<p>If Caltech and MIT being more open in admissions and being almost solely STEM fields are not getting to 40% Asian yet, I don’t believe being completely open at HYPS will take them beyond 25-30% range. I suspect that might be an actual upper threshold expectation after deducting for athletics, legacies, and URMs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL, IP, is that the result of a poll of … one. While I cannot talk about “Asians” in general, I think that a few years on CC allows me to state that the term prestige is a perennial favorite of posters in College Search forum, and is often associated with the perception of Asians. </p>
<p>And, I am not certain that an obsessive focus on career prospects post graduation is more appealing than the focus on prestige, especially since both elements are hopelessly intertwined as they both reflect the vision that prestigious schools are the best path for social and financial gains. This is the same vision that puts added pressure to select majors that shine on payscale, and a noticeable disdain for professions that are not “that” lucrative.</p>
<p>I really think that hanging around this forum for a while might open your eyes to a different form of reality. I (really) hope that you stick around when your kid goes through the process and discover the many stories of all kind of applicants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I cannot wait to read more about your perception of Asians, in addition to the part that their “cultural definition of cheating is slightly different”.</p>
<p>You have accused me of “creative writing” in paraphrasing one of your posts. I asked you to explain how I misinterpreted you statements, but got no response.</p>
<p>So I respectfully ask you once more, specifically how and which part of [my</a> paraphrasing](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12869919-post2844.html]my”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12869919-post2844.html) misinterpreted [your</a> post](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12330695-post442.html]your”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12330695-post442.html)?</p>
<p>Here is your post:
[quote=xiggi]
Even we could look beyond the fact that there is hardly ANY comparison possible between the UC system and the Ivy League, as they could not have a more different raison d’</p>
<p>I think it’s possible that AdComms are unintentionally a little bit racist (Avenue Q anyone? [YouTube</a> - Avenue Q - Everyone’s A Little Bit Racist West End Live](<a href=“Avenue Q - Everyone's A Little Bit Racist West End Live - YouTube”>Avenue Q - Everyone's A Little Bit Racist West End Live - YouTube)), but I don’t think it’s as egregious as some on this thread think, and I think it’s also quite possible that they aren’t a bit racist and it’s the various other factors that have been mentioned (legacy, athletics, balancing probable majors) that make the difference. </p>
<p>Another factor that hasn’t been mentioned (that I can remember anyway!) is that it could be racism (conscious or unconscious) on the part of the high school teachers. Perhaps the Asian students are getting recommendations that say they are “hard working and diligent” and white students are getting recommendations saying they are “creative and brilliant”.</p>
<p>My younger son for example probably got a boost from the recommendation from his math teacher which said he had a better understanding of math than some of the kids in his class who did better on tests because they were better at memorizing formulas.</p>
<h1>2603</h1>
<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.
Teachers Rec and GCs 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>Exactly. And why do we have to go to someplace for 4 years then? We may stay home and access to all courses from any college, but many of us may not understand the materials.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There won’t be much prestige left at HYPSM in that case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I cannot help racist perceptions. I form my opinion about Asians based on the hundreds of Asians that I know. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps you feel that Asians should think and act in a way that is appealing to you? LOL.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, I always knew that there are many racists in the USA. I didn’t need to come to CC to know that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really!? So prestige, after all, is all about career after graduation? Who would have thought that? I thought prestige had to do with the quality of the education and the quality of the students. Xiggi told me so. You think he is wrong?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this may very well be true, but I still don’t understand why one is better than the other. Incidentally, I am not creative, brilliant, diligent, or hardworking, but I seem to be doing fine in the US corporate world.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>CalTech has exceeded 40%. MIT hasn’t, as MIT still tries considers diversity as a big factor in forming the incoming class. Less than Harvard, but far, far more than CalTech.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This was a very good article. But it misses a point. Krugman’s return argument that yes, Obama could have cut spending, but that would have had disastrous results is not an argument against that Obama could have cut spending. That’s a fact. In other words, there may be very good reasons for Obama to not cut spending, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that he definitely had the ability to cut spending. In a shift from the debate over ability, the new debate is whether the reasons are good or bad. </p>
<p>I personally think the reasons are good. But I have never, ever tried to convince a Republican that they are good. There is no point, as they believe the reasons are bad, and that’s a subjective decision. You can’t argue that.</p>
<p>Similarly, many here claim that colleges are not racist, but they are forced to take decisions that end up in the same place as a racist one. They also claim that the rationale for the decisions that colleges make are good. I agree on many fronts, for example, colleges have to think about donations that keep the lights on, and Asians in general do not give as much to their colleges as Caucasians do. Some I don’t buy, for example colleges need to have some goatherders and not all brainiacs. The point, though, is that it is futile to debate the validity of the colleges choices. It’s a subjective matter.</p>
<p>What can we say as a fact? Well, colleges make decisions that end up in a position that looks no different than a racial quota system. Does this make the colleges racist? May be not, but it is absolutely in the colleges’ collective power to abolish a system the result of which is equivalent to a racial quota. </p>
<p>From that perspective, colleges are racist indeed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ROFL! Try to reconcile the two positions and you will have a good chuckle.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hood rats, huh? Worthy, I suppose, of the extermination due to rats everywhere, woeishe?:rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, rats. -iregretnothing-</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Remember this doggerel of mine from the past?</p>
<p>*Maintaining power is the aim;
divide and conquer is my game.
*</p>
<p>I dont know. This whole thread reminds me, and I dont know why, of this conversation
from a Father Brown story:</p>
<p>* Where does a wise man hide a pebble?</p>
<p>And the tall man answered in a low voice: on the beach.</p>
<p>The small man nodded, and after a short silence said: Where does a wise man hide a leaf?.</p>
<p>And the other answered: In the forest.*</p>
<p>At a later point:</p>
<p>Where does a wise man hide a leaf? In the forest. But what does he do if there is no forest? He grows a forest to hide it in . A fearful sin.</p>
<p>And still later:</p>
<p>*If there were no forest, he would make a forest. And if he wished to hide a dead leaf, he would make a dead forest.</p>
<p>And if a man had to hide a dead body, he would make a field of dead bodies to hide it in.
*</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe this is one area where differences among “Asians” become more significant than differences in parenting style. I’m fairly familiar with Chinese culture (I speak the language and lived in Chinese-speaking areas for several years); less so with Japanese culture; hardly familiar at all with Indian. I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say that Chinese people in general care very deeply about prestige (or “face”). I agree with xiggi that many posts on CC bear evidence to this. </p>
<p>There are a very few institutions that are even more *exclusive<a href=“more%20selective”>/i</a> than HYPSM, or at least on a very nearly equal footing. Deep Springs College comes to mind. WUSTL, Harvey Mudd, and Swarthmore are slightly more selective than Stanford, or, again, in about the same ballpark. These schools don’t seem to attract nearly the same interest among Asians on CC as HYPSM. Harvey Mudd has an Asian enrollment of about 20%, which is fairly high, but then it is a California school focusing on STEM subjects. Swarthmore’s Asian enrollment is ~15% (more or less in line with other very selective schools). WUSTL does not publish a CDS; Deep Springs is too tiny for the numbers even to be meaningful but I’d be astonished if they are getting many Asian applicants.</p>
<p>As for career/earnings prospects, Harvey Mudd alumni (if you believe the payscale.com data) have the highest mid-career median salaries in the country; Dartmouth (not Harvard) is #2. Stanford is #7 (behind Colgate University, which has an Asian enrollment of about 3%). </p>
<p>If you value the career/earnings prospects post-graduation, but not prestige, why do you repeatedly single out HYPSM as the gold standard? Why aren’t Asians beating down the doors to Colgate University?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think there are other schools where a 4.0 is even harder to get than at Harvard, Yale, or Stanford. Go for the kid who got a 4.0 at Cooper Union, Olin, Chicago, or Swarthmore. Or Reed College, which is notoriously “hard”, educates more future PhDs per capita than any of the Ivies (or anywhere else but CalTech and Harvey Mudd) … and has an Asian enrollment of less than 6%.</p>
<p>And I do think the repeated references to “goatherding” trivializes the subjective factors these schools seek. Among other things, they are interested in applicants who have overcome adversity to build an excellent (not necessarily perfect) record. They also are interested in kids who bring a variety of perspectives to classroom discussion. This is an area where race per se (not necessarily socio-economic status) becomes significant. Race is a fundamental problem in American history and social life. In classroom/dorm room discussions about justice, equality, power, etc., there is some value in exposing middle/upper class white kids to an African American perspective regardless of whether it comes from a doctor’s kid. </p>
<p>Liberal education is not career training. It is, among other things, education for citizenship. That is a major factor driving the “balanced class” concept.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not going to dispute that, but I am going to question whether that’s UNIQUE to Chinese. I have always chuckled that the same users who say “This isn’t Asia; you don’t have to go to HYPSM [et al] to be successful”</p>
<ol>
<li>went to such schools themselves</li>
<li>sent their children to such schools</li>
<li>are in such schools now</li>
</ol>
<p>Of course, they will steadfastly deny that they chose such schools because of the prestige. No, for them it was fit. For Asians who don’t “get it,” it’s prestige-mongering. How convenient.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If by exclusive you mean how low the admit rate is, Deep Springs College is not more selective than “HYPSM.” Collegeboard reveals that in the most recent cycle, the admit rate for Deep Springs was 13%. By contrast, it was in the single digits for HYPS and 10% for M.</p>
<p>I figure you must be defining selectivity differently than I am. WUSTL’s admit rate is 21%, triple that of Stanford’s, and Harvey Mudd’s is 25%. I’m not knocking on WUSTL or Harvey Mudd; they’re excellent. I’m just not seeing how they’re “slightly more selective” than Stanford.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who cares if they don’t attract Asians on CC? Asians are “overrepresented” at Harvey Mudd by a long shot, and they’re as “overrepresented” at Swarthmore as they are at many of the Ivy Leagues. According to Collegeboard, a recent freshman class at WUSTL was 18% Asian, which is…“overrepresentation.” I’m not sure if these schools were the best ones to prove your point. At least Vanderbilt has only a weak “overrepresentation.”</p>
<p>"CalTech has exceeded 40%. MIT hasn’t, as MIT still tries considers diversity as a big factor in forming the incoming class. Less than Harvard, but far, far more than CalTech. "</p>
<p>Caltech is listing 42% for freshmen last year but overall they are still at 39%.</p>
<p><a href=“http://finance.caltech.edu/budget/cds2011%20FINAL%204_28_11.pdf[/url]”>http://finance.caltech.edu/budget/cds2011%20FINAL%204_28_11.pdf</a></p>
<p>When the school size is so small with so few majors, it is hard to extrapolate it to 5-6 times that. The yield as also so low (35-40%?) at Caltech that unless we know admits/matriculates numbers by race, it is hard to determine if they admitted 42% Asians or whether that many showed up with a 90% yield for Asians and 20% yield for everyone else.</p>
<p><a href=“MIT Institutional Research”>MIT Institutional Research;
<p>MIT on the other hand is more diverse but we still have only 24% Asians with 37% Whites, 21% minorities, 9% foreigners and 7-8% various. So if we take out 30% in URMs and foreign admits, there is no way Asians can do better than 30% under the best of circumstances, including putting down goatherding as a major. Since the yield numbers at MIT are comparable to HYPS, it is probably more reflective of an open admit policy if one has to allot a percentage to URMs and foreign admits.</p>
<p>fabrizio wrote:
</p>
<p>Well, that quote was from me (don’t ask me which post# – probably a hundred pages ago) and for the record, my baccalaureate was from Wesleyan, my first-choice school and my decision was based largely on a visit. Interestingly, it is an LAC with a pretty good reputation for science research and yet, has to recruit heavily nationwide just to get enough STEM majors to compete with all the English majors, Economics majors, Music majors, Film majors, Neuroscience majors, Government majors, and History majors – in other words all the other students who go in different directions. My gut hunch is that it is very, very hard for an Asian or Asian American with a 750 Math score to get rejected at Wesleyan. </p>
<p>The statistics for Asian enrollment at Wesleyan are contradictory. The CDS suggests they are no more than 6%. However, according the Admissions website they constitute 15% of “enrolled” students. Possibly, the CDS is based on a different set of questionnaires with a lower completion rate than the Admissions website. </p>
<p>Now, my law school was an Ivy, but, by then the dynamics were a little different. First, there are far fewer accredited law schools to choose from (I think only ~200) and, yes, by then, prospects for landing a job did enter into the calculus. It was an article of faith then and still is, that in order to land a job at a so-called, “white shoe” law firm, you had to attend one of the top ten law schools in the country. However, most people would have included Chicago, Virginia, Duke and Michigan – all non-ivies – among the ten.</p>
<p>I think my ultimate point is something that Pizzagirl (who I know has earned a lot of wrath on this thread) said, several hundred pages ago, too, and that is, that a lot of what is taken as the Gospel truth by Asians, particularly by recent immigrants, is really based on perceptions gained from a distance. I think she was a little naive in thinking they be corrected by all the Asians getting together and tutoring each other (that’s a little like thinking everyone in New York knows each other), but, I think she is correct in her basic analysis: that the Ivies don’t have a monopoly on power in the United States; that what power they DO have is based totally on who they’re able to attract, not necessarily on any intrinsic difference between what they teach and what other fine institutions of learning (i.e, LACs) teach; and, if someone shouts fire in a crowded theater, the best advice is not to follow everyone to the same crowded exit. :)</p>
<p>johnwesley, my apologies. I have confused you with another CC’er who I believed is currently at Stanford.</p>
<p>I paraphrased you, yes, but as I recall it, Pizzagirl immediately voiced her approval, and the two of you are not alone in having expressed such sentiments here.</p>
<p>I agree that there are more great schools than just “HYPSM et al.” But I find it funny whenever I read a post saying that from someone who WENT to or HAS kids at “HYPSM et al.”</p>