<p>fabrizio, I’m not going to answer your riddles. I’m just going to make the assertion that the only real evidence of discrimination against Asians in favor of whites is that Asians have, on average, higher scores than whites. That’s it. And since the top schools in the U.S. don’t make decisions based only on scores, that’s not nearly enough to prove bias. That’s what Princeton said, and they didn’t release more data because they don’t have to. Now you didn’t like all the info I dug up on the old thread about STEM majors at Michigan, and in California, and about sports teams and all that stuff, because it didn’t fit into your hypothesis. If you want a link, you presumably know how to use the CC search function. But you (and Jian Li) have the burden of proof if you think somebody is wronging you. But you finally wore me out. I was willing to think that there might be a possibility that some schools were limiting the number of Asians to avoid having too many. I no longer think so. I think, however, they may want to limit the number of entitled whiners, which is certainly what Jian Li is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Didn’t your data come from the California State University system? And didn’t it show that Asians at CSU actually majored in BUSINESS (not STEM) the most?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, because in interviews, Jian Li totally revealed himself to be what you and likeminded individuals think he is: an entitled, racist, Asian supremacist who believes that the SAT is everything.</p>
<p>"Did you read her essay? Maybe it went something like this:</p>
<p>“I want to be a doctor because my mom and dad expect me to be a doctor and I don’t want to disappoint them.”"</p>
<p>Annastad: Please Please read my comment carefully, don’t you know that you even did NOT understand my comment? I never mentioned this girl has applied to an ivy; she is a junior. My comment was a response to Pizzagirl’s biased comment that Asian-American students with high SAT must lack an overall impressive record. Pizzagirl’s and your comment on this Asian-American girl are very racially/culturally biased. Your comment is almost laughable, too. Do you think such highly intelligent person would write something so stupid? Was this what you wrote when you applied to colleges?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fabrizio, IF any of these things were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true … that is, Asians really do concentrate in STEM fields more than whites, Asian really do concentrate in narrower range of EC’s, Asians are concentrated in certain geographical areas (that one IS unequivocally true) … would you concede that they might account for any discrepancy in admission rates not due to anti-Asian bias but due to the nature of holistic admissions, which rewards the unique and not the same-as-the-rest?</p>
<p>Actually, let’s just deal with geography. Asians are disproportionately concentrated in California, and in urban areas within. That’s not racist, biased, bigoted - that’s just a simple matter-of-fact statement. Whites, on the other hand - well, they’re everywhere. </p>
<p>Do you not consider it out of the realm of possibility that some of the Asian admittance rate might be “depressed” by the mere fact that many are from the same geographic area, and admitting from wide geographic areas is desirable to elites?</p>
<p>Put it another way. Suppose I’m the adcom at elite u, and I’ve come across a pool of 200 all-highly-qualified students. 100 of them happen to all be Californians. The other 100 of them happen to be dispersed throughout the rest of the US. Which “pool” suits my needs better?</p>
<p>BTW, I’m not saying that “whites suit elite college needs better than Asians,” so don’t go there. What I’m saying is … knowing that part of holistic admissions is geographical representation, the mere fact that Asians are geographically concentrated hurts them. That is not their “fault” but it is what it is. BTW, the same thing could be said about Jewish students from NY / NJ / PA / MD / MA. I’d sure rather be the Jewish student from KS than the Jewish student from NY, all else being equal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said that. Sorry to disappoint. There are tons and tons of stellar Asian-American candidates with high SAT’s and fantastic EC records. Which is why some of them get rejected, because there are simply too many of them – and too many of them in the white bucket as well - compared to what elites can take.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Probably more like 30, but whatever - yes. That would be the definition of a few key colleges in the context of this country. It hardly is helpful to say that “why, Asians don’t just apply to HYPSM, they aren’t as limited as you think – see, they apply to Dartmouth and Caltech and Duke too!” Only on CC would the top 30 or so colleges and universities in the country be considered a “wide range.” </p>
<p>BTW, if you took that list … let’s just make it top 20 universities and top 10 LAC’s just for grins. Are any of those ones in which Asians are underrepresented relative to their share in the population? (I recognize we don’t know share of applicant pools.) If I had to guess, I might suspect maybe Vanderbilt, Davidson and / or Bowdoin might be on the “lighter” side but that’s purely conjecture on my part and I’m sure someone has the numbers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t twist what people say, fab. It’s annoying. “Entitled whiner” isn’t the same as “entitled racist Asian supremacist.”</p>
<p>I just posted this in the featured article:</p>
<p>How can a school justify giving an advantage to a student solely because of their skin color. I’m positive there are hundreds of students who apply who have faced the same, if not more, hardships; though their skin color may be white. It appears on the surface that many less qualified applicants are being admitted due to their skin color. And I agree, diversity in a school is incredibly important. Having a diverse class creates many different viewpoints and opinions instead of one homogeneous view. However, for me at least, I would say racial equality is more important. </p>
<p>It just seems like a step back in terms of racial equality to me. I think that the AA concept should be abandoned and replaced by an income based system. Say people whose parents make less than 50k should receive the same benefits as minorities under the AA system.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Prove it first or at least direct me to something that sheds additional light and give me a post similar to #1258, and then we’ll talk.</p>
<p>As I recall it, Hunt’s “California data” came from CSU, and it didn’t support the STEM hypothesis. Rather, most Asians at CSU majored in business ([Link](<a href=“http://www.calstate.edu/AS/stat_reports/2002-2003/deg14.htm]Link[/url]”>http://www.calstate.edu/AS/stat_reports/2002-2003/deg14.htm)</a>).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html]32.68%[/url”>http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html]32.68%[/url</a>] of all Asians in America in 2010 lived in California. [url=<a href=“http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36000.html]9.54%[/url”>http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36000.html]9.54%[/url</a>] lived in New York. So sure it’s possible.</p>
<p>But what about the remaining ~57%?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those eight schools and TWENTY-TWO others. (And others. [And others.]) Just listen to yourself: thirty/forty is “a few.” And you didn’t answer my question. There are 3,000 colleges in our country. Fine. How many of them are selective?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well you’ve none-too-subtly implied that you think I’m a racist Asian supremacist (quote: “allegedly non racist”), so is it really that big of a stretch to think you and likeminded individuals wouldn’t feel the same way about Li?</p>
<p>Geography, legacy, full-pay, team sports, international, development, and theatre admits take up a fair amount of spots, not to mention URM.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most posters here are fairly knowledgeable and Hunt is even more so (imo). I’m glad to read this thread. I find the table Canuckguy linked in post # 1250 surprising. For the 7 categories that adcoms evaluated, Achievement, Curriculum, Essay, Personal qualities, Recommendations, Test scores, and SAT, Asians received higher marks than white on all except personal qualities. I don’t know how solid that study is, BTW.</p>
<p>Shrinkrap’s fairly well-known brother, who’s black, got asked if the bike he rode his. I dislike that kind of questioning, but we are human. Do we ask similar questions conditioned on race as a teacher, an adcoms or a poster (even private thoughts)?</p>
<p>Is this kind of academic exercise possible: blind adcoms w.r.t race and see what the result looks like? This can be done with previous years’ data, so no one gets hurt.</p>
<p>Edit to add: If the table is somewhat believable, then teachers are fair to Asians in LOR and Asians’ essays are OK. The focus is then on adcoms and colleges if you suspect anything.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m convinced you don’t understand basic math here.<br>
It is not necessary for most Asians at CSU *to major in business * for Hunt’s hypothesis to be correct. It is only necessary for Asians to be *disproportionately overrepresented in STEM majors<a href=“relative%20to%20their%20proportion%20in%20the%20student%20body”>/i</a> for Hunt’s hypothesis to be correct.</p>
<p>If 20% of the CSU population is Asian, and 40% of the STEM majors at CSU are Asian, then Asians are overrepresented / cluster into that major. This is true regardless of whether the actual % of Asians at CSU who are STEM majors is 10%, 20%, 30%, or 80%.</p>
<p>You do this a lot. You confuse horizontals (what % of x is Asian, white, etc. - where the %'s add to 100%) with verticals (what % of Asians are x, what % of whites are x) a LOT. I have to explain this all the time to my clients in my world (which is quantitatively oriented). The very fact that you said “But most Asians at CSU major in business” tells me you don’t get the concept. Most Asians at CSU could major in business - but they could STILL be underrepresented in business (say, if 60% of Asians majored in business but 70% of whites did) - and they could STILL be overrepresented in STEM (say, if 20% of Asians majored in STEM but only 10% of whites did).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>AGAIN, you’re confusing horizontals and verticals here. The relevant comparison point here isn’t the vertical, or the 32% to the 57% (what % of Asians live where). The relevant comparison point here is the horizontal to the distribution of the overall population. California accounts for 12% of the population. 12% of all people in this country live in California. But 33% of all Asians live in California. Therefore, Asians are nearly three times as “concentrated” in California as they are elsewhere. Therefore, how can you NOT argue that that disadvantages them as school seek out geographic dispersion? The fact that 57% live elsewhere (or more accurately, 67%) and that 67 is bigger than 32 is irrelevant. You are confusing plurality (verticals) with concentration (derived from horizontals).</p>
<p>Don’t mess me with on this one. I deal with volume, share and census data all the time in my work, and I constantly have to correct / teach my clients on this one. You make assertions based on verticals that should be based on horizontals. </p>
<p>“More Asians major in business than in STEM at CSU” is a vertical; the relevant point is in the horizontals (are they a heavier-than-fair-share % of STEM majors).</p>
<p>“Most Asians live outside California” is a vertical; the relevant point is in the horizontals (are they represented at heavier-than-fair-share within California, and obviously the answer is yes, since they are represented nearly 3x fair share within California).</p>
<p>Sorry to be harsh, but I do some of this kind of analysis for a living and I have seen you mix this up on multiple occasions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The link doesn’t say what the percentage of the entire CSU population in 2002-2003 was Asian. It only tells me that 7582/61712=12.29% of the degree recipients were Asian, or [(7582+2574)/61712]=16.46% if you add “Asian American” and “Filipino” together. So let’s work with that.</p>
<p>STEM is Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. I thus focus on Biological Sciences, Engineering, Information Sciences, Mathematics, and Physical Science. I counted a total of 7781 degrees conferred, 2100 of which went to “Asian Americans” or “Filipinos.” That’s just under 27%. Since only 16.46% of degree recipients that year were “Asian American” or “Filipino,” I guess Asians cluster into STEM majors.</p>
<p>Except 13698 degrees in business were conferred, and 3952 of them went to “Asian Americans” or “Filipinos” which is just under 29% > 27%. So I guess Asians cluster into business too. But I don’t see you railing against Asians for disproportionately majoring in business, now do I?</p>
<p>And 2283 degrees in “health professions” were conferred, 505 of which went to “Asian Americans” or “Filipinos.” That’s 22.12% > 16.46%. I guess Asians cluster into health professions too. But I don’t see you railing against Asians for disproportionately majoring in health professions, now do I?</p>
<p>And last but certainly not least, 710 degrees in “home economics” were conferred, 136 of which went to “Asian Americans” or “Filipinos.” That’s 19.15% > 16.46%. I guess Asians cluster into home economics too. But I don’t see you railing against Asians for disproportionately majoring in home economics, now do I?</p>
<p>So sure, if the STEM hypothesis is that “Asians are overrepresented / cluster into that major,” have at it. But at least for 2002-2003 at CSU, Asians also clustered into business, health professions, and home economics.</p>
<p>I encourage you to advocate the “Asians disproportionately major in business / health professions / home economics” hypotheses in conjunction with the STEM hypothesis.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>7582+2574=10156 degrees were awarded to “Asian Americans” or “Filipinos” throughout all of CSU that year. 3233+719=3952 of them were in business. That’s 38.91%.</p>
<p>24,694 degrees were awarded to whites throughout the system in 2002-2003. 4370 were in business. That’s 17.7%.</p>
<p>38.91% > 17.7%. Ergo, by your definition, Asians are “overrepresented” in business. I encourage you to begin advocating the “Asians disproportionately cluster in business” hypothesis.</p>
<p>What about STEM? To repeat what I wrote, by my count, 2100 “Asian Americans” and “Filipinos” majored in Biological Sciences, Engineering, Information Sciences, Math, and Physical Science. 7781 degrees in those majors were conferred, so Asians made up 26.98% > 16.46%. By your reasoning, Asians cluster into STEM fields.</p>
<p>But how many whites majored in STEM fields? By my count, 2739 did. 2739/7781=35.20%.</p>
<p>Wait a minute here! 35.20% > 26.98%, therefore in 2002-2003 throughout the entire CSU system, by Pizzagirl’s reasoning, Asians were…“UNDERREPRESENTED” in STEM fields!</p>
<p>Of course Pizzagirl will tell me that the data doesn’t disprove the STEM hypothesis because we talked about CSU.</p>
<p>First off, no one is “railing” at Asians for majoring in anything. They should major in what they desire to major in just like everyone else. No one is suggesting Asians “should” migrate to the humanities – just that if they are disproportionately centered in some majors, that is going to reduce their (aggregate) attractiveness relative to a group of Capricorns, left-handed people, people born in July, or people whose names begin with the letter B who are more proportionately distributed across majors. </p>
<p>Second, the next logical analytical step is to calculate an index to show the STRENGTH of overrepresentation. </p>
<p>27/16 = index of 169 in STEM
29/16 = index of 181 in business
22/16 = index of 138 in health
19/16 = index of 118 in home economics</p>
<p>So, sure, it’s fair to say that based on CSU data, Asians cluster into (or more accurately, are overrepresented) in STEM, business, health, home ec.</p>
<p>For these indexes to be so strongly positive, however – other majors need to have substantially lower-than-average indexes. So, obviously Asians at CSU are underrepresented in the humanities. (What % of the total CSU degrees are granted in humanities is irrelevant.)</p>
<p>But so what? That’s neither good nor bad; neither a good state of affairs or a bad state of affairs. It is what it is. It’s a free country. No one is suggesting they should “change.”<br>
Why does this bother you so? It’s not an insult, it’s not a criticism, it just is a matter of fact.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>NO. You did it again. You mixed up horizontals and verticals. The relevant measure isn’t what % of Asians major in business compared to what % of whites major in business (comparison of two verticals). The relevant measure is what % of business majors are Asian compared to what % of the CSU student body is Asian, derived from horizontals.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think the Duke study necessarily proves anything with regard to a particular Asian’s chances of being admitted to a particular elite college.</p>
<p>If applicant John Lee is from CA, if he is not full-pay or dirt poor, if he is not a legacy, doesn’t play a team sport, is not a huge donor, is not a theatre/art/music major, he’s got a very small chance of making into the admitted class of 1,300 students at Princeton.</p>
<p>I’m not good at figuring out percentages, but just based on the fact that he only automatically qualifies for the pool of White or Asian males, he’s looking at competing for one of only 442 spots, based on last year’s enrolled freshman class. Out of those spots will surely come admits from all of those categories for which he doesn’t qualify: other states, high/low economic, sports, legacies, development, fine arts, thus reducing his chances even further.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You made the same mistake here, too. You compared the % of whites majoring in STEM (35%) to the % of Asians majoring in STEM (27%), as opposed to comparing the % of STEM majors who are white and who are Asian compared to the % of the CSU student body who is white and who is Asian.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, no you don’t. You wrote, and I quote,</p>
<p>Most Asians at CSU could major in business - but they could STILL be underrepresented in business (say, if 60% of Asians majored in business but 70% of whites did) - and they could STILL be overrepresented in STEM (say, if 20% of Asians majored in STEM but only 10% of whites did).</p>
<p>YOU wrote that. YOU wrote that Asians could be “underrepresented” in business at CSU if the percentage of Asians in business was less than the percentage of whites in business (i.e. two verticals).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Follow your own rules first, and then you can tell me this.</p>