<p>I don’t know any minorities that have gotten a 2400 or have ever heard of any, let alone get rejected from a school. Just because no one can answer your question doesn’t mean you won this “debate” it just means you are stubborn and refuse to listen or look at any other side besides your own. I don’t love AA, but I think some things are still uneven in the world. </p>
<p>I have heard that top schools view 2200-2400 as the same thing, once you get up there it does not matter to them who got 20 points higher.</p>
<p>“I don’t know any minorities that have gotten a 2400 or have ever heard of any.”</p>
<p>This happens to Asians/whites numerous times and not one person who has opposed me has every heard of a 2400 minority reject. How can you say that AA has no efect on Asians/whites if the quoted statement is true?</p>
<p>“Just because no one can answer your question doesn’t mean you won this “debate” it just means you are stubborn and refuse to listen or look at any other side besides your own.”</p>
<p>The reason I am arguing in favor of the Asian population is because of CC. Before coming here, I was convinced that whites were the only ones affected by AA. I never considered the asian’s point of view before. However, after seeing some of the posts here, including someone else who cited the UC numbers, I realized that AA adversely affects Asians. It really made me realize how wrong AA is, that it is now used against the Asians, a group of people who had nothing to do with the plight of minorities in the U.S. These CCers made me see the issue of AA from more than just the white point of view that I had viewed it from.</p>
<p>The CCers mentioned before convinced me beacsue they provved what they were saying. The people on this thread have not. All you do is argue with emotion, not fact. So until one of you AA supports provides a concrete answer to one of my questions, I will not give your argument any consideration.</p>
Wrong again. The explanation for this is that MIT AND CALTECH USE THE ENTIRE APPLICATION IN MAKING THEIR DECISIONS AND ARE NOT SOLELY NUMBERS-DRIVEN AS ARE THE UC’S.</p>
<p>And thankfully, this is neither India nor China, nor elsewhere in the world where admission to the top universities is predicated solely on scores on tests, but rather admission here takes into account the shaping of a class and the many skills and abilities important to a “team working together to climb a mountain” which without doubt includes characteristics other than high test scores.</p>
<p>California is 12% Asian. 35% of UCs are made up of Asians and 40% of UCLA and UCB. So Asians take up aabout 3 to 4 times the spots in college classes as they do in the general population. 4% of the US is Asian. Top private colleges are 15-25% Asian. The numbers seem fine to me.</p>
<p>Hepstar is not bothering to give any consideration to anything anyone else posts. I suggest you all join me now in leaving this thread be, and watch Hepstar beat the horse from afar.</p>
<p>Mootmom, you are coming across as anti-Asian (not that unsual in this thread). What about the Asians with personality and EC’s who are rejected from top colleges? Believe it or not, many Asians aren’t the robotic drones you make them out to be. My friend is somewhat the “typical Asian.” He is really smart, even skipping the 3rd grade. However, he has a great personality and is often the life of the part. He is hilarious.</p>
<p>“California is 12% Asian. 35% of UCs are made up of Asians and 40% of UCLA and UCB. So Asians take up aabout 3 to 4 times the spots in college classes as they do in the general population. 4% of the US is Asian. Top private colleges are 15-25% Asian. The numbers seem fine to me.”</p>
<p>Again, another question answered in an earlier post. Stanford is in CA, yet it is only 23% Asian. Harvey Mudd, which is also in CA, is 18% Asian. Pomona, yet another top school in CA, is 14% Asian. Compare these to the UC’s.</p>
<p>Don’t forget that UCs are public and therefore a great value. I’m not sure you can assume that the same number of Asians apply to MIT as to UCLA. </p>
<p>And again, I have addressed your issues, but you seem to ignore all of us who do.</p>
<p>Just because a school admits on numbers alone, and it turns out that those high-scorers are mostly Asian, it doesn’t mean there are not just as many non-Asian applicants who are qualified to graduate from that school. I think the “holistic” schools know this, and would rather provide a diverse campus culture than a pure numbers-driven student body.</p>
<p>Let’s concede for the sake of argument that no 2400-scoring, under-represented minorities have ever been denied admission to any college in our galaxy. Let’s further concede, just for the sake of argument, that 2150-scoring URMs have been admitted in the same class to which 2400-scoring Asian-American (and Caucasian) students have been denied admission. These facts still don’t provide evidence of discrimination or unfair treatment of Asian-American (or Caucasian) applicants, because, in a very real sense, maybe the 2150 URM was “smarter” in any meaningful sense of the word than the 2400-Asian (or Caucasian) applicant.</p>
<p>Try the following thought experiment: what’s the difference between a 2150-SAT student and the 2400-SAT student? Basically the ability to nail those nasty, difficult standardized test questions, the ones that most people miss. Getting those questions right may represent a kind of intelligence that’s rare in the general population and that will arguably enrich the academic climate of any college or university; it is therefore highly prized. (Such ability is, of course, much less rare in the rarified admissions pool at HYPSM and similar schools.)</p>
<p>But there are other kinds of intelligences, call them cultural intelligences/experiences/abilities, that URMs (and on other fronts, musicians, poets, et al.) bring to campus. These types of intelligence are also rare in the college population, enrich the campus academic climate, and are valued for that reason. There are no standardized tests for these kinds of intelligence, of course, and no concrete measures of the way that they enrich a campus, but if you could assign another 2400 points to such cultural intelligences, all of a sudden, ANY 2400-scoring kid, of WHATEVER ethnicity, may look less “smart”.</p>
<p>Hepstar, I understand the point you’re trying to make. Here’s the way I look at it:</p>
<p>Most probably there is not an URM that scored 2400 on their SAT that would be deferred or rejected from any school. That’s just my assumption, not based on published facts.</p>
<p>I live in an affluent area that is mostly white with maybe 5% or less total URM’s. The kids who are URM’s are from affluent families and are definitely not 1st generation college students. Some of these kids do very well in school and others don’t, just like any other kid in this area.</p>
<p>Yes, these URM’s get a boost, especially the ones who have done well in school, and are highly sought after by many colleges. </p>
<p>Is this fair? It is the way it has to be. It might not be or seem fair to you, but then again, colleges are looking to build a class of students from different ethnic backgrounds, social/economic levels, and maybe even gender. My younger son may be sought after by the time he graduates based on the fact he’s a male. </p>
<p>As these URM’s move up the economic ladder in great numbers, they will lose their hook/tip/or whatever you want to call it, that is based on their ethnicity. Until that time comes, colleges are going to give all URM’s a boost. </p>
<p>The kids that I feel are also at risk are those whites and Asians from underprivileged backgrounds, that may be fighting some of the same battles as their URM counterparts in poor districts. I believe that these kids are also given the same leg up as URM’s on their college apps. regardless of their ethnicity.</p>
<p>I also believe that not only is this fair, but it will benefit all of us.</p>
<p>If you assume that everyone has the “right of an equal chance” in elite college admissions. But is that really true? So then we need to scratch legacies. We need to scratch the whole recruiting thing, for anything. We need to scratch “connections.” </p>
<p>But none of that will happen. In the end, no one has any “right” to go to HYP. And there aren’t enough slots to accommadate everyone who would like to. What it comes down to for these schools is what students can do for them. They fill their class to benefit their school. That means athletes, development, and yes, diversity. If their admissions process is so poor, why do they remain premier institutions? Why does everyone still apply? Why are people so obsessed with any mention of AA? Clearly, the schools haven’t suffered from their admissions process. </p>
<p>Jian Li got into Yale from what I understand (correct me if I’m wrong). This beats the odds for ANY Ivy applicant (most of whom will get accepted to none of them regardless of race). I don’t find anything strange about being rejected at Harvard or Princeton and accepted at Yale, a lot of it comes down to the individual school and their needs/how the committee reacts to the student in light of school culture/etc. And I do know URMs who were rejected from Ivy League schools. Not with 2400s, because I don’t know anyone with a 2400, no matter what race they are. Everyone who wasn’t a recruited athlete (two, and they’re great people who I believe deserve their spot, even though athletics got them in the door, they had something the school wanted) that applied early to Ivies at my school got rejected or deferred, and that was a mix of races. Which, I think is a fairly typical result for your average wealthy diverse suburb. From what I’ve seen around the DC area, while being a URM might add another hook to your application, there are more very qualified URMs here than there are spots for them certainly, and it’s still just about as hard to get in from what I’ve seen, eveyone I know who’s gotten into an Ivy League school has had a merit hook (athletics or art or music talent that’s way above average). And that’s regardless of race, the two accepted early were different races, and the two that got accepted last year were also different races. All very deserving and great admits who would enrich a school IMO. I think what bothers me is the characterization of URMs as inherently unqualified but still favored, and other races as inherently qualified but always rejected. We didn’t see these applications, nor did we see the applicant pools. We saw an article with it’s own motivation.</p>
<p>My dear friend Hepstar, where shall we start? Numbers NEVER speak for themselves. Regarding numbers, I have posted numbers and statistics so often that I do not feel the need to do so. Not only have you not provided meaningful numbers, but you continue to display a profound lack of understanding of about every facet of this debate. When discussing college ADMISSIONS, you ought to understand a mimimum --here you go-- of the “lingo” and how the data is presented before being able to interpret it. </p>
<p>I put you on the spot, not only because I knew you would not be able to back up your posts with data, but would be totally unable to offer a coherent and logical interpretation of the numbers. Simply stated, you cannot SHOW the degree of the AA policies on Asians, unless you might be interested to study how WELL the system the worked for them in the past generations. </p>
<p>Before accusing others to post “emotionally-fueled verbiage” do yourself a favor and invest some time in researching the subjects you decide to debate. For starters, you may want to read the COUNTLESS threads that have discussed AA and Asian discrimination. </p>
<p>In the meantime, this discussion is futile. If you are truly interested in furthering your 'cause" you owe it to yourself to make an effort to understand the “numbers” and which are relevant. </p>
<p>Were you to do that, people might start taking you a lot more seriously!</p>
<p>By the way, what happened to the person who posted this a few weeks ago:</p>
<p>“As for my “point,” I am just trying to show that your earlier statement about a 2100 being absolutely needed for HYP is false b/c there are students who are accepted with lower scores. There are also students rejected with sky-high scores who have no EC’s. Colleges want the “complete” student, not someone who did well on a 4 hour test but was involved in nothing. The 1380 kid was a “complete” student. The 1530 kid wasn’t. The admissions results reflect this.” </p>
<p>and</p>
<p>"Another person who is caught up in numbers. Here are some applicants from my school that disprove this theory:</p>
<p>1380/1600 with awesome EC’s and #1 in the class
Decision: Accepted to Harvard RD</p>
<p>1530/1600 with not go great EC’s and #9 in the class
Decision: Rejected from Harvard RD"</p>
<p>I can see that you’ve raided my earlier posts. If anything, this helps my credibility since it shows that I don’t have the 2400 fetish that many of you say I do. </p>
<p>Despite what you may think, Liming Luo (aka: the 2400 girl) did have some decent EC’s. She founded a math Honor Society at her school. She was co-champion at a forensics tournament. This shows that she has the ability to speak publicly, a trait not associated with the “stereotypical, introverted” Asian genius, the type of person you feel that Asians are. Luo also taught children Math, which shows that she is willing to share her arithmetic skill with others. IMO, she may not have had the strongest EC’s in the world, but they certainly weren’t bad enough to neutralize her academic achievements. </p>
<p>SATs and GPA aren’t everything when they aren’t coupled with EC’s. This is very true. However, Luo did have some noteworthy EC’s that certainly wouldn’t warrant a deferral. Then why was she deferred? She was deferred because she was Asian.</p>
<p>I’m not even Asian, and I can see that Asians are harmed by AA. </p>
<p>“Regarding numbers, I have posted numbers and statistics so often that I do not feel the need to do so.”</p>
<p>Well I haven’t seen these numbers and statistics. Where are they xiggi? I want to see them. People on this thread have demanded proof from me, and I have done my best to provide it. Now I challenge you to prove your point with something other than personal comments about my lack of knowledge (which are completely uncalled for.) Let’s see those “numbers” that you posted in the past.</p>
<p>If you don’t bother reading it, at least read this excerpt from it:</p>
<p>“Affirmative action is especially objectionable to those “less-preferred” minorities. The Asian-American population is a glaring example of the double standard and immorality of affirmative action. To give only one example, between 1995 (the year the Regents voted to ban affirmative action in California) and 1998, the number of Asian students enrolled in University of California medical schools rose an astonishing ten percent, despite declining minority applications. African-American enrollment dropped three percent, while (perhaps amusingly) white enrollment remained virtually the same. The goal of affirmative action, then, seems to be not the advancement of all minorities, but only of certain favored minorities.”</p>
<p>I’ll say this again because it is so true: numbers don’t lie.</p>
<p>Princedog addresses the issue of recruited athletes in admissions, as well as legacies. Here is my take on both:</p>
<p>Legacy admissions are corrupt. They are probably just as corrupt as AA. However, they will exist as long as money exists. As long as rich people are able to bribe universities with generous monetary offers, legacy admissions will be in existence.</p>
<p>I don’t have as much of a problem with recruited athletes at AA and legacies. Athletes earn their way into college by being athleticly competitve, which can be just as as hard as being academically competitive. </p>
<p>AA is the worst of the 3 aforementioned types of admissions because it is based on genetics, which isn’t earned unlike being an athlete. It can also be eliminated by government action, unlike legacy admissions which will forver exist due to the power of $.</p>
<p>Katherine Cohen on Luo Liming: “She is not a shoo-in”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not think that MIT puts as much emphasis on ECs (or community service) as other schools such as Harvard or Yale as KC seems to suggest is the case. MIT and Caltech are far more numbers-driven than HYP. </p>
<p>But Luo Liming is not an outstanding applicant by MIT standards. She got a score of 122.5 on AMC12, which is impressive, but where is her AIME score (requested by MIT)? I know many students who got admitted at MIT, including some who were initially deferred, some who are white and some who are Asian. Ihey’ve got more impressive profiles than Luo. Among them are some USAMO, IMO, IBO, IPHO medalists. </p>
<p>This is not to say that Luo Liming is not an excellent student by most standards. It’s just that she is not an auto-admit at MIT, her 2400 SAT notwithstanding. That she was not admitted early at MIT proves absolutely nothing about AA, but plenty about what high standards MIT holds for applicants of all ethnicities.</p>