are colleges racist?

[mokusatsu]

<p>

In my system, any non-URM kid would know that (s)he is competing for 1500 slots instead of 2000, and the selection criteria is completely objective. (S)he will download the criteria, and prepare hard from 1st grade to meet it.

</p>

<p>

I would like a clear criteria with objective scores that would be used to measure my kid. No more or less. I will download that criteria and make sure that my kid cracks it - by putting in as much effort and getting as much help needed.

What happens if the selection criteria are changed (to a different set of objective criteria) when the kid is in the 11th grade?</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

Where I come from, “sweeping” means 100%. When you sweep a competition it means you win all the spots.</p>

<p>It certainly means you get the very top scores.

</p>

<p>OK, pardon my English then. It is after all my third language.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

32,000 applicants at Harvard and URM might get 500 spots? What if 2,000 fight for those 500 spots while the other 30,000 fight for the remaining 1,500 spots. Not sure how Asians would like THAT system anymore than the current one.

</p>

<p>Can’t speak for Asians but I would like it.</p>

<p>

As far as an Asian sweep, how comfortable are you with your expectations of academic superiority? Are so sure that Asians would do universally better than the white cohort? What if the Jewish students happen to have better subscores?

</p>

<p>Nothing like a healthy competition! If Asians don’t have merit they don’t deserve to be at the Elite Us.</p>

<p>

Last but no least, how quickly do you think you would run out of all those superior Asians when filling the spots at the top 20 universities (and I assume top 10 LACs.) How quickly would the top asians scorers find themselves … just better than average, and facing a competition that is three or five times more numerous?

</p>

<p>Top Asians wouldn’t find themselves just better than average. Mediocre Asians would.</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

OK, pardon my English then. It is after all my third language.

I’m certain we’re all duly impressed.</p>

<p>If you’re going to brag in a language, I’d be certain I used it correctly.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

What happens if the selection criteria are changed (to a different set of objective criteria) when the kid is in the 11th grade?

</p>

<p>Would be very unfair. You have to give at least a 6 year notice for change of criteria.</p>

[performersmom]

<p>Yes, texas re #3260- avoiding trophy-hunting helps AdComms raise yields i.e. predictability in constructing classes, and also gives more applicants the opportunity to attend the schools they want/are qualified for. This would really help cut the tendency by applicants to each send in more and more applications each year as the selectivity goes up, creating a horrific cycle. and overwhelming the AdComms, to boot.
I actually really like this type of system.</p>

<p>The big caveat, a la binding early admissions, is that HS kids are not all uniformly ready to select a favorite school at the same time- sophistication (knowledge about colleges and the admission process) is somewhat discriminatory. Different families and different HS GC’s have vastly different levels of knowledge. Also, it does beg the important question of how FA would be handled…</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

I’m certain we’re all duly impressed.

</p>

<p>Sorry. :-)</p>

<p>Just couldn’t resist it.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

LINK TO INTEL </p>

<p>26 out of the 40 finalists are Asian. Which means 65% Asian.

</p>

<p>Did you really use Intel as an example of a criterion that should be … objective? </p>

<p>If we needed to give a prize to the most subjective competition, Intel would win hands down. This is a competition that rewards the tools and the mentors much more than the truly talented. It is a rigged competition that should be **barred from playing ANY role **in admissions, and this despite that the overwhelming reason why participants enter this competition is to gain an advantage in admissions, especially through the semi-finalist round which is filled with paint-the-right-numbers “scientists.” </p>

<p>Fwiw, if Intel had to delay its announcements until the admission cycles had closed, the participation would plummet.</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

Did you really use Intel as an example of a proposal that should be … objective?

I actually mentioned O’Dorney first because of his high scores in USAMO - he just happened to also win Intel.</p>

<p>To be fair, I believe Asians are well represented in both Intel and USAMO.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

Did you really use Intel as an example of a criterion that should be … objective?

</p>

<p>No, bovertine did. I was merely responding.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>USAMO, 7 out of 12 are Asians.</p>

<p>[USA</a> Mathematical Olympiad: 2009 USAMO Winners](<a href=“News | Mathematical Association of America”>http://www.maa.org/news/051209usamo.html)</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

Top Asians wouldn’t find themselves just better than average. Mediocre Asians would.

</p>

<p>That is not what I meant! To be clear, I believe that the number of “Top Asians” is grossly exaggerated. Just as I believe that the numbers of “Top Asians” that fail to be admitted at a top school are immensely exaggerated.</p>

<p>And, fwiw, mediocre Asians are just that … mediocre Asians. It is incredibly obnoxious to pretend that they would compete with better than average students from other races. I do understand that Indians, Koreans, and ABCs tend to adopt such positions, but a quick look at the distribution of test scores might reveal a different picture. Hint: take a look at the left side of the graphs!</p>

<p>

1000 Asians
500-600 URMs
400-500 Caucasians</p>

<p>Out of a total class of 2000.</p>

<p>In other words, 50% of the incoming class will be Asian, which is like the UCs. I think 50% Asian is the steady state level for the top schools when measured by merit.</p>

<p>Caucasians wouldn’t like this at all.

</p>

<p>I really think you should build that into a model and fill the blanks for the top 25 universities and 10 top LACs. </p>

<p>I think the results would surprise you.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

To be clear, I believe that the number of “Top Asians” is grossly exaggerated. Just as I believe that the numbers of “Top Asians” that fail to be admitted at a top school are immensely exaggerated.

</p>

<p>Well, let’s change the system and find out then. If Caucasians and URMs have nothing to lose, why is there so much resistance?</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

I actually mentioned O’Dorney first because of his high scores in USAMO - he just happened to also win Intel.

</p>

<p>Yes, and O’Dorney represents such an iconic departure from what this competition has turned into. The real story of the Intel is written on the New Jersey train to SUNY and by the fact that this is a competition among adults (mostly insiders) that masquerades as a youth competition.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

Well, let’s change the system and find out then. If Caucasians and URMs have nothing to lose, why is there so much resistance?

</p>

<p>Because the current system is probably the most equitable one could develop at a private university.</p>

[limabeans01]

<p>

In other words, 50% of the incoming class will be Asian, which is like the UCs. I think 50% Asian is the steady state level for the top schools when measured by merit.

</p>

<p>UC Berkeley and UCLA only accept 25% of the Asians that apply. The incoming class is only largely Asian because they apply to the UC’s in such high numbers (and don’t apply to the many other top universities like whites).</p>

<p>You need to get over yourself IP and your superior race idea; someone else had that idea once and it didn’t work out too well.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

I really think you should build that into a model and fill the blanks for the top 25 universities and 10 top LACs.

</p>

<p>As long as it holds for HYPSM I think Asians will be happy.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>As I said, the result might be surprising. Here are a few numbers for a couple of years go. There were 686,678 applications and 145,611 admissions (21% overall rate.) Do you really think you’d find more than 72,000 “top Asians” to fill all your claimed spots? Fwiw, what do you think is the median score of Asian number 72.000 on the SAT in 2011? </p>

<p>Rank 2010 Schools Total Applications Total Admittances Admittance %
1 Harvard University<em>(MA) 29,114 2,175 7%
1 Princeton University</em>(NJ) 21,963 2,209 10%
3 Yale University(CT) 26,003 1,958 8%
4 California Institute of Technology 4,413 674 15%
4 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 15,663 1,676 11%
4 Stanford University(CA) 30,429 2,426 8%
4 University of Pennsylvania 22,808 4,040 18%
8 Columbia University(NY) 25,427 2,501 10%
8 University of Chicago 13,564 3,708 27%
10 Duke University(NC) 22,280 4,219 19%
11 Dartmouth College(NH) 18,132 2,279 13%
12 Northwestern University(IL) 25,013 6,552 26%
12 Washington University in St. Louis 23,105 5,082 22%
14 Johns Hopkins University(MD) 16,122 4,308 27%
15 Cornell University(NY) 34,371 6,565 19%
16 Brown University(RI) 24,988 2,790 11%
17 Emory University(GA) 15,599 4,627 30%
17 Rice University(TX) 11,172 2,495 22%
17 Vanderbilt University(TN) 19,353 3,899 20%
20 University of Notre Dame(IN) 14,387 4,113 29%
21 University of California—Berkeley * 48,650 10,561 22%
22 Carnegie Mellon University¶ 14,153 5,132 36%
23 Georgetown University(DC) 18,616 3,682 20%
24 University of California—Los Angeles * 55,708 12,179 22%
24 University of Virginia * 21,108 6,768 32%
26 University of Southern California 35,753 8,724 24%
27 University of Michigan—Ann Arbor * 29,965 14,970 50%
28 Tufts University(MA) 15,042 3,995 27%
28 University of North Carolina—Chapel Hill * 23,224 7,345 32%
28 Wake Forest University(NC) 10,553 3,959 38%
TOTAL 686,678 145,611 21%</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

UC Berkeley and UCLA only accept 25% of the Asians that apply. The incoming class is only largely Asian because they apply to the UC’s in such high numbers (and don’t apply to the many other top universities like whites).</p>

<p>You need to get over yourself IP and your superior race idea; someone else had that idea once and it didn’t work out too well.

</p>

<p>I absolutely don’t believe in the superior race idea. Asian kids are not smarter in any way than the average American kid. They are just driven like driving is going out style by their parents. Success is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration. Always has, will always be. If non-Asians parents started to drive their kids like Asian parents do, the achievement gap would be gone in a moment.</p>

<p>Why do second and third generation Asians in general do relatively poorly compared to the first? That’s because second and third generations have parents who are more assimilated and don’t push their kids as much as they themselves were pushed. Now, this is not to say that pushing is good, or bad. Right, wrong, indifferent, pushing produces results.</p>

<p>Athletic coaches, ballet dancers, and piano teachers have known this all along.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

UC Berkeley and UCLA only accept 25% of the Asians that apply.

</p>

<p>Your point being? Since 2006, 25% is basically the average acceptance rate at Berkeley. Moreover, the average rate among whites is also around 25%. Go back to UC Statfinder and input the following: “Fall applicants, fall admits, fall enrollees, admit rate, yield rate for fall applicants, first-time freshmen who were California residents by ethnicity: 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, Berkeley.”</p>

<p>You’ll see that I didn’t make the numbers up.</p>

<p>

The incoming class is only largely Asian because they apply to the UC’s in such high numbers (and don’t apply to the many other top universities like whites).

</p>

<p>A large Asian applicant pool alone cannot explain why the incoming classes are largely Asian. What if most of the Asians have weak applications?</p>