<p><a href=“3”>quote</a> when you preference legacies, athletes, the super rich and certain races then you are forced to impose higher sat/gpa requirements on unhooked applicants. Those meeting that criterion are largely Asian and white. </p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sort of. The SAT score reported in US News is a 25%-75% range. That means the bottom 25% can be as low as they want without impacting the score. I don’t know what percentage of non-academic hooks there are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Rapeleye’s comments were extremely defensive in tone; if Li had kept his mouth shut, he would’ve been one of the “thousands” of qualified applicants who could not be admitted due to oversupply. Moreover, Rapeleye’s comments indirectly dissed Yale and Princeton, as Yale accepted a guy with unimpressive ECs and Princeton almost did. (Li was on the waiting list at Princeton.) </p>
<p>I shouldn’t have to clarify, but the above paragraph is NOT meant to imply or suggest that Li “deserved” admission or Princeton “should have” admitted Li.</p>
<p>Lastly, while Harvard may have thought that Li wasn’t a good fit when they reviewed his application in Fall 2005 / Spring 2006, they changed their mind rather quickly; Li successfully transferred to Harvard in his second year, so he applied for transfer admission in Fall 2006 / Spring 2007. Apparently filing a civil rights complaint with the OCR against Princeton was the missing leadership in his application…</p>
<p>Again, just being devil’s advocate here PG… if there is no difference between a 2250 and a 2400 and no difference between a 3.7 and a 4.0, why is there such a large difference in acceptance rates at these two levels. </p>
<p>Maybe this has already been explained, but if so, could someone repeat it for me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see what any “dissing of Y & P” has anything to do with anything, or what it allegedly proves. Holistic admissions means that H may like someone that Y & P don’t (and all possible permutations).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, so I don’t fit your “profile” of a trophy-hunting Asian. Weird, isn’t it, xiggi?</p>
<p>Setting aside our differences and our staunch disagreements with the other’s politics, I ask a question in good faith that I hope you will not misinterpret as a “game.” Do you feel anyone can ever legitimately oppose racial preferences? If the answer is no, why not? If the answer is yes, then under what circumstances is it acceptable?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ROFL - they are all still LOW!</p>
<p>But they are different and the difference is not negligible. To say they are both low is not a satisfying answer.</p>
<p>
My theory is that when Jian Li applied to transfer, Harvard decided to admit him to avoid the hassle that he imposed on Princeton. Who knows, maybe he did something impressive at Yale. I note, in passing, that when he was rejected by Harvard the first time around, he brought the civil rights complaint against only Princeton. Wonder why that was? Maybe he was still hoping to get the ultimate trophy–which he did get–a Harvard diploma.</p>
<p>And I’m sorry, but I continue to think that it’s really dopey for a guy who was accepted to Yale and waitlisted at Princeton to be the poster child for the idea that these schools are discriminating against Asians.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, Jian Li’s civil rights complaint was unrelated to his own admission results. I am talking about the content of the complaint, not Li’s own personal motivation. The complaint was only based on the Espenshade study, and I believe the Espenshade study only looked at Princeton. Therefore, Li filed the civil rights complaint against Princeton. </p>
<p>BTW, what profile would be a good poster child? If Li had gotten rejected across the board, people would have said that there was some fatal flaw in his application or his personality was deficient. Frankly, I think the more success you have in a given system, the more credibility you have in criticizing it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It doesn’t satisfy <em>you</em>, but it apparently satisfies the elite schools. If they weren’t satisfied, they’d do it a different way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is. It speaks of a certain lack of understanding of social / cultural context.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m interested in seeing the responses to this. It seems to me that the only “good poster child” who would satisfy Hunt et al. would be someone admitted across the board.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And there’s no anti-Asian bias in this whatsoever, am I right, Pizzagirl? You would’ve said the same thing had the complainant been able to trace his ancestry to the Mayflower.</p>
<p>I would also like to add, that believe it or not, there is such a thing as a recruited athlete with a 2400 score. (My good friend’s S, who was also val). I bring this up to emphasize that while scoring a 2400 is rare and impressive, it is not unusual for high scoring applicants to also excel mightily in other equally impressive and sought-after categories. Applicants like Jian Li have no basis to assume that they <em>deserve</em> to be admitted, only that they have a very good chance, better than most.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This may be true but it does not imply any type of discrimination. Do you know for sure that Asians are exactly the same as other racial groups in all the other areas that elite colleges look at? You are assuming that all applicants that apply to these universities have exactly the same qualifications in the areas of leadership, community service, athletic participation, musical background, travel experiences, leadership within their schools, etc…</p>
<p>Maybe, somehow “lower scoring” (slackers that only get a 2100) Asians are somewhat lacking in the other areas. I am not an adcom so I am of course being hypothetical. Maybe, the super amazing Asians (in all areas of their lives, not just at taking standardized tests) tend to also have high test scores. If their culture values high tests scores more than other cultures it would seem to me that the most talented kids would not neglect this aspect of their life. Those Asians that are not as talented in leadership, etc…were also not as good at studying for the SAT. Since other cultures do not value standardized testing (or AP class participation or math/science competitions, etc.)in the same way Asians do, their correlations would not be so high. </p>
<p>The fallacy of your argument, IMO, is that you equate high test scores with high leadership (and anything else elite colleges are looking for) skills. You believe that a student with a 2400 must also posses higher skills in every other area. You may not have taken into consideration that it may be the other way around for the Asian culture; high leadership potential, creativity, and good interpersonal skills tend to be correlated with very high standardized test scores. This confounds the admissions statistics and leads you to believe that higher test scores from Asians are what the adcoms are looking for.</p>
<p>There are plenty of really excellent universities that only look at test scores and the things you value in a student. Why aren’t you concentrating your efforts on these universities? Why are you spending so much energy on a system you believe is flawed? Won’t these universities eventually fail in the long run and be surpassed by those you feel are doing things right?</p>
<p>Sewhappy,</p>
<p>Are you saying that Ivy League schools require an 800 on the writing portion of the SAT I to be seriously considered for admissions? Then why have people advised me not to have my son retake his SAT I with a 730 on the writing? I posted on CC about my struggle over this and almost all people said don’t retake (2320-800 M, 790 CR).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Li never said he “deserved” admission to Princeton (or anywhere else). Li also never said he opposed the consideration of subjective criteria.</p>
<p>
Nope. Espenshade’s study didn’t identify what schools were covered, but it is known that Princeton wasn’t one of them.</p>
<p>The poster child for such a complaint would, in my mind, have to be a person who was forced to accept an inferior education as a result of discrimination. At least then he might garner some sympathy. The proof problems would be the same.</p>
<p>
You may be right–the fact that Jian Li is a clueless jerk may have nothing to do with his racial background. But please note that Pizzagirl didn’t say this had anything to do with his race–that’s your projection, which shows something about you, not her.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course they don’t. There is no need for your son to retake his SAT I with a 730.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A 2400 was not the only thing on Jian Li’s resume’. But again, the civil complaint was not based on Jian Li’s record.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have you omitted a “not” in this paragraph?
Anyway, are you saying that interpersonal skills/creativity/leadership inversely correlates with test scores in Asian but not other groups?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Its sort of like how “as ice cream sales go up, so do the number of drownings” You want to believe that ice cream must be the cause of the drownings.</p>