<p>Rationalizing presumed negative discrimination at HYPSM by looking at what happened at UCB and UCLA does not fly. The private elites want full-pay students, development admits, a limited number of non-citizens, geographical diversity, legacies, and athletes to fill 20 more sports teams, all factors which work against Asian admissions and in favor of Whites, and none of which are used as admissions criteria at the UCs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>More games, Fabrizio? What a surprise! </p>
<p>Do you really get a kick from parsing posts to find one element to discuss for the sole purpose of avoiding answering the question posed to you. Now you grabbed the “more selective” part of my post. However, for the nth time, you jump on one statistic and run with it, without properly understanding the finer points. For the record, there ARE dozens of schools that are more selective than Berkeley. For starters, the school admission rates are not comprehensive. The admission rate you quote from the CDS does not account for all admits. You can find this difference in the official data released by the UC itself. For instance, this year admission rate is well over 25%, as it was last year. Oh wait, before you play the “source” game, allow me to provide it to you:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2011/fall_2011_admissions_table1.pdf[/url]”>http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2011/fall_2011_admissions_table1.pdf</a></p>
<p>Now, if you want to start a debate about Cal or UCLA selectivity, feel free to look up RML in the CSS forum. In the meantime, I maintain that there are dozens of schools that are more selective than Cal, UCLA, and the other UC schools, especially when considering the complete environment of universities and LACs and also considering the impact of transfer admissions from junior and community colleges. </p>
<p>Now that I have indulged you in a sterile and futile discussion about the “dozens” of more selective schools, can we revert to the … question about HYPS. I have no interest in discussing Cal further. So, what is your basis for your claims of discrimination at HYPS! </p>
<p>Or do you have more games in your arsenal?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>More irrelevant drivel. I did not ask about MIT. Is your only basis to establish discrimination at HYPS that someone named Cliatt refused to disclose information in the same unofficial manner used by the MIT adcom? </p>
<p>Is that it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s all he has, though. “Look at UCB and UCLA!” (irrelevant) and “the woman at Princeton didn’t say that Asians were 12% of applicants but 14% of admitted”! Meanwhile, the one data piece on the table - the MIT one - doesn’t support the story at all.</p>
<p>And, the whole thing has been scrambled with the allegations that the URM preferences have just created benefits for well-to-do URM’s, which hasn’t even really been proven either by the data on hand. (And if it is, so what? Well-to-do people of any race have advantages in elite college admissions over non-well-to-do people in terms of access to extracurriculars, more demanding schools, athletic coaching.) To that end, I suppose that socioeconomic preference might be an improvement over URM preference, but again, so what? No need to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.l</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Other than France, which has an “Asian system” for admission to the grandes ecoles, that is not correct. The Asian system of winner-take-all, low admission rate, massively administered national exams as the only game in town, with resulting phenomena of cram schools (India), juku (Japan), haegwon (Korea) cheating (Bangladesh, Korea, China), and hacking (China, Korea) only exists in Asia as far as I know.</p>
<p>US and Canada are the only countries that use grades as a major selector. That’s an astonishingly bad design choice. The US admission system is subjective and non-transparent and its colleges preposterously expensive – students are paying for what, exactly? – all of which make the US a notorious outlier internationally. In that sense, yes, it’s “US vs the World”. But it’s also “Asian system vs the world” in that there is clearly an Asian system with its own very visible abnormalities. Most of the Asian countries that have such a system, are trying to escape it or mitigate it in some form.</p>
<p>
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Weren’t there calls for more out-of-state (read: full-pay) students to be admitted at UCs in light of the state’s financial situation? (I accept that “state residence” is “very important” at Berkeley.)</p></li>
<li><p>See #5. Legacy status isn’t considered, but I don’t know about “development” status.</p></li>
<li><p>Non-resident aliens made up [url=<a href=“http://registrar.princeton.edu/university_enrollment_sta/common_cds2010.pdf]10.67%[/url”>http://registrar.princeton.edu/university_enrollment_sta/common_cds2010.pdf]10.67%[/url</a>] of Princeton’s freshman class last year. The corresponding figure for [url=<a href=“http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2010-11.pdf]Berkeley[/url”>http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2010-11.pdf]Berkeley[/url</a>] was 11.41%. Are you telling me that the former is “limited” while the latter is not? (I picked Princeton because Harvard and Yale don’t have 2010-2011 CDSes up.)</p></li>
<li><p>Berkeley’s CDS reveals that “geographical residence” is “considered,” just as it is at Princeton.</p></li>
<li><p>Accepted. “Alumni/ae relation” is “not considered” at Berkeley.</p></li>
<li><p>You don’t mean to tell me that Berkeley doesn’t employ athletic preferences, do you?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, duh, one way to encourage them to apply is to ensure that there is a critical mass of others for them to feel a sense of community with.</p>
<p>What does any of the UC stuff have anything to do with anything, Fab? I swear, you cannot argue on point. The question on the table is - prove HYPS(M) or other top elites discriminate against Asians. </p>
<p>You seem to be trying to employ some kind of work-around which was … well, it might have happened in California, so therefore it must be happening elsewhere. That isn’t proof.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It may very well be a bad design choice - I don’t know and can’t say. Having said that, it’s fascinating how the system that screens its applicant pool using “bad” criteria also is the system that produces the kinds of classes that people all over the WORLD apparently drool over and work at great personal sacrifice to have a chance at getting into. Apparently it still creates some “magic” that people buy into.</p>
<p>fab, you are getting lazy.
The preference for full-pay internationals and OOS over CA residents at Berkeley is brand-new. No, development status is not considered, at least that is what I was directly told by a UC Trustee when I asked him at a fund-raising event. I said “non-citizens” are limited at HYPSM but not at the UCs. If you attend a CA high school for 3 years, the UCs do not care what your status is, and thus admit an unlimited number of non-citizens. The elites call non-citizens “internationals or aliens” which consistently comes in at around 10%. Berkeley considers “geographical residence” within the great State of CA. They don’t want all of their students to come from the Bay area. And yes, Cal uses athletic preferences, but they offer about half the number of sports that the elites do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correct. And thank you for the further refinement of that discussion. I was sloppy myself in “bunching.” I think my point was to distinguish (as you allude to) the systems which are, in composite, much less subjective and more transparent than ours, but also (unlike China, for example) with more opportunities for white-collar careers first of all, and second of all lucrative white-collar careers, outside of credentials from exactly three universities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People all over the world are also drooling over the opportunity to attend the elite schools in England, France, Australia and others. The US draws people because of its wealth and freedom and liberal immigration policy; because English is an international language; and because the higher education system not only offers financial aid (or at least loans) but a path to residency and immigration. </p>
<p>The US also has had, historically and especially before 2001, an overwhelmingly larger number of university seats for internationals than any other country. The language and availability barriers are a lot higher elsewhere so we don’t get to find out how many people are “drooling” to take classes among the Swedish blondes or in the relaxed drinking club atmosphere of colleges in Japan.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is hilarious. You jumped on the 26%/30% figure for MIT like a dog chasing a mailman, but when it comes to my question, it flies past your head that no similar information has been released for other schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Allegations, I see. Do you have ANY substantive issues with my post #1258? This is, I believe, the third time I’ve had to refer you to that post.</p>
<p>Under what circumstances would you say socioeconomic preferences are NOT an improvement over racial preferences?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>~A larger support system at certain other colleges/universities, both public and private, HBCU and non-HBCU.</p>
<p>~A history of a particular ‘monied’ culture at some Ivies especially. Whether or not a “private privileged club” mentality still exists at any of those, or is perceived to exist currently by particular URM’s who otherwise might consider such a college, the anxiety about such a cultural legacy among a subset of the student body could be a deterrent. (It has been one, expressed to me; I just don’t have evidence about how prevalent that concern is.)</p>
<p>~geographic location, including composition of surrounding community (“at-home” with that, or not), combined with possible distance from home (such as students of all colors, from poor backgrounds, also consider; plane travel is expensive, and minimally ‘funded’ as a part of financial aid packages)</p>
<p>~the understanding that what really counts, ultimately, is employability, and that employability rests not only on location of credentials but on self-confidence when applying for jobs, imagining onself in jobs, and interviewing for those jobs. The HBCU’s (for example) provide a very strong support system for growing self-confidence in that respect. (Confirmed, in addition, by the list of illustrious graduates of this group of colleges, including several in public service.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How many do you need to make a “critical mass” and how is that not a quota? And why, exactly, are we catering to tribalist mentalities?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Funny you should say that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hi siserune! How about those labor studies, the “Berkeley NMF” data, or your hand collected math competition data?</p>
<p>How about some evidence supporting the negative discrimination against Asians, fab?</p>
<p>“What injustices are there to correct?” - xiggi</p>
<p>The one where we use race as a factor in admissions. </p>
<p>“[O]ur admission system failed to recognize that it could be gamed and manipulated by subgroups where the cultural definition of cheating is slightly different . . .” -xiggi</p>
<p>Racist much?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Under our current system of justice, using race as a factor in admissions is just. There is no higher authority to go to in this country to get a different answer. The only thing you can do if you do not like the answer, is to take some action by filing a suit or lobbying Congress to change the law. Thats about it. If you don’t like it, and all you do is talk about it, well…</p>
<p>"How many do you need to make a “critical mass” "</p>
<p>For my dollar, 4-5 percent black. 7, in the west, is crazy talk!</p>
<p>"And why, exactly, are we catering to tribalist mentalities? "</p>
<p>“Fit”.</p>
<p>No corn at the farmer’s market today. (Dang!!!) Lots of strawberries, peaches, green onions, and spring garlic.Green beans, tomatoes where “meh”, no favas or sugar snaps.</p>