<p>IP-
I have a basic question for you.
What is the purpose of a college education, to you?</p>
<p>Do you see it mainly as a source of economic upward mobility?</p>
<p>A “branding” of acceptance into the American elite?
A filter for the brightest?</p>
<p>A place to network?
To meet new people?
To learn?
To share and learn new ideas and skills?</p>
<p>The goal is different for everybody, depending on their circumstances, their culture, and so forth.</p>
<p>America certainly have some cultural biases! And quite a variety of them. The laws do try to keep any such biases from being required beliefs for all, and from allowing biases to cause discrimination against certain groups. </p>
<p>NO, I feel personally exactly the OPPOSITE, which is why I think it is hypocritical for the government to use racial boxes for anything.</p>
<p>Positive or negative, it is racism. And legal boosts are not healthy for any groups.</p>
<p>Sure, we all have anecdotal and even researched ideas about groups, cultures and societies. But let’s not impose these on individuals.</p>
<p>p.s. Conformity to a group is ironically a quite high value in some parts of the world. It may actually make “Racist” thinking more ok, too. I have lived in Asia, and been an outsider. It is interesting! But in Europe, where I have also lived, the parsing is also very important to nations who share geographic borders.
Does that make it “right”?
p.p.s. I speak the languages of the places where I have lived abroad. That makes the experience even more interesting.</p>
<p>Earlier I mentioned Reed College, where Asian enrollment is about 6% of first time, first year students (21 of 373). I want to say that is low relative to the rates at other selective colleges, although again, I don’t know the volume, admit rates, yield, or qualifications of Asian applicants compared to the rest of Reed applicants. Reed is #2, 3, or 4 for PhD production (the number of alumni who complete PhDs) in several science/math areas (life sciences, math/stat, physics, chemistry). It is the only college (as far as I know) with its own research nuclear reactor operated primarily by undergraduates. Scientific American magazine once stated that, after CalTech, Reed “has been far and away more productive of future scientists than any other institution in the U.S.” That was way back in 1961; whether it is equally true today I don’t know. I’m not saying science/math education there is better, worse, or equal to HYPS (there are just too many factors to tease out) but in any case, for Asians and everyone else, HYPSM are hard nuts to crack … so this may be one alternative worth checking out at least.</p>
<p>LACs in general (but not in every case) seem to have relatively low Asian enrollment. I’d suggest looking first at Williams, Carleton, Wesleyan, and Grinnell, in addition to Harvey Mudd and Swarthmore. These are all selective schools. Williams, Mudd, and Swarthmore are especially so. Selective LACs in general tend have high PhD production rates and a good record for medical school placements. </p>
<p>Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology gets the US News #1 rating among Best Undergraduate Engineering Programs (where the doctorate is not offered). Its Asian enrollment in 2002-2003 was about 3%. So, as at some selective LACs, an Asian applicant may be considered a “URM” and get a little boost. </p>
<p>Purdue University (Indiana) shares the US News #8 spot with Cornell and Carnegie Mellon among among Best Undergraduate Engineering Programs (where the doctorate IS offered). Purdue’s Asian enrollment is ~6% (compare to Cornell - Ivy! - where it is >15%).</p>
<p>It’s a little like playing the stock market. You can find good schools with strong STEM where Asians are (relatively at least) URMs. These are the “undervalued” stocks where you may get an admissions (or merit money) advantage. Again, I’m not saying these schools are more desirable than HYPSM … just suggesting you broaden your field to give yourself options.</p>
<p>I can think of three colleges off the top of my head that offer the best undergraduate STEM programs in the country; yes, as good as - if not better than - HYPSM. Graduates from these schools have become Rhodes Scholars, became leaders in technical fields, and contributed to significant business and government enterprises. These schools absolutely would welcome more Asian applicants. They have strong alumni networks. They really offer the best value for your education dollar. And - if the key metric is a job after graduation, they guarantee a position immediately upon commencement. They are located in West Point NY, Annapolis MD, and Colorado Springs CO.</p>
<p>Reed is a small school, fewer than 1500 total students. What it has is a relatively high percentage of like-minded students sharing future advanced grad school success.</p>
<p>My sense from his posts is that IP does not mind racism or being labelled in any way. Since he thinks in terms of racial groupings, he assumes that others do, too. But since he understands that the practice of discrimination by race is illegal here, and since he feels his group is being discriminated against, he is blowing the whistle, using US law, but maybe without the data necessary to "prove"it. So his stance is not antiAA per se. He is just showing his belief that the group qualities of Asians may be in DISfavor with AdComms of certain elite collges, esp HYSM, here.
It is a little like, hey I do not mind racism until it hurts me or my group, but he DOES have the legal card to play since it is about discrimination. And if Asians were BENEFITTING from discriminatory or racist practices, would be complaining?
At any rate, discrimination is hard to demonstrate statistically for the larger population.
And we do not have the exact info of how the decisions were made about the individual candidates.</p>
<p>The US is skating on thin ice by legislating morality, to some extent. I feel that is one reason why foreigners prefer number-based systems…</p>
<p>^ TK great helpful post (#3563) … and I’d add if someone is interested in STEM majors in particular that focussing on HYPSM is a bit of odd set of schools on which to focus (which is why I think some posters were assuming some STEM students/parents focussing on these schools were chasing prestige). </p>
<p>S+M are terrific choices for students who are interested in STEM and want a wide choices of STEM choices. HYP in particular have some great STEM departments but also have less STEM options that other top schools with full-blown engineering schools. A quick check of the various ratings of engineering schools and focussing on top schools in these disciplines might well lead to having a list more like SM, Caltech, Cornell, Penn, Columbia, Berkeley, Michigan, Illinois, etc. If HYP provide enough breadth then I’d think a ton of the LACs would come into play with places like Swarthmore, Reed, and Chicago (being future PhD powers) would be near the top of the list.</p>
<p>For me, one of the most valuable learnings about colleges I learned on CC was the breadth of options we are lucky to have in the US … and that for a student with some focus in their interests they can tailor a list of terrific schools matched to their interests.</p>
<p>It’s very true that these LACs provide as good or better STEM education for undergrads. If you are sure you will work in US it’s a very good choice. But if you think you MIGHT someday work in Asia, HYPSM, UCB, CalTech and other Ivies has much better name recognition which may open more doors than the LACs. That might be in the college selection consideration for some Asian kids.</p>
<p>While I am the soap-box, I really cannot fathom why it is NOT ok to say generalizing things about underprivileged groups, but it IS okay to make disparaging generalizations about groups with status or resources.
Point: let’s all own and allow that we can and do generalize up or down or inside or out, OR let’s stop it entirely.</p>
<p>I don’t see the US legislating morality in this case. Private businesses (including colleges) are generally given a hands-off approach by the federal govt regarding their business decisions, which allows them to remain competitive by creating their own unique consumer niches. This is the American way and maybe one not easily understood by foreigners.</p>
<p>Using race as a factor in admissions is and has been lawful since the Grutter decision. Proclaiming that it is not Constitutional does not change the fact that right now, it is.</p>
<p>As far as I can conclude, nothing in this thread, other than a published article containing hearsay, has evidenced that Asians are being discriminated against. It is fine to question the process, but it is offensive to proclaim it “racist” without any significant evidence.</p>
<p>I do not specifically specifically disagree with any of these sentences, Bay.</p>
<p>But IP has a different perspective, comes from a different culture. </p>
<p>And not finding PROOF of discrimination vs Asians is not the same as saying that is does not happen. It is hard to come up with such with the limited comparable data we have to work with for one point in time, all the variables the same. So, outright statements that it exists are incorrect. But I would submit that it is also incorrect to state conclusively is does NOT exist, for sure.</p>
<p>Like court case: what is the underlying assumption? Are we disproving discrimination? Or proving lack of discrimination?</p>
<p>Keep in mind, we’ve been focusing mostly on private institutions, which have a lot of freedom in setting admissions standards.</p>
<p>Suppose I’m a rich, famous, aging author who decides to create a Book Club. I want to gather promising younger writers in my home to discuss the Great American Novel (The Scarlet Letter, Moby Dick, Huckleberry Finn, The Great Gatsby). I put an add in the NYROB. I get hundreds of responses. Unfortunately, my living room (and my attention) can only accomodate 10. Among those who respond, many are serious readers sincerely interested in the topic. Some only want to see the inside of my house. A few want to date my beautiful daughter. Many more are mostly interested in my help getting their work published; they actually hate old books like Moby Dick.</p>
<p>I’d like to do my part in developing the next generation of leaders in my field, but my main interest is in stimulating conversation about the Great American Novel. How do I pick the 10 most promising members of my club? Can this be a 100% “objective” process? I don’t think so. Am I a “racist” if I’d like to have an African American perspective on Huckleberry Finn? Again, I don’t think so.</p>
<p>This is sorta kinda how I see AA in private college admissions. The main event is people talking about stuff from anthropology to zoology from various perspectives. College adcoms want to put their stamp on those perspectives. Racism may or may not affect their choices, but wanting an AA perspective, any more than wanting an Indiana farmboy perspective, is not prima facie evidence of that.</p>
<p>IP - Speaking of Asian giving, a book published by Boston Globe for MIT’s 150th anniversary where they listed 150 great things to come out of MIT. Item #9 talks of Amar Bose, an MIT professor who created Bose company and donated most of his stock to MIT last month. </p>
<p>Context and quotes, please. In context, you were arguing that there was an “Asian point of view” with respect to racial preferences. I disagreed and wrote, “I reiterate that there is no ‘the Asian point of view’ regarding racial preferences” (post #1870). That’s a direct quote, and I stand by that.</p>
<p>In regards to what you quoted from IndianParent, I don’t fully agree. It’s not “Asian vs. non-Asian” parenting. More generally, it’s “immigrant vs. non-immigrant” parenting and even then, some non-immigrant Americans supported Chua’s promotion of her parenting style.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, thanks for bringing those to my attention, I guess. As for not donating, that’s an empirical question, but I don’t know if the universities keep track of the racial classification of the alums who donate. With respect to assimilation, while I’ve noticed that very few Americans of South Asian ancestry have English given names, I disagree that Asians as a whole have not assimilated well. To the contrary, I think Asians have assimilated as well as we can given that almost all Asians are visible minorities. I know from experience that some people will simply assume by default that I am a foreigner.</p>
<p>Interesting that the most dismissive and racist statement about URMs in this thread has been unashamedly proffered by… a black kid. :eek: Sad really… </p>
<p>FYI: Rats are a species of animal almost entirely genetically constrained to a limited number of base behaviors specific to that species. They can never be birds, or dogs, or dolphins—and most definitely not human beings. </p>
<p>Human beings, otoh, are a species of almost limitless potential, born into circumstances under which they invariably have neither choice nor control. The circumstances into which a person is born (and raised) generally have great predictive value in forecasting his/her economic, cultural and educational potential. These variables have been shown to be statistically significant whether one is born into a culture, race, and SES whose history and socio-political advantages pre-grease his/her skids to success, or whether one’s upbringing instead pull together variables that make success extremely challenging. With rats, it doesn’t really matter whether they live in a tenement, or the attic of a chateau. Their behavior doesn’t change, and neither do their life’s prospects. </p>
<p>On the other hand, a human child, born and raised in Winnetka, Illinois (by neither his own choice nor doing), is generally going to turn out quite differently than he would, had he been born and raised in the Cabrini-Green Projects of Chicago (yes, I’m aware that those were finally torn down). </p>
<p>Note, however, that in neither case, would he ever have been a rat!</p>
<p>OK, you did say that selectivity isn’t admit rate, but still, I wouldn’t call RHIT selective as its recent admit rate according to College Board was 66%.</p>
<p>As for Purdue, your point is well taken that students should broaden their fields to give themselves options and that while there’s NOTHING wrong with applying to “HYPSM,” perhaps a wise strategy is to play the “diversity” game. But I don’t think your point is best made contrasting Purdue with Cornell. What about Carnegie Mellon? Its Asian enrollment is even higher than Cornell’s (22%), but it’s…not an Ivy!</p>
<p>“With respect to assimilation, while I’ve noticed that very few Americans of South Asian ancestry have English given names, I disagree that Asians as a whole have not assimilated well. To the contrary, I think Asians have assimilated as well as we can given that almost all Asians are visible minorities. I know from experience that some people will simply assume by default that I am a foreigner.”</p>
<p>Fab - It probably has a lot to do with religions in South Asia. A majority are either Hindus or Muslims and India has about 25 million christians, a lot of them converted from the original Hindus. Although the second generation kids might adopt English nicknames, it is uncommon for them to give up on their given names since it is given as part of their religious beliefs. Who cares if someone discriminates based on a name, being a devout ‘whatever’ is lot more important in life.</p>
<p>Neither. They just are. That’s my point. Some make it sound like they are awful. They aren’t! Traits that do not impact others are neither positive nor negative.</p>