<p>^^
Those adcoms must really be a bunch of incompetent fools; they even fail to use their bias to keep the overrepresentation low. </p>
<p>At least they seem to be slow learners.</p>
<p>“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>While I do not see things in groups or such right at first, I actually had a similar thought about our experience at 30 or so colleges and unis we visited over the last 5 years.
But my observation was more about how objective and balanced admissions efforts can be without a balanced representation of AdComm officers… given that these policies seem to be all about BALANCE.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Haha, good luck with getting an answer to that question. It must have been asked several dozens times by several members … without satisfaction.</p>
<p>There seems to be three ongoing threads here.</p>
<p>1) There is no racial bias against Asians in college admissions. This can very easily proven to be wrong, as the qualifications for URMs in general are far below that of Asians, which is clear from the UC experiment.</p>
<p>2) There is a racial bias, but it is right, in the name of AA. I buy this, but also believe that Asians who have never oppressed any URMs should not have to bear the brunt of the collective Caucasian guilt. Caucasians should instead bear the brunt.</p>
<p>3) There is not racial bias, but Asians in general are undeserving as they are all robots. If you take one, you have taken all, as they are all basically the same. In addition to the sameness, they are generally boring and such. This is a clearly racist position, not even worth responding to.</p>
<p>So the real debate is over #2.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They do keep the overrepresentation low. Compare the mid 40s percentage at CalTech and the UCs, and the mid teens in the Ivies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s quite simple. It is borne through collective experience, for one. For another, there have been comments from AdComs about how Asians are textureless math grinds. Finally, there has been many, many research papers that show the discrimination, but that will never be accepted as proof by the naysayers. Hence it is a futile pursuit. It’s like Global Warming or Evolution. If you don’t believe it, all the research will not convince you otherwise.</p>
<p>Anyway, take this article from Princeton, for example. Has a lot of good sources of academic research on this issue.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Pub_Minding%20the%20campus%20combined%20files.pdf[/url]”>http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Pub_Minding%20the%20campus%20combined%20files.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh . . . and you’re a little peculiar. This is a discussion that is generally fairly equitable with some interesting exchange of data and perspectives. I’m not an expert of the elite admissions. Just as you clearly are not. In fact, like most human social processes, it’s complex and opaque and those sitting at the decision tables probably aren’t even entirely sure of what exactly is going on. Perhaps that’s where we differ. You seem to have a somewhat exalted view of elite admissions. I think, like just about everything, it can evolve for the better and aspects of it are, indeed, laughable.</p>
<p>OT
I dunno. Authentic, genuineness seems more valuable to me (not that the goat-herder was not truly a goat-herder, but …), so if something unique turns out to be genuine about a candidate, so be it.
But there is sooo much emphasis on being “unique”… It has become a game. Yuh, there are so many darn qualified applicants, so many similar ones (how boring!).
But I just feel like it is becoming ridiculous. The AdComms seem almost naive about how this “uniqueness” thing is played.
This may or may not be related to race stereotypes and cultural practices. My point is merely that as individuals “boring” applicants can be excellent candidates.
I feel like some kids are “jumping the shark” to get noticed, rather than being themselves.
Anyway, this is my commentary on one aspect of the holistic admissions process that is getting out of hand, IMO.
Let each candidate stand for him/herself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>IP, I understand you arrived late to this thread, but it might be good to consider what has been said before. </p>
<p>Caltech among research universities and Harvey Mudd for LACs are and will always been outliers. There are a number of schools that are not relevant to using statistics to establish discrimination. You coud add the military academies to the list, Juilliard, Curtis, and perhaps religious schools. </p>
<p>The UC system cannot be compared to private research universities that recruit from a national pool. The UC system can only be compared to other public state universities. The impact of of local and regional draws and concentrations does not allow for valid comparisons.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In that case, there is nothing to worry about. Let’s pass a law saying that the private schools cannot consider race as a determinant, and let the chips fall where they may. You claim that nothing would change, so you should be supportive of this law, right?</p>
<p>
I assure you, this type of condescension is not going to convince anybody. If you believe that people have not taken a serious look at the evidence and wound up on both sides of the issue, I suggest you PM siserune and engage in a statistical debate on the objective studies.</p>
<p>Everybody has seen this evidence you bring up, including the Epenshade study which may have 50,000 posts dedicated to it on this message board.</p>
<p>Certainly some people may be stuck in their “fundamentalism” as Canuckguy refers to it. On both sides of the debate. But many people have also given serious thought and analysis to the available data and drawn differing conclusions.</p>
<p>By the way xiggi, Actually the UC system provides a perfect test bed for a social experiment. since controlled trials are hard to come by in social experiements, economists and political scientists love this kind of situation. Prior to Prop 209, the share of Asians was far lower. Unless you believe that Prop 209 coincided with a massive upskilling of Asian applicants, this simply meant that the bar was higher Asian applicants before 209.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>IP, what will not change are the … discussions on this forum. Debating this here ad nauseam is futile, as the fact that similar threads have popped up with regularity for many years on CC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think this thread is futile at all. I’ve learned a lot from it. Have thought about a number of issues that I otherwise would not have. Also, have been prompted into several IRL discussions with friends and family by this thread that have been very interesting.</p>
<p>I think the real value of this sort of discussion is to let people who don’t really agree with the status quo find out that they aren’t alone. That is quite valuable, actually. It also allows one to learn the details of the various arguments. Like any CC discussion it’s just stimulating and thought-provoking. Of course we won’t resolve the question here. I don’t think anyone expects that. I feel somewhat empowered to question the orthodoxy of racial preferences now. That in itself is quite valuable.</p>
<p>xiggi - cute story on goating herding, tuba blowing, basketball playing over achieving girl. I have read a lot about a couple of Nigerian origin basketball star sisters at Stanford (I dont think it mentioned goats though or the tuba) who were academically very competent too when leaving high school. </p>
<p>There is a thread out there aiming for 9001 posts. I don’t see why we cant aim for 10,000. </p>
<p>Performersmom - Here is my story to complete with Xiggi’s that is relevant to adcoms (may not be as well written since I am a drone but here it goes).</p>
<p>I was talking to someone who is a faculty member at a public dental school and is on their admission committee. There is only one or two faculty members that interview each candidate and bring it back to the complete committee for a vote. So the way the vote works is how strongly supportive the cadidate’s rep is at the meeting to convince enough people to vote for the candidate. He mentioned one member who always mumbled, was reading off of the file everyone already has a copy of and half the time no one was even sure if this member is in support or against the candidate. So the selection process was pretty much skewed towards candidates represented by people who had the best presentation and marketing skills at these committee meetings who could talk up their candidates. So going back to Fabrizzio’s doubts about the process, if someone is saying we have another robot here and there is no contradicting voice to that opinion is that the best process?</p>
<p>Another anecdote from the same dental school admissions committee- There was a lot of commotion in the admission committee saying we finally can admit an American Indian to show diversity (no vote because they never have anyone apply but finally they have a candidate). Someone on the committee instantly knew by looking at the name it was not an American Indian and the person just checked the wrong box. He had a toughtime convincing others but finally they called the candidate who confirmed she is Indian American who officially required the committee voting process!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>TPG, the Ogwumike sisters are for real. See [Stanford’s</a> Ogwumike sisters a powerful combination - SFGate](<a href=“http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-12-30/sports/26350826_1_stanford-s-ogwumike-nneka-ogwumike-chiney]Stanford’s”>http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-12-30/sports/26350826_1_stanford-s-ogwumike-nneka-ogwumike-chiney) </p>
<p>Fwiw, I was facetious about the story being mythical. People who have been here for a while will have easily recognized that the story was about the daughter of a CCC (College Confidential Celebrity) … namely Curmudgeon. With his daughter at Yale Medical School, he no longer shares his wisdom and humor on the “kiddies” forum, but you can find him on the grad forums. </p>
<p>The point that I was trying to make was that it is hard if not impossible to pinpoint why certain candidates are accepted or rejected. This also means that focusing on one single or even several attributes simply muddies the waters.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon’s daughter raises goats?</p>
<p>
It is [url=<a href=“Grutter v. Bollinger :: 539 U.S. 306 (2003) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center”>Grutter v. Bollinger :: 539 U.S. 306 (2003) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center]constitutional[/url</a>] for public schools.</p>
<p>
That challenge would require an amendment to the Constitution.</p>
<p>Nice to get a background on curmudgeon’s daughter. Are there really goats involved?</p>
<p>I believe there are a couple of more Ogwumike sisters headed to Stanford in the next few years to fulfill the family tradition. The younger one currently at Stanford was in the top 1% of her graduating class in her school which made her doubly qualified for Stanford, in both academics and sports.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/835804-post10.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/835804-post10.html</a></p>
<p>and</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/washington-university-st-louis/82930-chances.html?highlight=goat#post1070249[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/washington-university-st-louis/82930-chances.html?highlight=goat#post1070249</a></p>
<p>
</p>