<p>
</p>
<p>Everyone of them has Asians and so does Harvard. We are debating why there are not more in Harvard because they are being sued. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then you have not seen some of the kids at elite magnet schools in Northern California. While the SAT may not mean much, there should be no reason why over a dozen 2300 SAT scorers should be attending community colleges because they were shut out of 4-year colleges. But it happens every year to a specific group of Asians.</p>
<p>A 2300 gets a full tuition ride in University of Alabama or University of Houston or a whole bunch of other schools in this country. Apparently your applicants don’t know where to apply.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wait, you said you knew of no Asians sitting at home…and when I say I know more than a dozen, you change the story into naming random colleges. </p>
<p>Above that post, you declared that “It is a negative light if you only want to talk about Harvard and nothing else” in reference to STEM majors. I pointed out some comparable schools and you change it to something else.</p>
<p>I see a pattern here…</p>
<p>Those Asians in CA who are “shut out” of 4 year colleges must not have heard of the CSU schools. They are fools if the didn’t apply to safeties and have to attend CCs if they had 2300 SATs. </p>
<p>I can understand their predicament. They come from poor families, often working at the family business in excessive hours. They need to stay local. They get shut out at the local colleges (Stanford, Berkeley, Davis, etc). But are guaranteed first crack at Davis come transfer cycle through the TAG program. </p>
<p>So yes, there are literally dozens of 2300s every year at community colleges in Northern California. All of them Asian. Affirmative action, IMO, should be helping these kids out…but they are the wrong race.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bunch of colleges? They are prestigious 4 year universities but how would people who think only Harvard matters know? It sounds like there is nothing in between Harvard and community colleges.</p>
<p>What? Asians with 2300 SAT in NorCal rejected by public universities? Time to call Ed Blum and sue the UC from Merced to Irvine via Berkeley et al. Forget Harvard! </p>
<p>“STEM v non-STEM seems like just another characterization to knock Asian applicants.”</p>
<p>It could work out to have that affect in practice, but a university that has a distribution of faculty in different fields has an imperative to have a student body studying in all those fields, in rough proportion to its available faculty and facilities in each academic area.
For the university STEM Vs. Non-STEM, and even finer distinctions than that, are a necessary resource allocation issue. IMO.</p>
<p>A school whose faculty consists of 2 physics professors and 25 English Literature Professors would not want to wind up with 700 undergrads pursuing physics majors and 3 students pursuing English Literature majors. It makes sense to me that the school should select its students being mindful of their likely areas of interest, vs. its resources.
Otherwise the tail is wagging the dog. </p>
<p>I think the main problem here is that no one knows the facts but everyone believes that they are right because they have been repeating their bias for a LONG time on CC. At some point, everyone starts to believe their own spin.</p>
<p>@Quantmech, no he was in grad school getting his PhD. He might have been a few years older than us since he’d been forced to be a baker during the cultural revolution. He’d taught himself a lot.</p>
<p>I’m coming back to the discussion a bit late, but in response to Periwinkle, #376: It seems to me that an increase in the number of exceptionally well qualified Asian-American applicants should lead to an increase in the percentages of Asian-Americans in the “top” schools, unless there is a corresponding increase in the number of exceptionally well-qualified applicants of other races. I believe that the number of exceptionally well qualified Asian-American applicants has increased in the past 10-15 years. Is this not the case?</p>
<p>The people from the PRC who came to the US as graduate students in the first big wave, and then stayed, are more-or-less of parent-of-college-applicant age now (with some exceptions, as noted by mathmom). They did not all become faculty members–a lot of them went into other careers.</p>
<p>Also, the fact that Harvard has 2,400 faculty members does not mean that Harvard could not accommodate all of their children (if Harvard admissions wanted to). Suppose that the faculty members have (on average) 2 children each. Then we have 4,800 children of Harvard faculty members. However, the faculty members are spread over a 30-year period (roughly), in terms of their own ages. So one would anticipate that only about 1/30 of the group of children would be graduating from high school in any given year. That cuts the number to 160 children of Harvard faculty applying to college in a given year. Now, some of them will not want to go to Harvard, and some of them may not have the objective qualifications to be admitted. On top of that, some of the senior faculty recruited by Harvard have already sent their children to college before moving to Harvard, and so they contribute 0 to the number of faculty-offspring applicants. So the actual number of Harvard faculty children who are likely to go to Harvard is probably less than 160 per year, and it is almost certainly less than 10% of the entering Harvard class. Also, I suspect that relatively few of the Harvard faculty are Asian-American. I haven’t collected the data, but I would guess that the fraction of Asian-Americans among the Harvard faculty is lower than the fraction in the undergraduate student body. </p>