<p>“One personal example persuades me that bias has to exist: when my son walked into the college counselor’s office at HS he was pressured to apply to MIT . This for a kid who scored 780 on Latin Virgil, 3rd highest score on National French exam (5 on French AP), perfect Writing and Crit R on SAT, yet all the counselor could see was his math/science scores (also high but slightly lower than language, history etc). She dissuaded him from all the Ivies, almost said he was not Ivy material, actually said as a vegetarian he would not fit into Princeton’s eating clubs, said his teachers saw him as not verbal, this for the kid whose verbal scores were the highest in the 100 year history of the school. Reluctantly, he applied to MIT early, rejected, and to all Ivies, got into 4 of them. So, if she has this bias, I am confident other adcoms on the other side of the table have, too.”</p>
<p>His GC was an idiot. As his admissions indicate, he was the kind of student who stands out in Ivy admissions. After all, Ivies want to create broadly diverse student bodies. Regardless of his race, he would have stood out for admission. If he were Asian, he’d have stood out even more for being so different from the norm of Asian applicants.</p>
<p>Yes, there is absolutely a bias but no, it is not hidden. Read the press releases from HYP and they clearly articulate that they activeloy seek minority candidates. They spent a good deal of the fall specifically recruiting minorities. Harvard was very proud that 11% were African American and 10% (or so, I do not remember the exact number) were Hispanic.</p>
<p>Harvard also actively seeks low income applicants, students from underrepresented parts of the U.S. and world, stellar athletes, stellar students in a variety of fields and backgrounds.</p>
<p>Harvard actively seeks whatever kind of students will help it create a vibrant student body that is diverse in all meanings of the word “diverse”.</p>
<p>Marite, sample size of one, one personal experience, means little. But I extrapolated to try make a point: the point being, I believe he should have got into at least one of the HYP but did not since there were folks like his HS counselor in the adcoms of those schools. Cannot prove it, conjecture, etc. Fact: Ivies seek underprivileged, low income, first gen, etc etc. Fact: most Asians do not fit the bill. In fact, quite a few Asian Indians come from privileged backgrounds. It will not be in synch with social and non-educational mission of Ivies to take too many Asians. The adcoms are trying to engineer a social revolution. Like Roosevelt’s works programs to create jobs, thru affirmative admissions they are trying to pull Hispancis and Blacks into the middle class.</p>
<p>For social cohesion, America needs a large, strong middle class, it needs more blacks and Hispanics in this class, whites and Asians are already overrepresented in this class.</p>
<p>Other than Caltech, there is no meritocratic college in the US. Everything falls into place if one abandons the idea that Ivies are like Oxbridge. Or the Ecoles.</p>
<p>Yes, and the AA makes it very frustrating for Asian, and even white, middle class parents and students. (Especially those from the Mid Atlantic and NE.)Many of these kids do everything that is asked of them - they get great grades, spectacular test scores, and participate in meaningful EC’s. But, from the outset they are at a disadvantage. There are just too many of them.
So of course many of them are bitter right now. They see less qualified students get the acceptances. At my D’s school you could have predicted (any some did) just which non recruited-athlete student would get the HYP acceptance. Yes, not the top Asian and white students but the one minority student. This student is a great kid, but you can’t tell me that not one of the other students should not have been offered more than the waitlist?</p>
<p>Indian here too Anyway, whenever I read about URM getting in on CC, I am always really happy for them. I think its just hurting us more because we actually know these ones that got in and felt that we’re more qualified, which I guess is not a very accurate assumption cuz who are we to say? OP- I make msyelf feel better by saying that if I really think I was Ivy-worthy, at least I’ll (hopefully) prosper wherever I go. At least you know you were qualified and just got owned but the other crazy genius Asians LOL I fooled myself into feeling better by typing that :D</p>
<p>You’re the one who chose to “prove” bias based on a single anecdote. And the anecdote totally disproves your point. It merely suggests that your son had an idiotic GC, that he chose to disregard the GC’s advice, and was admitted to 4 out of 8 Ivies. </p>
<p>Geezz…this is just what I’ve feared…I guess I got to do something different from the other “asian” norms…though how does an asian kid with disability count in this???</p>
<p>marite, I did not, never did set out to prove anything. I never used the word I think. I qualified it all by saying I believe. One example does not prove either way. Son did not ignore the GC totally. Did ignore her in applying to 8 Ivies but accepted her urging and applied to MIT.</p>
<p>His first choice was Pton and I believe (can’t prove it and am not attempting to) he would have got in if he had applied early (was waitlisted as RD but that doesn’t mean necessarily he would have got in as early).</p>
<p>Please follow my logic: even if my son had got into all 8 Ivies that neither proves nor disproves the argument about bias against Asians. I made two separate data points, an anecdotal experience of bias at HS, then extrapolated that EXPERIENCE to suggest possible bias at colleges but did not relate Ivy admits to bias. In other words, read it this way: biased GC, poster saying possible bias at college, ignore admit data.</p>
<p>“But I extrapolated to try make a point: the point being, I believe he should have got into at least one of the HYP but did not since there were folks like his HS counselor in the adcoms of those schools.”</p>
<p>Interesting. I didn’t see anything racial in the GC’s misguided guidance. What I saw was a GC who had a wrong view of what top colleges look for in their applicants. A student of any race with the characteristics the poster described would have gotten a second look in an Ivy pool as most applicants to Ivies are not vegetarians who are among the nation’s top students in Latin.</p>
<p>I’ve seen similar bad advice given to URMs as well as nonURMs. For instance, when I was running an internship program for high school students interested in journalism, one student told me that her GC wouldn’t let her apply because the GC said the girl was “too nosey.” So-called nosiness is exactly what is a hallmark of good journalists, and I happily admitted the girl into the program. More than a decade later, she’s now an ESPN reporter and columnist.</p>
<p>northstarmom, in my mind to take a look at an Asian kid, look at his numbers, say that his teachers don’t see him as verbal then suggest MIT is a racial typecasting. Not necessarily bias, I will admit. His vegetariansim would not have been reported on any college form, the GC mentioned eating clubs and their “white” nature and added he won’t fit.</p>
<p>Marite, I repeatedly mention conjecture, belief, etc. Hence, it is not an argument from fact because there is not too much fact in the argument against Asians. What I did was throwing up possibilities and trajectories.</p>
<p>Another trajectory: the year after a federal investigation opened into Harvard’s possible bias against Asians in 1988, Asian admit rates went up, stayed up for 2 years, dropped the year after the investigation found no bias, stayed that way; this year, little more than a year after litigation at Pton, Asian American admit rates have gone up. Correlation does not mean cause and effect but there is increasing evidence that there is bias.</p>
<p>Harvard’s bias against Jews in the past is well documented. Analogously, let us be open to the possiblity that the newest immigrants are subject to the same stereotypes new immigrants are subject to from the time of the Roman empire.</p>
<p>As a faculty sitting in graduate student admission committee in a major research university in the country for the last several years, I would like to say “yes”, there is a variety of quotas for admission, that serve quite a few university agendas. Since we actively recruit under-represented minority into our program to fulfill some percentage, you might also call it a racial quotas. In fact, NIH still has special RFA for minority investigators (excluding Asians). If the AA program and all other quotas system are removed, you will see not only substantial increase of asian faces, but also a lot more foreign students, or a Caltech/UCB student body. For those who think AA or quotas not fair, complaining in this website will not help your cause. Please talk to your congressman or to become an Asian version of Martin Luther King. To my knowledge, Asians in both Michigan and California voted against removal of the affirmative action. I dont understand why you complain here.</p>
<p>A “quota” is not the politically correct term. Harvard desires a very “diverse” class so if 50% of their students are Asian, then the class wouldn’t be very diverse. It’s actually not a complicated concept.</p>
<p>As an Asian male who was accepted to HYPSM, I think that Asians tend to be more homogeneous as an applicant group and therefore less likely to enrich the student body of a college. Thus, colleges only take the top few (math+science students) or the ones who branch out of orthodox activities. Also, remember that Asians are roughly 7% of the US population but represent close to 18% at elite colleges. I would say colleges want to keep their student bodies reflective of society.</p>
<p>marite, one uses conjecture when the evidence is incomplete and the evidence in this matter is not totally complete. These blogs are for hypothesis testing, throwing out conjectures, pursuing lines of probability, etc etc. Some people cannot deal with ambivalence in discourse, hence the confusion.</p>
<p>Thank you straighttalk for that straight talk. </p>
<p>Northstarmom, I understand all your points but with respect, I think you fail to recognize the inherent bias in the system that tries to create a “well-rounded” student body. The bias comes in at the point that you define a ‘well rounded’ student body. Years ago, Harvard’s idea of a ‘well rounded’ student body meant no women and a limited number of Jews. The same argument could be made about Asians today as for Jews then…i.e, that they were unidimensional, with overlapping interests. The parallel even extends to the preference for pre-med concentration, the lack of interest in certain types of sports and the strength in playing certain instruments. </p>
<p>I am in favor of preferences for underrepresented minorities but <em>only when they meet econonmic criteria</em>. Today, there are many wealthy privileged students who happen to be minorities, who are given preferential treatment in admissions. This is unfair first to the impoverished URMs who get overlooked as the unofficial ‘quotas’ get filled by the privileged URMs. It is also unfair to their non-URM peers who went to school alongside these kids, treated them as equals, and then saw the stark contrasts in admissions experiences. I know that the elite colleges are attempting to recruit minorities from poor neighborhoods and that is great. They should do more of that. But it is patently unfair to give preferences to wealthy, privileged URMs and this is happening today.</p>
Anyway, whenever I read about URM getting in on CC, I am always really happy for them. I think its just hurting us more because we actually know these ones that got in and felt that we’re more qualified, which I guess is not a very accurate assumption cuz who are we to say? OP- I make msyelf feel better by saying that if I really think I was Ivy-worthy, at least I’ll (hopefully) prosper wherever I go. At least you know you were qualified and just got owned but the other crazy genius Asians