<p>
</p>
<p>Please clarify your meaning. What do you mean by “we”? (Because in my job I always not only meet the parents but spend quite a bit of time, over time, with the parents.) “Time” meaning years.</p>
<p>(If that wasn’t clear on my part.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that the elites are bastions of privilege - which is why it’s so funny that efforts to diversify them are met with such resistance and charges of “discrimination.” </p>
<p>There is still a fundamental divide between whether the role of an elite college is to “reward” students who have demonstrated some level of academic achievement or promise with a spot … where the presumption is the more the achievement, the more deserving the student and the more of a travesty if he’s not admitted … or whether the role of an elite college is merely to assemble a very bright, stimulating, interesting class of diverse people and let them rock and roll. I would just note that the former model is taken to the extreme in Asia, where admissions is indeed predicated solely upon numbers / performance on a test and obviously the latter model is here in the US. I would also note if if the former method were so desirable, there would be a College Confidential catering to all the American students who are sooo dying to get into Asian universities. Funny how that works. Funny how the desire to get into these types of colleges only flows one way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I did not say that. I said that the more monolithic pattern that we used to see from the entire immigrant family is far less so now, when exposed to public school. (I’m including in my observations high-performing public schools.) So you will still see the high performers among this group, but not nearly as consistently as previously.</p>
<p>I was asked directly that question, not a different question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I meant any poster (e.g., a parent), not people with your kind of access. My own experience is that white children are easy to blend into the crowd regardless of where their parents came from.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it is not. There is no singular prize. There are prizes, plural, (dozens of the fine quality variety) so if particular high schools, populations in particular regions, or irresponsible parents are creating a different perception for high school students and the adult public who will hire them, they have set up such students for an artificial and inappropriate level of “disappointment.”</p>
<p>I do not read ‘contempt’ in Pizzagirl’s posts. I read impatience, with probably great justification. And the ‘smartness’ to which she has referred in several posts can certainly be extended not only to investigating how unpredictable admissions results can be (because one cannot see those competing 12,000 applications for those 1200 spots), but how “hard-working” students should be, and their parents, concerned relatives & compassionate friends should be, in investigating just how many truly grand and profitable prizes there are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here’s another thing I don’t like about your posts: it’s always “the Asian system” that you compare ours to. I think Canuckguy can vouch that in fact what you describe as “the Asian system” is actually “the international system.” At least when Gladwell was in high school, “College applicants in Ontario…were given a single sheet of paper which listed all the universities in the province. It was my job to rank them in order of preference. Then I had to mail the sheet of paper to a central college-admissions office. The whole process probably took ten minutes. My school sent in my grades separately. I vaguely remember filling out a supplementary two-page form listing my interests and activities. There were no S.A.T. scores to worry about, because in Canada we didn’t have to take the S.A.T.s. I don’t know whether anyone wrote me a recommendation. I certainly never asked anyone to. Why would I? It wasn’t as if I were applying to a private club” ([Link](<a href=“http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/10/10/051010crat_atlarge]Link[/url]”>Getting In | The New Yorker)</a>).</p>
<p>Wikipedia states “Students generally rank their choice institutions in order of preference and submit their transcript to the institution or provincial application service for evaluation. In the majority of cases, acceptance is based entirely on marks, with potential for elevation depending on what province an applicant may be from,” but I note that the statement is unsourced.</p>
<p>And it’s not just our neighbor to the North. You can’t attend university in Germany without having passed the Abitur. Of course, you are free to tell me why I am wrong and why it really is just “the Asian system” instead of “the international system.”</p>
<p>lake42ks, thanks for that clarification!</p>
<p>fab, I agree with you that Pizzagirl should have referenced the “system” as more accurately international. Yes. But the vast majority of complaints about our (different) system is not from Norwegians, Germans, and other non-Asian internationals (or immigrants). Please correct me if you see lots of the latter identified on CC, and/or in the blogosphere or the print or online press. The general rule is that other internationals, if they do not like our system, don’t use our system for their education, or they apply to a wide variety of colleges, domestically & internationally. (The ones I meet do the latter – apply to a wide variety --, but they are just the ones I meet.)</p>
<p>Hi everyone, there is an MIT adcom over that thread. His argument convinced me that race is an integral part of a holistic admission. He might answer your questions. A cool guy.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/1162499-nytimes-race-question-apps-perplexes-multiracial-students.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/1162499-nytimes-race-question-apps-perplexes-multiracial-students.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We won’t because at the end of the day, we have fundamental disagreements about basic principles. If you agree with Justice Blackmun that “And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently” (Bakke), you probably support racial preferences. If, on the other hand, you agree with Chief Justice Roberts that “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race” (Parents Involved), you probably oppose racial preferences. Those are two wildly different ways of viewing the world, and while I strongly disagree with Justice Blackmun, I do not think it is “wrong” to see the world that way.</p>
<p>But we should reach a consensus on some issues. We should stop seeing statements like “If we in the US wanted to build a college system in which people were rewarded for achieving x test scores, and x test score translated into an admissions ticket – we would have built that.” No one in this thread has advocated for “the international system” of admissions. No one.</p>
<p>We should stop seeing posts that equate opposition to racial preferences with support for “the international system” of admissions. The voters in the five states that have passed civil rights initiatives did not vote to outlaw holistic admissions in their states’ public universities. Those states are still free to consider a variety of subjective criteria. Again, no one in this thread has advocated for “the international system” of admissions. No one.</p>
<p>Moving on, I think the racial preference supporters need to do a better job of understanding exactly what their opponents on this issue believe. I am not sure whether they do. At times, it seems like they can accurately describe our positions, but at other times, it’s clear that they have no idea what they are talking about (and even get defensive when they are corrected).</p>
<p>I’m still confused as to what disadvanatages URM’s face in this current day. The amount of hate crimes that happen is such a small number. What justification is there to give a URM an advantage over a poor asain child living on the street?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Humm, you can gain access to German universities to a number of ways. One of them is the Abitur, but it is not the only test that can be taken. So, you are indeed wrong. Dead wrong!</p>
<p>Since you always want “sources” you can google the terms “Begabtenprüfung,” “Schülerstudium,” or “Hochbegabtenstudium”. Also, some students can gain access via the SAT and ACT. </p>
<p>You should also note that the Western neighbor of Germany (Belgium) does not have any entrance exam as the admission system is an open one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for agreeing with me, epiphany. What I didn’t like about Pizzagirl’s post is that she attempted to paint the “Asian system” as an extreme opposite to ours when in fact, as you noted, the “Asian system” is practiced by pretty much everyone outside the United States.</p>
<p>Despite our strong disagreements on this issue, we still have common ground. In fact, that we have more common ground than would appear from our discussions is an additional frustration. I do not agree that “the SAT is everything” or that there is not an “oversupply” of qualified candidates, so I find it very exasperating that you continue to write to me as if I believe the opposite. You say that you aren’t directing those comments to me, but I’m not sure who else they could be directed to, as I don’t recall reading anyone post here who has advocated for “the international system.”</p>
<p>Well, what I’d like to see is absolute proof that Asians are being discriminated against (at a level higher than whites, if you take the position that whites/Asians are discriminated against in order to privilege blacks / Hispanics). So far, a lot of it seems to rest on an assumption that if a) a high scoring and clearly qualified Asian doesn’t get in, it was due to his race as opposed to some other aspect of his or her application and / or inability to fill an institutional need, and b) Asians really are so much smarter and qualified that if “allowed” to, they’d “sweep” the elite universities, comprise the bulk of their class and that adcoms fear that end point, whether it’s benignly wanting more diversity or bigotedly disliking Asians. How do you know that Asian overrepresentation isn’t just where it “should” be from a qualification standpoint?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My understanding of your position is that the only holistic admissions criterium you oppose is using race as a factor. That part is clear to me.</p>
<p>What is not clear to me, is why you are so opposed to it. Why are you not as vehemently opposed to using gender, geography, legacy, development, socio-economic, athletic, and community service as criteria, none of which contributes to the academic learning environment. Applicants are “rewarded” for these attributes, the majority of which they did nothing to earn, with admission to elite colleges. For some reason you are willing to accept a rationale for using these criteria, they are not “shams” to you, unlike the rationale of racial diversity benefits.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correction noted, xiggi. Thank you. But as you yourself hinted in your first paragraph, the “Begabtenprüfung” is still a test, is it not? And according to Wikipedia (unsourced), the Hochbegabtenstudium requires taking an IQ test. So the German system is a lot closer to the “Asian” system than Pizzagirl’s post would have let on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you for informing me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have strongly disagreed with this. In fact, I find it disingenuous of you to say that we racial preference opponents are floating this. The comments I’ve read along the lines of “Colleges need to consider race or else they’d be all-Asian” come from racial preference supporters.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then Asian “overrepresentation” should not have become “worse” at the top UCs following Proposition 209. Sure, California’s demographics aren’t the same as those of the rest of the country, and the UCs don’t consider some subjective criteria (viz. recommendations) that private elites do. But Asians were “overrepresented” prior to Proposition 209, and if that was where it “should” have been, why didn’t it say at the “should” have been level afterward?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When on this thread have I accused you of believing or asserting that “the SAT is everything”?</p>
<p>As to the oversupply, those who continue to act exasperated that the term is repeated, are writing in their posts as if there is not an oversupply. The mental math is not being done. The most salient example (projectible) that I provided were for one admission year (unamed year for privacy reasons) in which there were 12 Early Round admits for one specific Ivy from 9 well-populated metro counties in a major metro region of the U.S. (Over a million residents.) So not only would there be hundreds of well-qualified but rejected Asians from that region, there would also be (in such a diverse region) similarly well-qualified rejects from all other ethnic groups, including URM’s. </p>
<p>And Pizzagirl has been trying to tell you, as have I, that there is no “justice” in such a system. Lots of people “should” win Olympic medals, too, but by a hair’s breadth, they do not qualify, quite, for Gold, Silver, or Bronze. And similarly, they get “disqualified” in previous rounds, because a particular element in their performance was missing, which their competitors, for that round, provided for the judges and they did not. By no means does it mean they’re not “qualified,” that there was (necessarily) bias against them, and certainly not consistently (LOL, look at all those Asian skaters who have made it to final Olympic rounds!)</p>
<p>Hundreds of exceptionally well-qualified whites, well-qualified Asians were not one of the 12 Early Round Admits to Yale that year. That I know for a fact; it is not speculation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, a good start would be end the games and riddles. I have asked you several times to present a cogent argument why YOU believe that Asian students are victims of discrimination. If you want the “opponents” to understand your positions, why not spell them clearly. You complain people misinterpret you or misquote you, but when given the opprtunity, you just hit reset and start the same type of argumentation.</p>
<p>In this thread, you have stated several times that it is NOT about SAT scores … so what is your basis to allege discrimination. Simply stated you CANNOT show discrimination, and you are not alone in this failure. None of the statistics or data are compelling enough to establish that discrimination exists. On the other hand, pointing to overrepresentation is easy. All that is needed is comparing enrollment in US schools with racial distribution of our population. </p>
<p>Yes, we do have fundamental differences; it so happens that you cannot present a cogent argument that discrimination does exist, and until you do, there is no reason for the “other side” to try to explain the absence of something that does not exist.</p>
<p>I also want to thank xiggi for his correction. There are variants of admissions paths internationally. Generally, though, they are more statistically driven than ours, as I’m sure xiggi is aware. However, as I’m sure he also knows, there is not the focus on 3 universities such as there is in China. A student in the U.K., for example, has many options other than Cambridge & Oxford.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So it baffles me, then, that you insisted so defensively that you claimed to have accurately described my position by making me seem virulently anti-“URM”! I have seen both sides from your posts: an accurate representation and an inaccurate one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>FYI, I’m not for gender preferences. In this day and age, the preferences would mostly accrue to males, but even so, I don’t support them. If women are performing better than us across multiple categories, I see no reason to give men a boost. None.</p>
<p>I am opposed to racial preferences because I agree with Chief Justice Roberts that “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Will everything be sunshine and lollipops immediately? No, of course not. But it would put us on the right path. By arguing that we must consider race now so we won’t consider it later, I doubt we’ll ever get to a point where we don’t consider race.</p>
<p>As for geographic and socioeconomic preferences, I am very much in favor of them to achieve diversity goals. Though you correctly argue in favor of racial preferences by appealing only to “diversity,” many people who share your support of the policy do so on socioeconomic grounds. To them, I always ask, why not use socioeconomic preferences if you’re tacitly equating “URM” with poor? And there’s a reason why race is a suspect class whereas geography is not.</p>
<p>Really, what are the “racial diversity benefits”? Yes, I know you say that it aids with learning both inside and outside of the classroom, but could you elaborate on that further? I don’t want to straw man anyone if I can avoid it.</p>