<p>
</p>
<p>It is a common interview question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, actions speak louder than words when it comes to admission policies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right, because heaven forbid you just go to college and learn about a bunch of new things and see what paths are out there you’ve never even heard of. Better to have it all sewn up at age 17 when you’re applying to schools. </p>
<p>BTW, IndianParent, sorry I snapped, but I didn’t call YOUR kid a textureless grind. I said that parents who try to orchestrate their kids into only-being-the-very-bestest-in-a-limited-set-of-competencies produce textureless grinds. I never said anything about your parenting or your kid, whom I’m sure is a wonderful young man.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why didn’t you include the part that says “it is possible that the influence of one applicant characteristic or another might appear in a different light if we had the full range of materials.”</p>
<p>
Espenshade’s study is pretty convincing that at least in 1997, asians and whites were treated differently by the 3 elite schools. Though it cannot be mathematically proven, without the missing “softer” factors. </p>
<p>But I find it very strange that you, of all people, would demand for smoking gun or proof of discrimination by the elite schools. Haven’t you informed us on this forum that you not only assume to know that Harvard and its peers do in fact discriminate, but also assume to know their reasons? Wasn’t it your view that Harvard and its peers don’t want to turn themselves into UCs of today and that asians are greedy, stingy misers (i.e. modern day Shylocks) so Harvard et al. have to be on guard?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Apology accepted, and no worries. I would prefer to keep this discussion impersonal and about whether Asians are discriminated against in college applications. The moment we veer into judgments about individual choices the discussion is likely to get ugly. I prefer to respect all others’ preferences in life, as long as they are not breaking the law or infringing on my rights. </p>
<p>Anyway, back on topic, should someone know at 17 what they want to do for the rest of their life? Most don’t, and if they prefer to skip the top schools, that’s their prerogative. But some do, and I don’t think it is right to criticize their choice either.</p>
<p>However, if it is not reasonable for a 17 year old to know that, why do colleges ask that and discriminate based on the answer?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have to say something here. Asians indeed are not very giving when it comes to donating to academic institutions. I urge - nay, beg - my Asian friends to open their purse strings to give as much as possible to academic and political institutions. We are buying our kids’ futures here. But most decline, which is unfortunate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It makes sense, but there are always exceptions to the rule. For instance, there are students who opted for a different path by selecting a less prestigious school (for the benefit of either a STRONGER education or a more viable financial plan) and then doing really well at their undergraduate schools. At least well enough to secure an entrance ticket at one of our most prestigious graduate schools. I wrote about the Rhodes graduate who went to Yale Med School despite passing on Yale for UG. You could find similar stories among the Smith College graduates who went on or will go on to earn PhD at Princeton and Cal. Incidentally, one of the Smith graduate was one of the handful of students being admitted in the Econ PhD program this year. Search for Mini and TheDad; they posted quite a bit of details about their D’s years at Smith and more recent successes. </p>
<p>All in all, while the UG institution does play a role, I happen to think that the individual performance, character, and dedication easily trumps the prestige of the earlier schools.</p>
<p>You know something? I WILL say that I think it’s possible that otherwise well-meaning people, who would never countenance outward discrimination, who would never not be welcoming or accommodating of people from other backgrounds, might indeed hold stereotypes about Asian-Americans and therefore might disregard sort of the “classic” profile as being “textureless grind” when without that name, they might have seen the student in a different light. I think it is possible – but it’s hard to say it’s systemic in any way, when so many Asian-Americans DO wind up at elite schools. If they’re discriminating against them, they sure have a funny way of showing it.</p>
<p>And, I think it’s also possible that individual members of an adcom, while well-meaning, may have their own biases. What was the book about Wesleyan’s admit process? (Forget the name) The one adcom member was from a disadvantaged background and he was likely “prejudiced in favor of” kids who had similar hard-luck stories. Another might be “prejudiced” in favor of kids who really perform well in athletic endeavors, yet another might discount those endeavors. Another might be “prejudiced” against boarding school kids, thinking them all rich preppies, while yet another might have gone to boarding school and really respects the independence & maturity it takes to live away. One hopes (ironically) that there is sufficient diversity in the adcom room – both in terms of lived experience and self-examination of unconscious bias – that it all washes out. But how is this different from any other endeavor? When I hire, I’m sure I have unconscious biases – I’m sure we all do, no matter how well-meaning we are. What’s the way around it – pure scores? I don’t know any other way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I happen to think that individual performance, character, dedication, and a top UG school beats individual performance, character, dedication, and a lower ranked school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pure objectivity. This is the system I prefer.</p>
<p>1) the selection criteria are well defined and objectively measurable as much as possible
2) the selection criteria are public, so that people can prepare to meet them
3) the selection criteria strictly adheres to the 14th Amendment, and periodically audited</p>
<p>I don’t really care how much of the weighting is towards academics vs. athletics vs. arts EC vs. leadership vs. …</p>
<p>I only care about a objective criteria that is open to the public.</p>
<p>Now, I understand that such a system can be gamed through preparation, preparation, and then some more preparation. This will disadvantage some cultures (note that I didn’t say races) and advantage other cultures. But that is OK according to the 14th Amendment, as people can switch cultures. They can’t switch races.</p>
<p>It will make college admissions more like athletics admissions, actually. Which no one complains about, even though it ends in a huge percentage of URMs in the athletic team. Similarly, using my criteria, Asian students and prep school students may have a huge advantage over anyone else in the mix of non-athletes. But no one should complain, just as they don’t complain about the athletic teams’ compositions today.</p>
<p>
I guarantee that the Sixth Circuit’s decision will not be “appealed.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You know what that indicates? Asian kids are not textureless grinds. It is just an excuse to eliminate any excess once the quota is reached. The problem is with the quota, not the texture.</p>
<p>In a perfect world, I could agree with you.
But the high school educational world that is available in this country is so varied, that there really isn’t a way to equalize. For example, how can you possibly compare the # of AP courses taken by Worthington Witherspoon at his very affluent school that offers all kinds of exotic courses versus the # of courses taken by a kid in a failing public school that might not ever offer calculus?<br>
And you’d wind up penalizing people for factors far outside their control – you know, you can only stay after school to edit the student newspaper if you don’t have to go home after school and babysit your younger siblings so your single mother can go off to her second shift as a waitress to put food on your table. You can only play water polo if you go to a (relative) handful of schools that offer that as a sport. You can only play competitive tennis if you have the luxury of an at-home parent who can chauffeur you hither and yon for lessons and can fly with you to competitions elsewhere in the country. Rural areas don’t offer the opportunities urban ones do, or they offer different opportunities. Does that feel right to you, to reduce them all to numbers? How did you pick your spouse - did you objectively evaluate her on measurable criteria, or was there just an indefinable spark?</p>
<p>And I’m curious - is the fact that Asian students and prep school students will have a huge advantage over anyone else something that in general, you think is desirable? Is that a bug or a feature?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In certain fields, perhaps. In most fields, no, it’s performance and no one looks at where you went to school. Honest. It’s pretty clear you’re also on one of the Coasts. There are other parts of the country, too, and they don’t all have the same norms. There’s no place in Texas you can’t get with a UT degree, and there are few places in Illinois you can’t get with a U of Illinois degree.</p>
<p>@IndianParent</p>
<p>That is the worst idea I has ever read.</p>
<p>
Except College Station. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a story for another day.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Neither. It just is. Do I like the income inequality in the USA? Of course not. But do I also like free trade capitalism? Of course. So sometimes I have to hold my nose and come to terms with reality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I fully agree. But all the examples you gave have absolutely nothing to do with race. Many Asian kids come from extremely poor families and have very low opportunity. If you want to include an adjustment factor for underprivileged kids, go ahead and do it. I am all for it, though I am far more interested in higher taxes for the rich and more EITC, more AFDC, more job training at the lower rungs of society, and more money for underprivileged schools. </p>
<p>But please, when it comes to the adjustment factor, let it definitely be not based on race as that is really against the founding principles of this country and the Constitution, and also hopefully not based on what someone wants to study (passion is passion even if you don’t like it or think there is too much of it), or whether their essays are “interesting” (to whom?).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I stand corrected. However, in my sphere, pedigree is super important when it comes to the immediate next job, or the immediate next school.</p>
<p>Xiggi. lol Where did you dig up the old junior year “chance” me thread on goat-girl? That must have been before the switch-over? That is really rather embarassing to see. And , we’ve still got some of those dang goats. Hmmmm. Maybe I should haul them up To New Haven. </p>
<p>As to how her actual college app looked, using the wisdom of many CC’ers, she carefully honed her app to present herself as what one cc’er dubbed “Ellie Mae Jabbar”. </p>
<p>And yeah, folks. It was all true. I’m not smart enough to lie. </p>
<p>Nice to see ya, xig.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tell me more.</p>