<p>My apologies for having confused your posts with Pizzagirl’s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m exasperated that the term is repeated, and I don’t see how my posts show that I act “as if there is not an oversupply.” In response to the argument that without racial preferences, we would not have “enough” "URM"s, I have repeatedly argued that because there are more qualified applicants than slots, I don’t see the point in singling out "URM"s for extra consideration. Many students cannot get in due to scarcity, even though they are qualified to attend. So why focus on the "URM"s among those who might not get in simply because there were too many good applicants?</p>
<p>The Common Data Sets for Princeton, which I provided upthread, show that until recently (last few years), male applicants to P outnumbered female by 4-5%. Offers of admission corresponded, which I explained is typical for private school admissions, kindergarten through college, in many cases. Some private schools (K through college) insist on a 50/50 admitted class split, regardless of application ratios. Other schools try to mirror the app numbers instead.</p>
<p>Recently, P app numbers by gender have evened out more, with admission offers similarly evening out.</p>
<p>I don’t think this has anything to do with male vs. female (applicant) achievement & ability, one way or the other. I assume that among the 10,000 rejected applicants to P in any given year, about as many qualified females as males are proportionally rejected.</p>
<p>I have not checked recently, but I believe that the UCAS system allows for FIVE applications. The application is also much more “directed” than in the US, as students select areas of study. Fwiw, a student cannot apply to both Cambridge and Oxford.</p>
<p>Because opportunity for all varieties of people is an essential value in U.S. institutions, including institutions of Higher Education. And even some private colleges believe that they should mirror such a value in their admissions policies. By no means does it signify that equal opportunity has been nationally arrived at. It just means that for those URM’s who are ambitious enough, interested enough, accomplished enough, to have the moxie to apply to elite private universities, those particular students will have a chance at being examined for their ability to perform at high levels, like their non-URM counterparts who are applying.</p>
<p>xiggi, I do not disagree with your post 1445. Just acknowledging different varieties of college systems internationally. I’m quite familiar with the UCAS system. I’m just acknowledging that one has college options beyond “elite” in the UK; that’s all.</p>
<p>What are the benefits of any kind of diversity? Socioeconomic, regions of the country, urban / suburban / rural, areas / fields of study, religious backgrounds, extracurricular interests, internationals / Mayflower descendants, blue collar / white collar?</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>Why are you bringing up hate crimes? What is different about this thread from the usual, is a willingness to look deeper. If you want to simplify it, maybe that belongs on the “college admissions” rather than the parent forum. I don’t think any one has argued that URM’s should have race considered simply because they have to deal with hate crimes.</p>
<p>Personally, my interest in race in higher education is based on what I believe to be the complexities of the achievement gap. There was a link a page or so ago, if you’re interested. </p>
<p>I’m sure some will look at that data, and draw what they think is on obvious conclusion… Some will look and say affirmative action will not fix it. Some will look and say affirmative action makes if worse. Some will look and say it makes no difference are way or the other. (and Fab will say “then get rid of it!”)</p>
<p>I look, and know that those studies are talking about millions of URM’s, not the 1000 or so, “taking” anecdotal spots here on CC. I’m seeing a big picture, and I try to use what I can to look further, and see how it makes sense for each kid and family, one at a time.</p>
<p>Are you as interested in that piece as I am? Is Fab? I think some folks have different passions, and I think passion is great. I also believe URM’s are going to be more passionate as a group, about looking at how to narrow the gap,and less about eliminating racial preferences in admission.</p>
<p>This is NOT an answer to my now often asked question. This is NOT a cogent argument as to why you believe that Asian suffer from discrimination at our most selective universities and colleges. The admission policies of California public universities are little to no relevance to the admission policies of HYPS and the other dozens of schools that are more selective schools. If you want to establish that other state universities are racist, be my guest. Perhaps, you should analyze the differences between the University of Texas and the UC in terms of Asian admission. In the meantime, drawing parallels beween the admission system of the UC and the systems practiced by universities that recruit on a nationwide basis is totally futile. Different animals, and different success stories … if you ask me! </p>
<p>So, let me rephrase my question in simpler terms. Why do you believe that HYPS does discriminate against Asians. Since at least one poster stated emphatically that Stanford is a racist institution, perhaps you could enlist him or her to compose a combined narrative. For the record, if it was not clear, I do not belikeve that HYPS does discriminate against Asians in any way or fashion, including what some consider as basic meritocracy.</p>
<p>And because private elite colleges in the US believe that their mission is to create an interesting, high-potential “soup” who will feed off one another to go do smart, interesting things … not that their mission is to only find / identify / reward the already-the-most-smartest-of-the-smart. The reason these places are so elite has to do with their alums go off and do after graduation … not how smart they were going in at age 18.</p>
<p>You’re not answering the question. The question at hand is - what is your proof that elite, selective universities - that have a nationwide pull and mission - discriminate against Asians? “But we saw change in California UC’s after Prop 209” does not answer the question.</p>
<p>Are you talking about OPPORTUNITY or OUTCOME? Here is another fundamental difference: by equality, do we mean equality of opportunity or equality of result? Again, those concepts represent two different ways of viewing the world.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re echoing your earlier claim that the only reason why there’s a “UR” in “URM” is because not enough apply. Well, encourage more to apply then! Racial preferences are unnecessary to the extent that more applications solves the “UR” problem.</p>
<p>I am all for outreach efforts that encourage qualified "URM"s to apply to elite private universities. But I am not for racial preferences during the admissions review process. That is, I believe, a difference between us. If more "URM"s applied, but the end result was that they were still “underrepresented,” I don’t see that as a problem. If you see that as a problem, then you don’t believe in equality of opportunity. If the results matter to you, then you believe in equality of outcome. And there’s nothing wrong with that. As I said, it’s a fundamentally different way of viewing the world.</p>
<p>Ironic, isn’t it? I thought your question was “How do you know that Asian overrepresentation isn’t just where it “should” be from a qualification standpoint?” In which case, my reply in #1436 holds.</p>
<p>I, and the Universities, are talking about opportunity, not outcome. There are recent white Harvard grads right now who are unemployed. There is at least one black grad of another Ivy who as of recently was not sure what her next step would be, given that her major at that Ivy was not an immediate indicator (path) for employment.</p>
<p>Did you rephrase or did you move the goalposts? As for HYPS “et al,” I repeat what I wrote to Hunt a few pages back. Much was made earlier about the 26%/30% figures for Asians at MIT in a recent admissions cycle. Yet, Cass Cliatt at Princeton has publicly refused to release similar information after Li’s civil rights complaint. Well, why not? Why can’t Cliatt say something like, “Asians made up 12% of the applicants in the year Li was rejected but 14% of the admits. Li needs to shut up”?</p>
<p>How do you know how many apply? Remember that these universities are careful about everyone they admit, including donor’s kids (some of whom are highly achieving, some of whom are not) because they want virtually everyone to graduate. In Princeton’s case, given their distribution requirements and grading policies, the bar is high.</p>
<p>Secondly, there are lots of reasons why more URM’s would not necessarily apply.</p>
<p>Do you need to consider racial classification “to create an interesting, high-potential “soup” who will feed off one another to go do smart, interesting things”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then you shouldn’t care if the outcome has “too few” "URM"s, especially since the process has more qualified applicants than slots. That you care belies your support for equality of results. As I said, there’s nothing “wrong” with that; it’s a different way of viewing the world, just like comparing Justice Blackmun’s ideology with that of Chief Justice Roberts.</p>
<p>My apologies, epiphany. I do not know where you are going with this.</p>
<p>Recall that woeishe asked, “But why would URMs be in low numbers if they were as equally qualified as other Applicants?” You replied, “They don’t apply in numbers nearly equalling those of other groups.”</p>
<p>I interpreted your response to mean that "URM"s would NOT be “in low numbers” if only they “appl[ied] in numbers nearly equalling those of other groups.” Did I misinterpret your response?</p>
<p>^ I can’t speak for all URM’s of course, but as an “affluent”, 2nd generation attending college, parent of two high school graduates, I think “we” think “Ivy’s” don’t meet as many “fit” qualities for us.</p>
<p>And now I’m signing off to go the the farmer’s market.</p>