<p>Hep:</p>
<p>I don’t know any URM at MIT. I don’t any any who were admitted, deferred, rejected. So I can’t argue that a URM with such and such stats would have been admitted, can I? How can I prove a purely hypothetical scenario? But that is what you are trying to make posters here do.</p>
<p>Hepstar, should you check in again, I think that in various ways people have answered your questions: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one can, but many posts tried to explain why–even if we had access to confidential information and knew this to be the case–it would not constitute evidence of discrimination against Asian-Americans.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Similarly many posts were at pains to explain that AA as it was understood in the early days, as redress for past discrimination/disadvantages is no longer the primary motivation for college and univeristy diversity initiatives.</p>
<p>Ok, here are my answers to your questions Hep.</p>
<p>1) No, I cannot name a single African-American who scored a 2400 who was rejected/deferred from any school. Nor can I name a single African-American who scored a 2400. There was a person cited on this forum who had a 2390 though, which is awfully close. And yes, half-Columbian is indeed Hispanic. </p>
<p>2) Diversity isn’t just “nice.” Diversity is pretty damn integral to a person’s education. The purpose of a college isn’t to be fair to everyone, if it was, everyone would be accepted. The purpose of a college is to educate everyone the best it can. Also, despite what you claim, no “quotas” are used for Asians. None. You have succesfully proven that Asians (and white people) are discriminated against in the admissions process, but that does not mean quotas. And that does not mean its a bad thing either, people with lower SAT scores are also discriminated against in the admissions process because they aren’t as useful to the college when it comes to giving all of its students the best education possible. This is just the same thing.</p>
<p>“Can any of you name one URM with a 2400 SAT, 5’s on AP exams, who was rejected/deferred from a school?”
I read it some where that there’s not a single URM with 2400.</p>
<p>Sorry. “not a single Hispanic with 2400”</p>
<p>Hepstar,</p>
<p>Maybe this will help you fell better. Old SAT 1580, 11 APs 3 4’s the rest 5’s, National AP Scholar as a HS junior. Great ECs. Research experience at a local National Lab. Hispanic. Rejected from Princeton (not even waitlisted).</p>
<p>honestly, all i can say is stop whining. if your kids are as smart as you seem to think they are, then they will succeed regardless of where they go. white and asian superapplicants may not always get into the top 3 schools but they will go somewhere good, and if they are smart will succeed.</p>
<p>Oh wow, I kind of just stumbled upon this debate. I support Hepstar’s position, just for the record.</p>
<p>In fact, the whole thing about ‘levelling the playing field’ is nonsense, some minorities are less academically superior simply because they are lazy, while the Asian communities actually worked really hard to have their kids go to competitive schools. In the end, the hard-work of the Asian community was used against them while the bunch of lazy minorities benefitted because of AA, even though clearly they don’t deserve it. </p>
<p>What I am trying to say that leveling the playing field should mean disregarding race as a factor in college admission, in fact, social status/class might just be a better indicator.</p>
<p>Please don’t bash me, I’m not here for a debate and please don’t try to use my own words against me by quoting specific parts and using them to make me sound like an idiot without the context. I’m was in debate before, so I know :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And why would that be? Those lower social status/class people are lazy, while the upper status/class actually worked really hard to have their kids go to competitive schools. In the end, the hard-work of the upper classes is used against them while the bunch of lazy lower-classes benefit because of AA, even though clearly they don’t deserve it.</p>
<p>Please, go ahead and bash me, but you can’t call me a racist like you.</p>
<p>This information is irrelevant, since giving extra points for race is now against the law in Michigan … but I think it is important for Hep to understand what UMich’s undergrad admissions formula actually was (and still is, with a few modifications, including the exclusion of race as any kind of factor):</p>
<p>A TOTAL OF 150 “CAN” BE AWARDED</p>
<p>Academic — a total of 110 can be awarded in this category (73.3% of possible total) — strongest students academically will get most points, obviously
80 for 10th & 11th grade gpa
12 for standardized test scores (I assume 2400 SAT = 12 points)
10 for school (stronger school = higher score)
8 extra for taking curriculum considered most challenging at the school
MINUS 4 (up to) for choosing to take a weaker-than-available curriculum</p>
<p>Other — a total of 40 can be awarded in this category
20 for ANY ONE of the following (can’t stack these points): URM, socioeconomically disadvantaged, attendance at predominantly minority school (in MI, that DOES equal less-than-equal school), or ATHLETICS
Provost’s discretion: any combination of points can be awarded for the following (that is, points can be stacked — but combination of points in the entire “other” category cannot exceed 40): 10 for MI resident, 6 for residency in underrepresented MI county, 2 for residence in underrepresented state, 1-4 for alumni relationships (hmmm … 4 for highest donators?), up to 3 for personal essay, up to 5 for leadership & service (activities, work experience, awards), up to 5 for “personal achievement” (not specified)</p>
<p>IN ADDITION, an admissions counselor may suggest an applicant with a weak selection index be admitted for various reasons. One particular reason cited in the policy is this: “For example, a counselor might flag an applicant whose outstanding essay described exceptional community leadership, but whose selection index was average.”</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but I honestly cannot see how that hurts anyone, including the 2400 SAT Asian applicant. The formula has plenty of room to amass points, especially for the kind of kid who might score a 2400. It also has a safety net so that GREAT applicants who would really be an asset to the university community would get a special read. For heaven’s sake, kids who can kick a soccer ball get 20 automatic points! There is enough wiggle room that a truly deserving applicant of any race is not going to get doinked without careful consideration.</p>
<p>That said, if the majority of voters (or at least … those who bothered to vote that day) in my state can’t see the value in aa … I doubt Hep will, either. But it made me feel better to post this. :)</p>
<p>
Would it be O.K. if I make you sound like an idiot by using your own words with the context?</p>
<p>Oops … make that “donors” … not donators! … in my last post!</p>
<p>LOL@Curmudgeon! Oh that I may one day have the dexterity to maneuver a phrase so incisively!</p>
<p>p.s. Read this entire thread when I should have been workin! Did I miss it? Or did no one mention that URM stood for UNDERREPRESENTED – which kinda moots the point of statistics re: populations OVERrepresented in higher ed?</p>
<p>Alas, the beleaguered progenitor of this thread is long gone and unable to view its revival. S/he’d be proud! <em>sigh</em></p>
<p>Oh yeah – and btw, does anyone know how the RD & Deferred super applicants did?</p>
<p>This thread reminds me of this:</p>
<p>[xkcd</a> - A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language - By Randall Munroe](<a href=“http://www.xkcd.com/386/]xkcd”>xkcd: Duty Calls)</p>
<p>Supermom, thanks. ;)</p>
<p>I still don’t understand how anyone could argue that Asians AREN’T judged by the highest standards in elite college admissions. I mean I KNOW there are exceptions with Asians with low scores admitted and URMs with high scores rejected, but if as a whole Asians are rejected with higher scores, and as a whole the admitted Asian body has that much higher scores than those of URMs or even whites- do you really believe the discrepancy is made up by an even larger discrepancy in EC involvement/financial situation? (It would have to be even larger discrepancy since academic qualification is, in fact, still the most important factor). I think it’s discrimination in itself that when you see an Asian with 2400, the first reaction is that “he must have no personality”… but I do think this is the subconscious reaction by many admissions officers. But honestly, no personality? Is there such a thing as “no personality”?</p>
<p>I think it’s just that because Asians are such a minority in America, and many of them are immigrants who haven’t gotten a foothold in the country yet, that they can’t advocate for themselves. It takes tons of advocation to change the public opinion, I think- after all, people refused to believe blacks were mistreated for a long time, even after it was obvious. And Asians who do advocate for themselves in this issue are shamed out of it/ portrayed as whiners… and they shouldn’t be, when it’s a valid argument.</p>
<p>O boy. Blaming the Black and Hispanics is beginning earlier than usual this year. </p>
<p>Asians–a very large and diverse group of Americans. Are we talking about Hmong, Cambodians, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Koreans, Malaysians, Bangladeshi (proper usage?) Exactly, who are we talking about?</p>
<p><em>dancing up and down, screaming, & waving hands</em></p>
<p>“UR” in URM = “Underrepresented!”
“UR” in URM = “Underrepresented!”
“UR” in URM = “Underrepresented!”</p>
<p>Underrepresented [NOT (necessarily) =] Underprivileged!
Underrepresented [NOT (necessarily) =] Underprivileged!
Underrepresented [NOT (necessarily) =] Underprivileged!</p>
<p><em>cough</em>, <em>pant . . pant . . .cough</em> (clutching chest from exertion)</p>
<p>p.s. B-blue: I don’t get it - WHAT’s so humorous about that 'toon? ;-)</p>