<p>Couldn’t be more satisfied. I think it’s rather hard for me to “whine” since I was accepted at all four schools I applied to. But it’s OK if you thought that, xiggi; it’s always easier to argue in favor of racial preferences when you believe that the opponents are all rejects at their “first choice[s].”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Riiight. I’ve been “way out of line” because I remembered that she herself described her children’s schools as being ~20% Asian and not among “HYPSM.” Yep, that’s SO out of line, it’s offensive!</p>
<p></p>
<p>Edit</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s easier to argue to against a straw man than the real thing.</p>
<p>I have heard this whine comment before attributed to me because I was arguing a point. Is this the new massa suppressive treatment on this forum that when one has an opinion that the other person disagrees with, it is automatically whining due to a personal impact?</p>
<p>OOH poor you - you did nt get accepted, sour grapes, resentment, blah blah. Why can’t people have a doggone opinion without ever being impacted in anyway by what they are arguing about?</p>
<p>Never once have I asserted that “the process” even seems flawless, let alone is. The broad generalizations don’t hold: for Asian-Americans, for URM’s, for admissions officers, or for posters. Deal with it. The only posters on this thread making categorical statements and trying to put people in boxes are the people complaining about “the process.” Because somehow, you see, if it’s just done “their way” or “a better way” it will be less flawed than what it is now.</p>
<p>Except that even if things were done “your” (generic your) way, there would still be thousands of exceptionally qualified Asians and whites “unfairly” not admitted: people with high test scores, people with low test scores, people extremely interested and varied, people more angular but very, very brainy. </p>
<p>The only difference between admissions officers and the doomsdayers on this thread is that the former acknowledge the imperfections and the yearly losses to particular institutions which result from such numbers. They also acknowledge that they are imperfect. However, for the moment, they are, relatively speaking, in favor of the current method until a better one –which still meets institutional needs– comes along.</p>
<p>This is also the second time in a row you have debated in an unfair manner. I told you the first time that quoting from one admission officer of years ago, not on this thread, and not being defended in any way, was an improper ‘guilt by association’ and off-topic method of argument. Now you want to use some other poster’s quote to apply to my quote, within your same post. Once again, dirty pool. (But nah, you guys with over 100 pages of angst, are just oh so very much more brilliant and definitely more fair, than admissions officers. Got it.)</p>
<p>If you can’t even argue in an intellectually honest way, I frankly put very little stock in the content of those arguments.</p>
<p>^Um, well, I don’t know about unfair debating. For my last post, I was merely making a point of why I, personally, don’t have a lot of confidence in admissions staff in general. It doesn’t reflect on you personally, except that you have obviously drawn a different opinion.</p>
<p>And for the other unfair debating point of association, well, pizzagirl used the term “textureless drone” to refer to a math/science guy. Jones used the phrase “testureless math grind.” That was why I was reminded of it. Pizzagirl’s argument certainly had no racial component to it, but I found the phrase a bit alarming for non-racial reasons. And with regard to Jones, there certainly was a racial component to it. Perhaps I should make a cleaner argument. Sometimes I put tangential points in my arguments.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hardly think that was the point. Yeah, we are making generalizations, forming conclusions, whatever you want to call it. Some of them I am more sure of than others. I am personally not sure whether there is any outright discrimination against Asians, unless you consider “disparate impact” as discrimination. </p>
<p>Going back to one of pizzagirl’s statments, she said that MIT rejecting a math olympiad winner could make sense because “maybe they have 3 or 4 of them already.” Well, that is plainly ridiculous. Anyone could tell you that being one of the 5-6 Americans who make the math olympics team is the most reliable indication of technical talent there is, and there is no reasonable argument to suggest that there are 1500 people who should be admitted to MIT before those 5-6 people. Not even if they “need” a “dancer from Scranton.” Quantmech, a tenured professor in physical chemistry, would tell you the same thing. And no, just because an MIT adcom happens to be behing the Wizard of Oz curtain at the moment doesn’t mean what they do makes sense.</p>
<p>Here you go again! Complaining about the “straw man” victimization which forces you to consistently present what you really wrote. Oh wait, you do NOT really present any case. You simply cut and paste a hodgepodge of data or anecdotes without EVER lining up the dots and present a cogent argument. </p>
<p>Reading your hundreds of posts in this thread alone could only lead to find out what you did not mean … but never read why you think that Asian students are victims of discrimination in higher education… Oops, I forgot, one could also see the ease in which you’d question the motivation of people who merely asks you to offer a semblance of evidence,l and accuse people of racism when expressing an opinion different from yours and openly challenging the need for this constant whining and repettive attacks on affirmative action. </p>
<p>Fwiw, if you were admitted at every one of the four schools you applied to and were very happy with the education you received at Georgia Tech (and now at a graduate school) … may I ask you why do you feel compelled to push the discrimination envelope this far (as well as many posters’ buttons.) With four schools, you also do not seem to fit the profile of applicants who compile a willy-nilly list of potential schools that fits mostly the USNews top schools, and then voiciferously complain when they do not hit every admission cylinder! Indeed, there is a blatant horror in being rejected by HYPS and having to “settle” for Caltech, Duke, or Dartmouth. Of course, the only explanation and HAS to be that HYP, and especially Stanford must be a discriminating school … on the (sole) basis of race. Or something along those lines. </p>
<p>Oh well. I look forward to read your compelling argument, if you ever find it. In the meantime, there is nothing more to add to this asinine discussion of misguided expectations of “earned” entitlements.</p>
<p>I’m going to respectfully disagree that being on the math olympics team is the most reliable indication of technical talent there is. There are some amazing mathletes and physics competitors in our town who did not make the math olympic team because, rather than study competition mathematics, they chose to study high level college math and physics. It’s very, very different; both are excellent ways to challenge gifted math/physics students but competition math does not go into depth in topics such as differential equations, real analysis, or dynamical systems. Also, math competition math often requires speed and some of the brightest minds I’ve seen at the local math circle are less about speed and more about depth. Also, some of the brightest minds I’ve seen have never done math and physics competitions but their research while still in high school is astonishing.</p>
<p>I’m not saying that being a math olympiad isn’t an amazing feat. I’m just saying there are some other amazing feats out there. Not every math/science gifted kid wants to do competitions.</p>
<p>No reasonable argument? How about the fact that rest of the application of one of those 5-6 students contains negative items? Poor recommendations? Absence of meaningful activities beyond the Math Olympiads? Essays that are so dense it makes them hard to comprehend?</p>
<p>Congratulations to sewhappy’s kiddo’s admissions to top schools, first. Second, to me both pizzagirl and epiphany are among the most knowledgeable posters on CC. And constant contradiction is the hallmark of CC. I don’t have to agree with a poster to appreciate his/her contributions.</p>
<p>If, and a big if, any of my kiddos apply at and make into a top school, it surely is due to their abilities (not mine), perhaps innate for the most part.</p>
<p>S2 has competed a couple of times at the Harvard-MIT Math Tournament. One day, I looked at the results page and tracked the names of top finishers (not my son) from a few years ago to see where they wound up going to college. I remember being surprised that SO many of them went to MIT. I remember thinking that MIT couldn’t possible take so many of these kids because they would be so similar. Not so.</p>
<p>So clearly at a school like MIT, some ECs are more valuable than others and they probably would take most every single IMO participant they could unless there was some other red flag in the folder.</p>
<p>Not sure if this is the case at other top schools though.</p>
<p>Good questions. I don’t know. In one of the older “Race & College Admissions” threads, tokenadult first pointed it out. I was shocked to find that the reading list was so one-sided on the issue of racial preferences. Moreover, the way some of the titles were described (viz. The Shape of the River) made it clear that there was only one acceptable way of reading them.</p>
<p>My friends and I finished (aced) Calculus 1, 2, 3 (couple of us even finished linear algebra, differential equations and some analysis), organic chemistry, introduction to genetics, and modern physics during high school. But, none of us made USAMO. </p>
<p>It takes a lot more than practice. You really need to be brilliant to make the team. </p>
<p>We are talking about whole different level!</p>
<p>Actually, I don’t see myself as an expert at all but I note that both pizzagirl and epiphany seem to project that tone in many of their posts. I really did assume they were either admissions officers at top schools or college admissions consultants, just going by the tone of their posts.</p>
<p>Sorry if I came of as obnoxious in an earlier post when I mentioned my kid’s Ivy acceptances in (admittedly) a dumb effort to establish some cred on here. </p>
<p>My take on admissions for the non-hooked applicant is very different than theirs and that IS based on my own kids experience and those of many of the kids I’ve known who have gone to those schools that were not “hooked.” </p>
<p>Expert? Certainly not, who on Earth could be? It’s far too capricious.</p>
<p>I just think many of the posts arguing that there is no discrimination against Asians in the selection process resort to lectures about how it is only extraordinarily unique and special applicants who get the nod, and not “just” those with the test scores and grades. The vehemence with which this is argued sometimes strikes me as if the poster has special, insider knowledge. </p>
<p>Apparently, pizzagirl and epiphany are merely parental onlookers, like all of us here. No, I don’t think having been admitted years ago to an Ivy or having a kid go to an Ivy makes one an expert on Ivy admissions. I know I’m not. I just have found myself a little annoyed by the lectures on here about the subtleties of the process. They don’t really seem that insightful.</p>
<p>Check out the posts by MITChris on this blog. He is an adcom member. He is very transparent and he isn’t saying a thing different from what epiphany and I have said.</p>
<p>And if “Chris” is an admissions officer at MIT then that’s really cool but that’s not the same as being an admissions officer at HYPS. MIT doesn’t care as much about balanced sky high test scores and gpa, for one thing. They unabashedly look for the quirky science/math thinker. It is certainly selective but a different type of selective.</p>
<p>Again, the Flanagan piece posted by Canuckyguy is one of the most insightful I’ve read on Ivy admissions for the non-hooked, ie White and Asian non-legacy, non-athlete types.
There is a nuclear arms race afoot for such kids to achieve the gpa and scores just to get a look. I think epiphany and pizzagirl seriously underestimate this. Then, sure, the application has to be an interesting read. </p>
<p>Very, very different from MIT where an 800 in writing is not going to be a requirement.</p>
That’s for sure! What I want to know is whether this whole idea that Harvard et al are biased against Asians is, itself, a straw man. Perhaps that argument has to be included because otherwise it seems a bit unattractive for a highly overrepresented group to be complaining about the “unfairness” of putting a thumb on the scale for URMs.</p>
<p>Again, what, specifically, is the evidence that Asians are being discriminated against as compared to whites at highly selective private colleges?</p>
<p>MIT requirements are biased towards Math/Science students. Their SAT II requirement is for scores for one science and one math subject. Until they open up that requirement to say otherwise, I can’t imagine why any adcom from MIT should complain about accepting all math/science oriented people and looking for diversity in achievements.</p>
<p>…and unlike in a courtroom, asked and not answered, over and over for the laslt 5 years minimum. </p>
<p>And to address an earlier so-called “difference” among the selective schools’ admissions policies:</p>
<p>While individual institutions naturally vary in their methodologies for selection (Penn’s is different from H’s or Y’s), and in their institutional priorities year to year, the general principles of selection (and the problem with duplication of credentials) apply not only to the “top” 10, but have applied increasingly to the colleges that can be called very competitive for admission. </p>
<p>And although I do have wide access to records, and have so for many years, people with much less access than I have, have independently figured out what I have from doing a ton of reading, talking to a ton of admissions officers and college reps, and applying the math. Hmmm.</p>
<p>Your demand for the proof is, in my view, just a little disingenuous. There can be no proof until the process is completely transparent, ie, all applicants’ complete applications - scores, gpa, hs courseload, ECs, and race as well as some sort of indicator of the “readability” of the application - is disclosed from the past five or so years. That is not going to happen so the proof is unattainable. And I think you both are completely aware of that.</p>
<p>And epiphany, what records do you have access to and why? Just curious.</p>