are colleges racist?

[Bay]

<p>

Textureless drones who invent facebooks and yahoos vs beautiful essay writers destined become english teachers that put kids to sleep in class.

</p>

<p>Limited universe, much?</p>

<p>Famous English majors:</p>

<p>Mario Cuomo
Pete Wilson
Michael Eisner
Conan O’Brien
Sally Ride
Diane Sawyer
Steven Spielberg
and more…</p>

<p>[full disclosure: this is from an unverified list off of Google(!)]</p>

[texaspg]

<p>sewhappy - If you have n’t figured it out, it was the same tone used for slaves back in 1840s. You ignorant Asians need to listen to massa because we know better (ignoring that the knowledge amounts to jack).</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

However, when people use perjoratives like “textureless drones” in the same sentence as high math/science achievement, it makes me wonder if they know what it takes to do well in math and science and how that reasoning ability is applicability in other walks of life.

</p>

<p>You guessed it, no one at HYPSM et al knows a darn thing about how to pick good math / science talent! They want to pick really top-tier math / science talent … AND, they want to pick people who are merely “extremely good” but not genius-level in these areas. (I was a math major, btw. So don’t think I’m little-miss-humanities-essay-writer!)</p>

<p>

However, the fact that a major admissions director can make the statement, “It’s possible that Henry Park looked like a thousand other Korean kids with the exact same profile of grades and activities and temperament … yet another textureless math grind.”

</p>

<p>I agree that it was an unfortunate statement and I agree that if it had been said about other ethnicities, there would have been condemnation.</p>

<p>Would you have been OK with it if it had simply been “Henry Park looked like a thousand other kids with the exact same profile …”?</p>

<p>

The lack of any response tells me that these attitudes are deemed acceptable, and that applicants with the same EC’s and academic aptitude may be hurt if they are Asian. I don’t know for sure, but it’s certainly possible.

</p>

<p>I guess the million-dollar question is - is it that they are hurt <em>because they are Asian</em> (as in the adcom says - oh, please, not another Asian) or is it that they are hurt because they are concentrating on demonstrating the same set of qualifiers / interests / EC’s and therefore competing with one another more tightly, and it just so happens that those are in the Asian community?</p>

[texaspg]

<p>Bay - I am stereotyping right back. Why should I care about what became of english majors since my stereotype is set to textureless drone. Btw, I only like three of them (Conan, Sally, Steven). The rest could be anybody and they still did nt contribute anything for me. </p>

<p>I still remember those journalism majors breathlessly awaiting Mario’s declaration - will he or won’t he and why does nt he join the race when everyone on this earth knew he will beat George Bush. I was new to the country but I kept going who gives a rodent’s behind if Mario declares and who annointed him president in waiting. Pete Wilson - Politicians are dime a dozen and yesterday’s Wiener is today’s wiener. Michael Eisner was one of the worst CEOs in America and Diane Sawyer, what is she known for again other than being another face on TV?</p>

[epiphany]

<p>

I don’t think anyone on this thread is anywhere near as ignorant and ill-informed as Pizzagirl and to some extent Epiphany seem to think.

</p>

<p>I’ve never said nor implied that people are “ignorant and ill-informed.” I do, however, think that several things are happening, and continue to happen on this thread:</p>

<p>(1) Mostly, some otherwise very smart people are not putting together the concepts that they do understand well, in order to be able to make the same judgments other people with similar background seem to be able to see clearly, given data. Often when people do that (for any subject) it’s because of a resistance to the data rather than to any inability to understand it.</p>

<p>(2) Lots of people are tossing around infllamatory, ill-defined terms such as “fairness,” “equality,” “prejudice” as if there truly is a strictly objectively meritorious process for these few universities (among thousands) of which we speak. When challenged to define what “fair” would be, there is neither a quantitative nor a qualitative answer.</p>

<p>(3) A number of posters seem to believe that admissions officers are a bunch of malicious folks whose private social agenda is supposedly more powerful than the amazingly self-centered interest of the university is admitting crack students. </p>

<p>(4) A number of posters do not believe that a private institution has the “right” to set standards which determine membership. Now, if I believed that HYPSM, etc. offered a qualitatively superior education to the rest of the thousands of institutions in the country, I would agree that those entrance standards should possibly be set by those outside the institutions themselves (such as Dept. of Education, Justice Dept. etc.) Because lack of equal access to an outstanding education would then be the issue. It is not the issue in this case. The quality of such an education is subjective, to the consumer/applicant, and even to many employers, as judged by parallel threads on this forum and those posters who describe their hiring process/rationale.</p>

<p>(5) Several posters are bringing up off-topic arguments, attributing them to current posters, such as the phrase “textureless math grand,” when I haven’t seen such a generality or stereotype offered on this thread, although I am ready to be corrected. As in marital fights, it’s bad practice to bring up old business that is not the subject of the current argument(s). And current posters cannot be held responsible for some inappropriate generality some admission officer or rep said 5-10 years ago. </p>

<p>(6) It’s rather ironic that those who contribute to the 100 hand-wringing pages about assumed stereotyping of Asian-American students by admissions officers and/or others, are guilty of troubling and simple-minded stereotyping of under-represented minorities. Because someone of any race/etnicity (majority or minority, under- or -over-represented for that effort) is not admitted, does not necessarily mean that the reasons for such denial were based on stereotypes. Unless you all think you are just so much smarter than admissions officers.</p>

<p>(7) A few posters clearly have significantly more “invested” in math/science students (of any particular ethnicity, I’m sure) than humanities students, judging by the insults thrown at the latter. (But no, you people are ‘objective’ and ‘unbiased.’ :rolleyes:)</p>

<p>(8) The posters hurling insults at the elite institutions and those who defend their policies are way ruder than those whom they insult, i.m.o.</p>

[collegealum314]

<p><a href=“7”>quote</a> A few posters clearly have significantly more “invested” in math/science students (of any particular ethnicity, I’m sure) than humanities students, judging by the insults thrown at the latter. (But no, you people are ‘objective’ and ‘unbiased.’ )

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I truly don’t respect achievement in humanities any less than math/science, despite my chosen field. In fact, if you read other posts of mine, I would expect a star scientist to have been extremely good in the humanities, and not just their science classes. And vice versa, I would expect someone capable of the highest scholarship in humanities to be able to do well in advanced math classes. </p>

<p>There other thing is that it is much easier to identify math/science talent through E.C. achievements that everyone knows and respects (competitions); therefore, it is easy to use this to argue that admissions is flawed. For example, by citing an math olympiad winner who gets rejected at MIT is a good argument that there is something wrong with admission. I don’t think Scholastic Bowl or national essay contests are as good as identifier of future scholarship in humanities. </p>

<p><a href=“6”>quote</a> It’s rather ironic that those who contribute to the 100 hand-wringing pages about assumed stereotyping of Asian-American students by admissions officers and/or others, are guilty of troubling and simple-minded stereotyping of under-represented minorities. Because someone of any race/etnicity (majority or minority, under- or -over-represented for that effort) is not admitted, does not necessarily mean that the reasons for such denial were based on stereotypes. Unless you all think you are just so much smarter than admissions officers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the opposite is also true. Though I haven’t seen it on this thread, I certainly have seen it on the board.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

For example, by citing an math olympiad winner who gets rejected at MIT is a good argument that there is something wrong with admission.

</p>

<p>That makes no sense. You’re still operating from an assumption that admission is a “reward” that should be automatically given to those who demonstrate X credential, as opposed to understanding that the goal of the adcom is to build an interesting class for the school. </p>

<p>There’s nothing “wrong” with a math olympiad winner getting rejected from MIT. MIT may have 3 math olympiad winners already and not want a fourth. That’s OK, and it’s not the least bit unfair. The math olympiad winner may be from Massachusetts and they’ve already got a zillion people from Massachusetts. They may be more intrigued by the accordion-player from Alabama or the dancer from Scranton. All of those are OK, and none of those are “unfair.” It only becomes problematic IF the math olympiad winner was rejected in this fashion: “Let’s admit this student, we all agree he’s great, wonderful, we want him – oh wait, he’s Asian, we don’t want him anymore.” </p>

<p>It seems that some of you are treating the process as though a determination is made like such: Determination made … Racial profile checked … Decision adjusted in light of the racial profile (“he wasn’t qualified, but I see now he’s black, take him … he was qualified, but now I see he’s Asian, don’t take him”). As the peeks behind the scenes at Tufts and Amherst amply demonstrate, race is simply taken into account in the grand context of the entire package.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Sigh. Because they are still elite schools. My S’s school is in the top 15 of research u’s and my D’s school is in the top 5 of LAC’s. I don’t know if they are “overrepresented” or “fair share represented” since I don’t know what % of the applicants to each school are Asian. I certainly can’t say that they are underrepresented, though, when Asians are only 5% of the pop.

</p>

<p>But you said that “there is a predominant misconception in many Asian communities…that the only schools that are really ‘worth’ attending are HYPSM.” Your son’s school is NOT one of “HYPSM”; it’s in the “top 15” of research universities as ranked by USNWR. Seems, then, that a lot of Asian families think it’s “worth” it to attend your son’s school and your daughter’s, which isn’t even a research university!!!</p>

<p>So again, please stop it with the “Asians only apply to HYPSM” line. Even “et al” doesn’t save you, since it encompasses twenty-five to thirty-five additional schools.</p>

<p>

Go ahead, pretend that there isn’t a tighter focus on elite schools among Asians in general than among Americans in general. Here’s a clue - a broader % of Americans than Asians live in parts of the country in which elite schools don’t predominate and in which the smart kids go to state flagships. No one has said this is BAD. It just IS. But it results in a relative concentration of Asians all competing for the same schools, and since they are concentrated geographically as well, that leads to a lower admission rate.

</p>

<p>Do you have data to support your “truth”? It very well may be one. Though siserune has yet to post any of the additional information he claimed he “will post,” he did point out that yes, Asians are more likely than non-Asians to pursue STEM fields; I type corrected.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

So again, please stop it with the “Asians only apply to HYPSM” line. Even “et al” doesn’t save you, since it encompasses twenty-five to thirty-five additional schools.

</p>

<p>I repeat … HYPSM and HYPSM et al are still both NARROW RANGES. Only on CC would a kid who applies to the top 20 universities be considered as having a “wide range” of schools that he or she is considering.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

By the way, I hope you will understand how silly it is to conflate overrepresentation and … trophy hunting.

</p>

<p>It is silly, but I didn’t say that. Your post #1404–“…our admission system failed to recognize that it could be gamed and manipulated by subgroups where the cultural definition of cheating is slightly different…”–conveys your belief that Asians are “overrepresented” because their culture condones cheating.</p>

<p>

The French have a great say, namely … Il n’y a que la verite qui blesse.

</p>

<p>Oui, la v</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

HYPSM and HYPSM et al are still both NARROW RANGES. Only on CC would a kid who applies to the top 20 universities be considered as having a “wide range” of schools that he or she is considering.

</p>

<p>By your own definition, you extended “et al” to include twenty-five (Top 30) to thirty-five (Top 40) more schools. If you feel that forty is not a “wide (enough) range,” that’s fine. Give me a better bright line then.</p>

[collegealum314]

<p><a href=“3”>quote</a> A number of posters seem to believe that admissions officers are a bunch of malicious folks whose private social agenda is supposedly more powerful than the amazingly self-centered interest of the university is admitting crack students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I wouldn’t say they are malicious, but I do think they’re misguided at times, even at achieving their own stated goals.</p>

<p>Take a look at this example from pizzagirl:</p>

<p>

Ten years ago, when road trips to Guatemala to build houses were all the rage, before adcoms wised up to that one, these trips didn’t speak to “creative insight” or “ability to make contributions to an intellectual field.”

</p>

<p>I applied to college when the trips to Guatemala were in vogue in admissions, and I and all the other high school students knew that it was an easy way to game the system.
Also, I had an admissions person at an ivy tell me that they let in a bunch of people because they sent a shoe in and said, “now that I’ve got one foot in the door, let in the rest of me.” My opinion was that it was a cheap stunt the first time. Marilee Jones at MIT was strike 3. So yeah, I don’t have that much confidence in admissions, and I do believe it’s possible that these people aren’t self-aware enough to recognize that they may have an anti-Asian bias.<br>
Frankly, I think most undergrads at HYPSM don’t see the process as being as flawless as you seem to. As with anything, when you get close to something you start to see everything wrong with it.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Individuals who belong to the same group would all naturally bring something different to the campus but it would be limited to the diversity within that group.

</p>

<p>No doubt “that group” has limits, but I think the limits extend much further than your sentence would suggest at first. Today’s [third</a> letter](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/opinion/l20race.html?_r=1&ref=opinion]third”>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/opinion/l20race.html?_r=1&ref=opinion) in the Times about the recent race in admissions article articulately explains why.</p>

<p>

So, If I were in charge of a major university that wanted to produce the future leaders of the world, I would want a class of students who were not only intelligent but diverse in their experiences and backgrounds. I would want students who can challenge each other think think from a different perspective. I doubt I could find this sort of group if I strictly paid attention to 2400 > 2300 > …seems kind of simplistic to me. We all know that standardized test scores are imperfect and can only give a small insight into a person; to think they can do more than that is naive.

</p>

<p>Your post suggests that I think test scores are everything. I do not. You don’t need to consider racial classification to have a “class of students who were not only intelligent but diverse in their experiences and backgrounds.”</p>

<p>

It seems to me that the universities that are being called “racist” are being called this by people who have a very limited perspective of education. They want these universities to think like they do and cannot even fathom that there may be another way of thinking. That is what happens when we are limited to only the views of the group into which we belong.

</p>

<p>Oh, I can certainly fathom that there may be another way of thinking. You should direct this “charge” to the people here who share your ideas; most of them cannot play Devil’s Advocate and have NO IDEA why anyone would oppose racial preferences. (Can you?)</p>

<p>[Harvard</a> SICA’s](<a href=“http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~sica/reading.htm]Harvard”>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~sica/reading.htm) reading list makes it clear that there is only one acceptable way to view racial preferences if you attend the weeklong session. I think they fit your charge perfectly.</p>

[sewhappy]

<p>I am still waiting for an explanation as to why pizzagirl and, to some extent, epiphany seem to see themselves as experts on Ivy admissions. What is the background that confers the tone of “one who knows.”</p>

<p>So far, none of their posts strike me as anything but flack on the part of the admissions “line.” Sorry, but they don’t seem to really grasp the process, in real terms.</p>

[Canuckguy]

<p>

You’re accusing the professor of lying about his point of view, and formulating a policy he doesn’t really agree without without any real evidence.

</p>

<p>I believe you are blinded by your emotion. When did I ever accuse the professor of anything? I suggest you go over what I wrote more carefully. Do administrators formulate and run policies on AA they don’t agree with? The answer is a resounding yes.</p>

<p>Among the most striking findings is the silent opposition of so many who administer these programs – yet must publicly support them. Although a small majority of administrators support admissions preferences, 47.7 percent oppose them. In addition, when asked to estimate the impact of preferential admissions on university academic standards, about two-thirds say there is none. Most dismaying, of those who think that preferences have some impact on academic standards, those believing it negative exceed those believing it positive by 15 to 1.</p>

<p>[Affirmative</a> Action – and Reaction; Is Diversity Overrated? - New York Times](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/29/opinion/affirmative-action-and-reaction-is-diversity-overrated.html?src=pm]Affirmative”>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/29/opinion/affirmative-action-and-reaction-is-diversity-overrated.html?src=pm)</p>

<p>Is there evidence that diversity is a “sham”? It certainly appears that is where the weight of evidence is:</p>

<p>*Supporters of the policy justify it with little more than a tautology: Diversity is good because it is good. There’s scant hard evidence of its academic beneficence, as shown by three recent separate studies by the National Association of Scholars, by Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai, and by Stanley Rothman, Seymour Martin Lipset and Neil Nevitte. Why is engineering a diverse student body a compelling interest at Michigan but not at historically black or women’s colleges?
Indeed, Michigan’s own claims in its legal arguments that student diversity enhances learning were contradicted in the original executive summary of the university’s 1994 study of the campus. It concluded that Michigan’s racial preference programs actually “stigmatized” African Americans and “increasingly polarized” the campus, and that diversity “quite simply . . . does not, in itself, lead to a more informed, educated population.” Strangely, that summary has since been replaced by one that jibes with the legal arguments, and the research data it was based on has been sealed to the public.
*</p>

<p>[Editorial:</a> Missed opportunity | savannahnow.com | Savannah Morning News](<a href=“http://savannahnow.com/stories/062603/OPEDopedcourt.shtml]Editorial:”>http://savannahnow.com/stories/062603/OPEDopedcourt.shtml)</p>

<p>Sealed to the public? Very interesting.</p>

<p>

Now a quote from Thomas Sowell constitutes proof? I agree with Dr,. Sowell on many things, but I certainly don’t consider his reflections and musings on his anecdotal experience proof of anything.

</p>

<p>I hope you are not implying Dr. Sowell is not telling the truth. Seriously, do you think he would leave himself open on a sensitive issue like this? He quoted Stanley Rothman, Seymour Martin Lipset and Neil Nevitte, just as I did. Rothman, btw, was the Mary Huggins Gamble professor emeritus of government and director of the Center for the Study of Social and Political Change at Smith College.</p>

<p>

Since you believe Professor Karabel to be dishonest, I wonder why you bother to quote him? Or more accurately, to quote a book reviewer’s interpretation of his work.

</p>

<p>Again you are not reading carefully. “Candidly concedes” does not translate into “interpretation” of his work. Karabel candidly concedes that is the case. There is no interpretation involved. </p>

<p>This is not really what is eating you, is it? I can assure you that I have no intention to cast aspersions on your faith any more than I have the Chinese political system. If you read the thread on Tiger Mom, this should come across loud and clear. My apology if there is a misunderstanding.</p>

[Bay]

<p>@sewhappy-</p>

<p>I may be wrong, but I’m pretty sure epiphany has/had a D in the Ivies, and PG went to an Ivy (or was admitted) for grad school. I mention this because I think you felt that having a family member in an Ivy confers a validation stamp on opinions about the process.</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>

It only becomes problematic IF the math olympiad winner was rejected in this fashion: “Let’s admit this student, we all agree he’s great, wonderful, we want him – oh wait, he’s Asian, we don’t want him anymore.”

</p>

<p>I agree that the rejection of a math olympiad winner doesn’t mean the process is racist. I don’t want to take the thread off-topic anymore by saying what it does mean.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>"Oui, la v</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

I may be wrong, but I’m pretty sure epiphany has/had a D in the Ivies, and PG went to an Ivy (or was admitted) for grad school. I mention this because I think you felt that having a family member in an Ivy confers a validation stamp on opinions about the process.

</p>

<p>I was admitted way back when to one for u-grad, but chose another program at another highly selective school. However, that was a loooong time ago from an admissions standpoint and doesn’t reflect on today. Neither of my children looked at / considered any Ivy League schools. Nothing against them - just not what they were particularly looking for.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

Why is engineering a diverse student body a compelling interest at Michigan but not at historically black or women’s colleges?

</p>

<p>Because different schools choose to have different missions.</p>