I wish I weren't Asian

<p>Actually, to determine what the context is…the question should be directed at AdOfficer…since, his definition and context as he understands it might be different than the assumtions we make when reading a post of his…</p>

<p>Less selective colleges have a smaller porportion of middle-to-high income versus low-income URMs than do highly competitive schools, when comparing the two subsets (selective versus less-selective).</p>

<p>When looking at the highly selective (predominently private) institions, the affluent URM porportions are greater in the subset comparatively than in the less selective ones and as a whole (considering all the colleges in the US).</p>

<p>It’s a whole system versus subset comparison. </p>

<p>The information fits what we know about most public and private schools outside of the most desirable schools (second part), and the subset of the top ones where the relationship is different (first part).</p>

<p>Like anything else, it is not an all or nothing proposition or a simple yes/no dicotomy. Hence, the many modifiers. It’s how one choses to define the debate…</p>

<p>Two keys:</p>

<p>In the first paragraph cited by bomgeedad, AdOfficer says that there are more wealthy Blacks and Hispanics than poor Blacks and Hispanics at these elite universities.</p>

<p>In the second paragraph, he says the assertion that most of the “under-represented” minorities who are admitted to top colleges are wealthy is false.</p>

<p>Contradictory.</p>

<p>So the question is, then: Is the definition of elite and top colleges the same or different.</p>

<p>For me, while UMichigan may be a top school, I would not classify it as an elite college for several reasons…(before anyone flames me, it’s just an opinion).</p>

<p>Here’s a graphic from NYT. I know we’re singling out ethnicity (as do most AA posts on CC), but sometimes we forget that AA does affect gender representation and a move towards equality…</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/12/23/business/24gap_CA1_ready.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/12/23/business/24gap_CA1_ready.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Program Widens School Funding Gap, Report Says
Rich States Are Found to Get More Than Poor Ones in $13 Billion Effort to Aid Low-Income Students</p>

<p>By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 21, 2006; Page A04</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Just another fun article to include in the debate…</p>

<p>I’m pure Asian and I do agree that sometimes, these assessments are true.</p>

<p>im so not math/science person…to be honest im very into english/soc sci
not a big fan of numbers and lab reports…
why discriminate asians…so sad…</p>

<p>I hope that none of you buy into this crap. Be proud of who you are. Don’t let the short-sightedness of college admissions blind you from being as awesome as you are. Life sucks. It sucks more when you wallow in self-pity or harbor contempt for someone else.</p>

<p>America is a country by the WASP for the WASP. The WASPs say otherwise, but they are lying to your face. If you are any other race, you are inferior in their eyes. </p>

<p>What can you do about it? Put up with it. That’s about it. All you can do is to do so well, be so excellent that the WASPs can’t reject you. Or you can move to the country where your race is a majority, but for many Asian Americans that is not an option, which is very unfortunate for them, because they are second-class citizens of their own country.</p>

<p>

We should post links to statements we attribute to others, so that we are able to see the statements in context. It does a poster a great disservice to take their comments out of context and then claim the poster said what he/she did not say, or imply a logical error exists in the poster’s comments, merely on the basis of this treatment.</p>

<p>When I read the two statements in context, it becomes crystal clear to me that no contradiction exists between them. I see this because I am interested in understanding the poster’s actual beliefs and point of view, rather than in childishly trying to catch them in technicalities. Even if there was a contradiction, I would simply ask for clarification so that I could get a clear image of where the opponent is coming from.</p>

<p>The first statement is [url= <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=3351307&postcount=95]here,[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=3351307&postcount=95]here,[/url</a>] where I clearly see AdOfficer adding some correction and clarification to the claim that that ‘blacks are socioeconomically disadvantaged’ on average. He/she shows that while blacks have a large proportionate number of people living below the poverty line compared to whites (25% versus 8%), the largest number of people in general who live beneath the poverty line are whites. AdOfficer then adds, as a matter of interest, that more of the “wealthier” blacks are attending elite schools than their “poor” peers, obviously – comparing blacks above the poverty line to the 25% beneath the poverty line. He/she is not claiming these blacks are “wealthy” or even “middle class”, but only that blacks who are “wealthier” are gaining greater access to elite schools than those who are beneath them economically. This underscores how relative wealth (even in populations that are not rich compared to other populations) affects access to education. That is why AdOfficer mentioned it, and this is very clear to me in context of the post.</p>

<p>The second statement is found [url= <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=3361179&postcount=188]here[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=3361179&postcount=188]here[/url</a>] where AdOfficer is obviously countering the image, seemingly popular among anti-AA proponents, of hordes of rich blacks being hand-selected by elite schools over teeming masses of poor, malnourished white folks (LOL). He/she counters the claim by pointing out that the majority of blacks at these schools are not rich, fairly or otherwise, and that even of the entire student body of his/her school, half are getting financial aid.</p>

<p>Merry Christmas everyone.</p>

<p>Many forgoing SAT, path to college
In a fourth of schools, less than 60% take test
By Maria Sacchetti, Globe Staff | December 25, 2006</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Here’s another pre-college issue…</p>

<p>It’s a little odd that the anti-AA set is quiet…I expected a ruckus with the last few articles.</p>

<p>Must be the Holiday…</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/27/AR2006112701006.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/27/AR2006112701006.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Your articles talk about how some people are economically disadvantaged and thus cannot afford to take CB exams as well as how others lack the background and familial encouragement to pursue postsecondary education.</p>

<p>I think that schools in their districts should receive more funding at the national level. Given that we can waste so much money over nonexistent weapons, I think we can allocate funding to underfunded schools.</p>

<p>Also, as the WP article shows, a little creativity can cause so-called “average” students to become attracted to AP classes and other more challenging coursework. I think this is great because it can help them become stronger candidates for admission by their own merits. Race need not be factored in whatsoever.</p>

<p>hmmm…i would like to point out that people who are more outgoing perform better in social situations. of course lol. it would be an advantage for business meetings etc. referring to an earlier post about the african american who got into an ivy league despite his lack luster stats, it seems he had enough charisma to charm the interviewer and admissions. consider this…after admitting hundreds of introverted students with stellar stats, would it be a crime to offer a spot to a wealthy african american from good pedigree? he would be considered an URM. lol okay don’t bash please. just an opinion. i am asian and i do believe in AA. i understand the frustrations. but look at it from admissions p.o.v. They want diversity and unfortunately asians have surpassed the “minority” label in top universites. Look at Harvard for instance, 20% of the student body are asians. lol atleast we’re not wealthy and white, we would have an even less of a chance.</p>

<p>URM + Charm + private school = higher chance</p>

<p>UbiquityEssence,</p>

<p>That’s why Asians are treated so unfairly. We’re minorities, but we’re not “under-represented.” When our numbers exceed 20%, the campus becomes less “diverse” and less representative of the “real world.” We’re not White, but supporters of race-based affirmative action could care less.</p>

<p>Affirmative action based on race does nothing to benefit the preferred groups in the long run. Nothing. All it does is exacerbate racial tensions.</p>

<p>The colleges are looking for students who will bring a unique contribution to their institutions. An applicant will be looked at for that possible uniqueness among the entire set of applicants, not among the subset of ethnicity. Admissions is not examining whether you are an unusual Asian, an unusual European-Caucasian, an unusual Hispanic or African American, but whether you are unusual period.</p>

<p>Students of all ethnicities stand a far better chance of admission if they have demonstrated excellence (not just “involvement”) outside of academics. Being excellent academically just keeps your application out of the initial Rejected pile; how your application fares along the next line of progress depends on how impressive your non-academics are AND how unusual they are. This is no more true of Asians than it is for any other racial or ethnic group. The “elites” get lots & lots of applications from Anglo Caucasians who are high school football (or LaCrosse or other sport) captains (but not recruited). In itself, such a position, paired with academics, is not enough for admission. Those students are not being “discriminated against” for their racial category; they are being de-selected for the duplication of the activity – an activity which may be a preference among that subculture. The colleges have no responsibility to validate the preferences of any particular subculture, & to reward that preference with admission. Obviously there are Asiana and Anglos who vary from the “favorite” activities of their respective subcultures. Depending on the level of accomplishment & the degree of difference within the total applicant pool which will include all ethnic components, such variants stand a better chance of a second & third review, as there will be less duplication of those activities.</p>

<p>The problem that Rachel Toor had with the BWRKs is that their applications were barely distinguishable from one another’s. What overwhelmed her about those applicants was the sameness of the non-ethnic aspects of their profiles. Their internal conformity was an unavoidable & permeating theme. She never complained that they were “all White,” or that they presented the committee with the problem of a cap on just how many such Anglos they could accept. She complained that they were so remarkably similar that she actually wanted to accept none of them. So, in her reading of apps, the Anglos that she did recommend for admission were the students that broke from that conformity.</p>

<p>And again today, what will get an applicant noticed by a private elite university is:
–an address outside of suburban NY, NJ, CT, MD, VA, PA, MA
–excelling outside of academics
–activities & interests which vary from the “standard” categories of activities within the entire applicant pool, regardless of whether those activities are favored by one’s own subculture
–a personal history of commitment to others, in which it is obvious that the student has not merely added service hours to an insane academic schedule, but has substituted balance for mania – not merely added convenient summer service projects, but has made choices for the group over the individual, particularly when that participation was essential to the group. This reflects both character & leadership, as understood in the American tradition. A supplement to this is the aspect of Initiative toward the group, a term brought up by several different admissions reps at a number of college talks we attended. It would be particularly expected that you have shown such generosity if you do not have the following important 5th factor:
–an environment of economic deprivation
–academic achievement combined with true URM status + economic challenge (Southeast Asian, urban African-American, urban/rural Hispanic, Native American, etc.)</p>

<p>If you do not have any of the above 6 factors, nor are an athletic recruit, legacy/celebrity, or major donor, you do not have zero chance of admission; but you do have an uphill battle not related to your race, ethnicity, subculture. There will be, and are, many students admitted without a strong component of one or more of these 6 factors.</p>

<p>The Elites value excellence as the primary qualifying factor for admission. However, the way they define excellence is much more comprehensive than is defined by many students & a few parents on CC. There is no self-interest for them in admitting students incapable of doing the work, or who will require significant support services in order to do the work. There is also no advantage to them in denying students who will probably provide unique or exceptional academic contributions to particular programs or majors, in cases when those students have few or unimpresive high school e.c.’s. They weigh the ultimate value to the University of one applicant vs. other applicants – all the while seeking a balance in acquired skills, acquired knowledge, learning styles, likely majors, gender balance, geographical diversity, economic background, and occasionally college e.c.’s (for example, noted musician, exceptional athlete, promising journalist for a high-profile college publication, etc.) None of this is to advantage or punish any particular group. It is to advantage the priorities of the college/U. It is also not so simple as being a Buyer in a Buyer’s Market, although clearly they are. It is also that they have to weigh the potential loss of a particular candidate to that college’s chief rivals – the peer schools. That requires some educated guesses & calculations on their part, & is often the reason why a student might be accepted at one institution but waitlisted at an equivalent. These are all self-serving-driven decisions, not racially driven decisions.</p>

<p>If they were supposedly focused on social engineering or quotas or caps on certain groups, there wouldn’t be the relative proportions that are in fact there at the Elites. There wouldn’t be ~20% Asians; there would be 3-4% Asians, & there would be greater percentages of other groups; they would also be admitting many academically borderline students.from URM categories. But that’s not what has occurred. Every University, & every University system, has its own priorities. For the Elites, my opinion is that it is best described as a diversity of excellence (vs. racial diversity). Excellence is the first, & most important, priority. And the variations within the excellence sought are comprised of much more than race. </p>

<p>In general, public universities are committed to serving the residents of their respective States. This is their first priority. Therefore, despite Comprehensive Review, the U.C. system (for example) is not primarily dedicated to admitting disadvantaged URM”s. It couldn’t be, or their enrollment numbers would not be what they are. U.C. has become increasingly merit-driven because it can be: it reflects the population of the state & the applications it receives, which are overwhelmingly Asian and middle class. Students competing with merit-heavy applicants to U.C. will only be admitted with “lower” numbers than other applicants if they meet the standard of considerable challenge & disadvantage (which may be economic and/or some unusual factor of environment). Being an under-represented minority is no longer enough to qualify as a disadvantage. And by the way, that was true even before AA was overturned in CA. </p>

<p>Alumother made a point on Parents Forum which should be repeated for purposes of this thread, since other posters recently here brought up how supposedly prejudiced, discriminatory, yadayada this country is. Such statements reveal a chasm of ignorance regarding the foundations of this country, the history of actual discrimination & civil rights struggles, and the affirmative ideals underlying American society. Those ideals are quite different from values & ideals in countries which were not founded on a base of participatory democracy, which has as a driving dynamic the assumption of inclusion & the expectation of generosity. (Hence, the importance of the notion of sacrifice & leadership as described in my previous post – a factor often considered more valuable than mere private, individual achievement.)</p>

<p>Students wanting an education in this country will be frustrating themselves not to understand & accept that these priorities permeate educational as well as political institutions. There are countries which do not have such priorities. Whether “it’s not an option” to emigrate (or to return to one’s native country) is not a problem for the Elites or, for that matter, for any college in this country to solve. I would think that especially if leaving is “not an option,” that it would be prudent to try to shed one’s own prejudices & assumptions (esp. the inaccurate ones) about what the Elites do & do not value, & also what is valued by different colleges, to which admission might conform to the student’s given profile & own priorities/values. To integrate within the institutions of any country, it’s best to become maximally educated about what it takes to succeed for entrance into that system & success within it.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And I agree 100%!</p>

<p>The current system of preferring some groups over others has led to many bad incentives. I believe that if there were no racial preferences, then questions like “Am I an under-represented minority?” would not be asked. People would not “try” to distance themselves from a stereotype. People would not avoid checking a race box. People would not think about changing their last names to hide their ethnicities.</p>

<p>Many students on CC know that certain racial groups, dubbed “under-represented,” are preferred over others. Hence, the existence of threads where users ask if their 12.5% Native American blood is sufficient to check a box. These users have educated themselves on how the system works, and they are trying to play by the rules for their benefits.</p>

<p>In the same vein, several students here have asked whether it would be advantageous for them to not check the race box. Once again, these users have educated themselves on how the system works, and they are trying to play by the rules for their benefits. Some even ponder changing their last names, the names of their fathers, because they believe - correction, know that their group is not a preferentially treated group.</p>

<p>The very term “under-represented” is ridiculous. It is designed to exclude Asians, who are minorities in this nation but aren’t treated like ones.</p>

<p>Several users have suggested, either in good faith or bad, that students should try to make themselves stand out. I have no problem with this. The problem occurs when this suggestion is used alongside the existing system. If documented instances of “textureless math grind” and “not another boring ” exist, then I would not be surprised if statements like “he’s just trying to be different” also exist. If race were not considered, then I doubt these words would be stated.</p>

<p>I’ve been accused by some of having a sense of entitlement. That is, I have been accused of believing that I am entitled to attend elite universities and others are not. I have no such feeling. The only feeling I have is that no racial group should be treated differently. If believing that races should be treated equally is a “weak argument,” then I’d really like to know what a “strong” one is. Quite frankly, preferring some races over others doesn’t do anything good for anyone in the long run.</p>

<p>If we’re ever going to live in a race-blind society, which may even be impossible, then we should start by proclaiming that NO race should be treated differently. This differs markedly from the current system, where it is acceptable in the eyes of some to treat certain groups differently than others on the sole basis of their skin color.</p>

<p>Top Wall Street jobs still elude women, minorities
By Tim McLaughlin | December 27, 2006</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Here’s another one…</p>

<p>And Fab:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Would you rather be treated as other minorities are? Under-represented is a term used to get across the idea that there is a porportion (what ever that might be) when trying to compare a macro and micro phenomenon. It illuminates the contrast between the US as a whole and the state(s) that divert from the average. Without the word establishing a relationship between the two, you either have to argue the macro OR the micro case, but not both–as most of us CCer’sdo on this board. Without context, the debate is moot. Whatever ones position, one would win.</p>

<p>As for the second part, Asians are treated like all other minority groups whether gender-based, ethnically, socially, economically. It’s a question of who is in power. Asians as a whole, in the US, do not have much power. At the micro level, if Asians were not in the majority in Hawaii, do you think the white minority would be treated the way they are presently? Asian’s living in Hawaii dictate the social norms and protect their power politically. It does affect Hawaiian society because those that look different (whites) often get worse treatment (as opposed to other non-Asian URM groups). Is that different than in other states with respect to power and oppression? </p>

<p>Every non-majority group battles against the norm set by those who have power (no matter their ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc…), although in different ways and different arenas.</p>

<p>A term used to get across the idea that there is a proportion when trying to compare a macro and micro phenomenon? No, just no.</p>

<p>It’s a term devised by supporters of race-based affirmative action to reconcile their beliefs when Asians make up over 20% of a campus WITHOUT racial preferences. Its usage implies tacit support for a quota system.</p>

<p>Asians are treated like all other minority groups? Is that so? Then, why aren’t they included in the “under-represented” category? Is it because they’re, gasp, “over-represented?” Quotas, quotas, quotas, that’s all “under-represented” and “over-represented” mean. Asians are definitely NOT treated like all other minority groups. I wager that people would never dare to even think about branding “under-represented” applicants as textureless math grinds or dismiss them as yet another boring person who wants to do what ‘everyone’ in his group does.</p>

<p>What point are you trying to make by using Hawaii, anyway? If Whites are the victims of discrimination in Hawaii and can prove so, then they should sue. Simple as that.</p>

<p>fabrizio,</p>

<p>Your entire argument presupposes 2 things:</p>

<p>(1) that every group or subgroup of applicants has an internally conforming profile of academics & e.c.'s. This would speak not only to lack of variation within each group, but more importantly, lack of spillover (resemblance) outside of each group. Beyond the stereotyping, it is inaccurate. There are Caucasian students who are negatively affected by having common or popular e.c.'s along with a configuration of high SAT scores + a math or science emphasis + math/science awards. Unless such students are from Alaska, Australia, play a very unusual instrument, are impoverished, etc., they will be every bit as affected by “similarity” as an Asian student from a favorite State, suburban location, middle-class background.</p>

<p>A common & popular e.c. among Caucasians is high school sports. And one of the reasons is that, unlike certain performing arts, it is somewhat easier to participate in sports than in the arts, especially for a non-star player. Being a team captain, being “involved” for 4 yrs., making it to varsity level – while these may be considered personal achievements by any student, they are frankly not that remarkable to a college, which sees thousands of student applicants like this. And would an Asian listing h.s. sports rather than violin be any more advantaged than other Asians? Not really, unless that student was truly a star (in which case he’s probably been recruited), or unless that is a unique or new sport to the University.</p>

<p>(2) That your idealized race-blind merit model is a statistical possibility, when it is not, for the simple reason of hundreds of ties. A “color-blind” system might result in 45% Asians, 45% Anglos, + 10% combined “other.” But among the entire admitted group would be hundreds of students tied with those admitted. Either they would have to be arbitrarily denied, or they would be denied based on other factors such as e.c.'s, QUALITATIVE VALUE TO THE UNIVERSITY, geographical balance, economic opportunity, racial balance, etc.</p>