I feel it is highly unfair that colleges base their admission on race rather than economic background alone. There are many rich Africans at my school. Their parents are well educated. Yet they get into better schools because they are considered African American. This is unfair both to real African Americans and races that have a hard time getting in such as Asians.

</p>

<p>Even this I don’t fully agree with (though it is certainly better than using race). The cure to solving socioeconomic in inequity is additional investment, not forced distribution of available spots. I would rather have inner city schools and schools in poor areas get a lot more in Federal funding, than reserve spots for poor kids with sub-par academic qualifications. Prepare them to compete, don’t lower the entry bar for them just so they can fail later.</p>

[sewhappy]

<p>

I would rather have inner city schools and schools in poor areas get a lot more in Federal funding, than reserve spots for poor kids with sub-par academic qualifications. Prepare them to compete, don’t lower the entry bar for them just so they can fail later.

</p>

<p>Completely agree.</p>

[avatarmage]

<p>Yes but is not unfair that Africans are ‘cheating’ their way into college? Those spots are reserved for African Americans who have went through terrible ordeals. I know a few African Americans who spend morning and evening in tutorials to earn a high B. They have to take an hour and half bus ride each way. The Africans have their own cars and private tutors! How is this in any way fair?</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

For all you know, it takes tremendous discipline to raise goats.

</p>

<p>I once heard of a mythical tale of a young girl who spent much time raising goats in Central Texas. Although her town contained the word China, she did not seem to be Asian. She worked hard at raising the darn goats, but that did not stop her from excelling at school and besting most everyone in the rankings. It also did not stop her from spending many Fridays under the bright lights of a football field and play mean tunes on that gigantic tuba of hers. Her saturdays were reserved to the silly pursuit of the elusive perfect SAT and ACT, and again she “almost” made it, especially if you find a 35 ACT to be quite imperfect. And, did I mention that she was a key player of a basketball team that scared everyone in Texas on the way to a state championship. </p>

<p>She applied to many schools but her decision had to fit a restrictive financial profile. Yale liked her a lot but she made the hard decision to find her new haven in a city more known for raccoon hats than Nobel prize winners. She did, however, find her way to “weasel” herself back in the graces of the good folks at Yale, and one day will be known as Dr. Goat Herder! </p>

<p>Is there a point to this story? Not really, but there is question. How in the world do we DEFINE this amazing person in terms of admissions? Is it the goats? Is it the fact that she emerged from an area of the country that is … not that much into academics? Is it her academic prowess? Her athletic prowess? Or the fact that is she a genuinely nice person who survived being raised by one the most interesting characters you’ll ever meet? </p>

<p>The problem with all the discussions about admissions is that everyone seems to try to isolate the ULTIMATE reason behing admissions or rejections. Because of federal regulations, we do have “limited” access to some of the data, but hardly anything that resembles an application folder. For this reason, some try to isolate the impact of test scores and races. We can’t even rely on objective measures such as GPA because those animals come in all shapes and flavors! In the end, analyses (what some call research) are always partial and present results that are mostly irrelevant or entirely misleading. </p>

<p>Fwiw, this thread could go on for another 10,000 posts and nothing will change. Regardless on how many times some will describe a holistic review as being comprehensive, others will focus on one or more of the elements that are reviewed, and declare … VOILA, I made my case. Others would say wonder why this issue is still subject to debates as the facts are clear. Of course, without ever describing the facts in questions. </p>

<p>Perhaps one should consider to impose a deadline on this thread and call a truce. Perhaps a collective effort should be made to close all arguments on … July 4th.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

What on earth are you talking about with “their place”?
Look, anyone trying to get into elite colleges has two choices. They can say,
A) “There are only a handful of elite colleges that are worth going to - those that I’ve heard of, and everybody in my family has heard of. I’m going to concentrate there and only there, and dismiss everything else.”</p>

<p>Or they can say,
B) “There are a heck of a lot of fabulous places in the country to get a great education – I’m going to go off the beaten path, look into a couple that maybe I or my parents hadn’t heard of, and if it’s a place that might want the specific characteristics I could bring to the party, well, then so much the better!”</p>

<p>B is a smarter thinking process than A. That’s all there is to it.

</p>

<p>Why can’t Caucasians and URMs do the same and leave spots open for Asians in the top schools? Would you say the same to them?</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

Fwiw, this thread could go on for another 10,000 posts and nothing will change.

</p>

<p>I agree. Things will change only when Asians either get political power, or become massive donors to the elite schools, or both.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

Here’s the trouble - the admissions folders are read by kids who then judge - based on gut feeling - who they like. Being the class clown wins points.

</p>

<p>I hope you realize that those are the same kids who have contributed to the massive overrepresentation of Asians at the most selective schools. Or do you assume that those kids exhibited better judgment in the past, and only became agents of racism and discrimination in a more recent past?</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

Yes but is not unfair that Africans are ‘cheating’ their way into college? Those spots are reserved for African Americans who have went through terrible ordeals. I know a few African Americans who spend morning and evening in tutorials to earn a high B. They have to take an hour and half bus ride each way. The Africans have their own cars and private tutors! How is this in any way fair?

</p>

<p>I am far less worried about the undeserving getting a spot than the deserving missing out on a spot. In the long run, only the deserving will succeed. Unfortunately, the spot itself often is the distinguishing factor between deserving and undeserving (regardless of what Pizzagirl claims). In other words, I am OK with a thousand guilty go free, than one innocent be thrown to the penitentiary.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>

I say the essay topic “is not enough to go by” meaning it’s not enough to really judge the effectiveness of the essay, and receive a fervent lecture from Epiphany on how the essay isn’t everything!

</p>

<p>^ Vintage sewhappy.</p>

<p>Here’s a hint: Then say what you actually mean. You didn’t say that. You merely implied that an unusual essay should not be enough to “go on,” leading your readers to believe that the essay itself is an over-large element in admissions decision-making. Not for colleges outside U of Chicago, is it.</p>

<p>But yeah, you’ve been “doing this for just so many years,” that you really do understand the way admissions works, proportionally speaking. (Right.) Instead, what you have shown in all of your posts that you actually believe that (1) admissions mostly depends on anything but intellectual ability/academic accomplishment; (2) The elite colleges are far more concerned with interesting/ weird/ goofy/underperforming (non-mainstream) candidates than filling their own institutional needs. Despite your claims that you read the announcement on Yale’s admissions webpage, you apparently don’t actually believe them.</p>

<p>Every bleepin’ course in the restaurant is a ‘pastry tray’ for every elite college in this land. If you really think they’re going to pass up the Filet Mignon because the hamburger “looks more interesting,” then you don’t even believe what you read on college webpages.</p>

<p>But don’t confuse you with the facts; facts are dismissed as “lecture.” </p>

<p>You’re in love with your myths. That’s your agenda here.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

I hope you realize that those are the same kids who have contributed to the massive overrepresentation of Asians at the most selective schools. Or do you assume that those kids exhibited better judgment in the past, and only became agents of racism and discrimination in a more recent past?

</p>

<p>Massive overrepresentation is despite the admissions bias, not because of it.</p>

[performersmom]

<p>“Most stereotypes – of ANYONE – have a kernel of truth behind them.”</p>

<p>Let’s be careful with this type of thinking, Pizzagirl.</p>

<p>This is a slippery slope to groupist clustering, and to presumptions about candidates, in my mind very dangerous in situations like hiring and college admissions.</p>

<p>Even if a stereotype has even an iota of basis in truth, individuals are unique, and societies like ours are designed to be blessedly fluid and open. So let the generalizations go. The candidate will be whoever he or she is. Freedom from such assumptions would seem fairest to me… Judge the candidate for him/her unique combination of qualities. Not in relation to any stereotypes related to some aspects of them.</p>

<p>You have to understand that holistic admissions does not necessarily prevent racial discrimination. Cultural, ethnic, racial, gender stereotypes are funny in movies, but really not funny in practices like these.
Get rid of the racial boxes!</p>

[limabeans01]

<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>Am I missing something? Aren’t the Asian %'s at the top UC’s one of the “things” that are used to show that there is discrimination at the elites? </p>

<p>Can someone please explain to me WHY Asian’s believe they are being discriminated at elite colleges?</p>

<p>UC is heavily Asian because it is a heavily Asian state? What part of 13% Asian (pop) and 44% of applicant pool seems normal to you? </p>

<p>Few people care about the UC’s? Come on Pizza, UCBerekly and UCLA are international household names. That statement was just kind of silly.</p>

<p>CA is just another state, ROFL! Not that I think it is “better” (well maybe I do) than any other state it certainly can’t be classified as just another state. The elite colleges sure seem to get a lot of their students from CA, I wonder why?</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>Very well said performersmom!</p>