<p>“I guess we need an “EC’s for Asians” thread since it seems that Asians need different EC’s to be considered as equals to non-Asians.”</p>
<p>ALL students need to diversify. The ones who get in these days are those who have done some unique and impressive things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is what Li Jian is presently doing. I wholeheartedly support him. Several parents in the Parent’s Forum, however, have said some ugly things about him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve got a few gripes with IsleBoy, but that quote is probably the biggest one of all my complaints (barring the straw men).</p>
<p>His posts boil down to an attitude of, “Although you [Asians] aren’t treated like a minority, you still are. Hence, you have limited power. Because of that, you should stop fighting against what you think is discrimination and either support the status quo or support a modified version of it.”</p>
<p>…which I disagree with.</p>
<p>“Seriously, does nobody else find it ridiculous that a specific race has to do something more/different to get the same attention that an URM gets?”</p>
<p>I don’t want to hijack this thread with my own input; I like the lively discussion going on here, but I need to comment on the above, as well as the comments about the “textureless math grind.”</p>
<p>I was disgusted when I read Rachel Toor’s book. By now, probably everybody on CC knows how I feel about her. I was literally sick to my stomach as I read her book, her stereotypes about Bright Well Rounded Kids (White, non-URM), her utter disregard for the years of hard work they had put in, her dismissive attitude, and mostly – her refusal to see them as individuals. If she didn’t say the word “boring,” she might as well have, & maybe 100 times. She ridiculed them. She had an auto-response to every app. that came over her desk if it was Caucasian & middle class. She became so cynical that in the end she actually only wanted to admit those that had some terrible tragedy befall them – even if that tragedy was of their own making. In a word, she was bored. (She was probably bored with her job, too; she seemed to believe that it was up to the students & their applications to give her a little excitement; so people who had “dramatic” lives were more appealing to her.)</p>
<p>In no way do I condone her disrespectful attitudes toward young people. In no way do I condone her stereotyping. But the fact is that she wasn’t the only one to notice, if not a “sameness,” at least a very observable pattern & similarity among the bulk of those from that socioeconomic & ethnic group. (One issue was the <em>appearance</em> of sameness; the other issue was her reaction to that appearance, her published attudes about it, & her behavior about it.)</p>
<p>But, regarding the appearance of sameness: In this same group, successive applicants began to figure out that being well-rounded in everything & exceptional in nothing was a losing formula for top college admissions. And it actually didn’t take long. One could say that perhaps their parents, “insiders,” if you will, & certainly non-immigrants, figured it out because of their communication lines & their aggressive research. Within a few years a distinct “niche” pattern began to emerge among this middle- and upper-middle class group, resulting in much better admissions results.</p>
<p>Ethnic stereotypes (or economic stereotypes) are never acceptable. It’s just that the reality of the world is that often one has to work against a tide of expectations in order to be noticed. By no means do I have a stereotypical picture of Asians or Asian students, since I live among so many of them & since I study with them, teach them, interview them, & include them among family friends & both of my daughters’ very close friends. But IF one of them does fall into a “pattern,” then there may be – for some colleges in some admission yrs, not every college, not every yr – a need to differentiate oneself in some way, just to have one’s application noticed & read with individual appreciation.</p>
<p>Columbia and Princeton have already admitted this cycle a number of Asians that some would consider falling into a pattern. And many more are to come. Lots of these will be admitted to Harvard, in both rounds. Not all, or even most, of those admitted students will be posting on CC. So be wary of making generalizations based on comparisons you know in your own lives or comparisons from very limited data on CC.</p>
<p>Back to the BWRK’s: They fought the stereotype in 2 ways. (1) They stepped out of the pattern. (2) They diversified their college lists. In doing the latter, btw, they discovered how many fabulous opportunities there were for them in schools & locations outside of HYP.</p>
<p>There’s not a lot of time to “change the system” once you are a senior in h.s. & have college apps to submit. If you feel the system is just so wrong, then maybe one approach would be to engage in dialogue with your school’s college counselor. If you feel that he or she is open to a level of advocacy (I know that our school’s is), that might be a route. (I.e., “Students [or segments] from our school believe that you people on admissions committes are ignoring their differences; the perception of stereotyping is out there & some groups feel they need to ovecome more than others.”)</p>
<p>The difference between the previous BWRK’s and Asians as a whole is that there is a far greater concentration of HYP-only in the latter than in the former. The <em>appearance</em> of “rejection” or “more difficult numbers” or “worse results” or “it’s a liability to be an Asian” is due to the ratio of applications to the total freshman college class size, & the University’s wish to have a maximally diverse class of excellence.</p>
<p>So the 3rd thing to do, in addition to the above, is possibly to come to terms with the fact that Apocalypse is not around the corner if you do not get accepted to HYP? Lots of stellar white students who can compete with Asians on every level, have had to do it. The BWRK’s had to do it: the families had to educate themselves about “ranking” & “reputation,” and popularity, vs. excellence, which is more abundant than the former. Even some URM’s that I know personally have had to do it: one fabulous, accomplished URM I know was rejected by Stanford over an Asian science major with music e.c.'s, due to stats; that URM is at USC. It’s just that you don’t see all those acceptances & rejections.</p>
<p>Excellent post, epiphany!</p>
<p>Yes, we get stereotyped, but you can use that to your advantage… I sure did. I made it very clear in my essay that although I love my culture, I have expanded my interests to other (nonstereotypical) activities, and how I don’t let my heritage dictate my path in life.</p>
<p>I have shown great achievement (through many awards) and commitment to the classics (Latin/Greek). I also sing, play guitar, bass, and drums, and I write my own songs. I sent a CD with my app. Those two factors, very rare among asians (not to stereotype or anything), are what set me apart, and ultimately got me into Harvard, even with a 2110 on the SAT. So don’t lose hope! There are ways to make you stand out! Good luck to all!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Intersting how you can assume and interpret what my attitude is. And you use a debate tool by using the word YOU to indicate that I’m outside the Asian group, when I am not. BTW, the status quo, on this thread at least, is what I’m fighting against. That is the attitude that some Asians take reguarding their fitness for college vs. others, and how there is some kind of quota/celling to admissions brought about by AA.</p>
<p>Fighting against discrimination means gainning more power as a collective, then working on diversification (for Asians and other groups). Do we organise ourselves and our peers to make a change (aside from using the same issues every admissions season)? Not usually. Most of what we do is worry about how unfair the process is, which is great intellectually, but does little, except to make us more stubborn in our beliefs. </p>
<p>It’s the idea that some can resurect the stats issue when speaking about college admissions using a book like Golden’s as evidence for overt Asian discrimination. Look in the OP. Scroll down. The percentages are there, yet some Asian CC’ers lump Latinos in with African Americans because there is a 3% difference between the Asian acceptance rate and that of Latinos. Notice that Golden reports that the rate for whites is 19%, and there is talk about discrimination of non-URMs.</p>
<p>The point is that Asian (and other URMs) are faced with either identifying with their group (to gain power) or be seen as individuals (which means less power to the collective), since they are in the minority. I’m very aware of how difficult this can be in the Continental US…although I am also aware that I have the choice, just by jumping on a plane and taking an excersion to Hawaii, where the population is mostly Asian to be in power. Does the Asian majority oppress whites (and other URM groups)? Yes, they do. They use terms like “Haole” which means foreigner, when they see non-Asians–even though all populations that settled in Hawaii were/are foreign. That derogatory word, maintains power for the resident population.</p>
<p>It is not a straw man by any stretch of the imagination to see, from a social, political, historic, or economic standpoint that minority groups often need to come together as a group to affect change. The problem with that is that often the individual will be seen as representative of the whole, and lose a sense of him or herself.</p>
<p>The EASIEST thing to do is to divide the minority communities by creating infighting. ‘Divide and conquer’. And, it is who has the power that often defines the norm. That is, if we were not competitive, didn’t care about getting into a selective college, you’d take power away from the private schools that you disagree with. Ghandi’s principle of non-violence and turning anger into a positive would be effective. The problem, however, is that someone may step into the breech and take control, not that I think Asians (or any other groups) would ever give up the competition to get into a top college.</p>
<p>The thing you have the most control over is how you put together your application to college. Fixing the larger macro system of discrimination will not get you into college, or help you change the system from within. I’m pretty sure we’re not talking about revolution.</p>
<p>With respect to college admissions, try not to play into what you percieve as the Asian stereotype, unless of course you happen to ‘be the stereotype’. Then, use your essays, ECs, recs, and the additional info section to highlight what you love about the issue/subject, etc…pay attention to the details so that you stand out as an individual. Use your Asian status at a few schools that have small Asian populations, as well as your top choices.</p>
<p>If you love Math, Science, CS, etc…then it will show through–give teachers specific instructions for your recs that include your outside interests, ask that they write about 1.5-2 pages, and highlight your personal qualities as well as your achievements. If you don’t love it, it may show in little ways on your app, that is when it will start to hurt…because you will be like other qualified but not outstanding applicants from every ethnicity and background.</p>
<p>Students would not have to worry about stereotypes if they were not asked to report their race.</p>
<p>it’s racial profiling</p>
<p>and fabrizio</p>
<p>i just wanted to say that well… a name such as Wei Chang, it isn’t hard to tell that person is asian.</p>
<p>I checked teh asian box. so what? if they wanna sterotype me, then let them. it’s horrible and unfair. but i’m not going to try and hide my asian pride. don’t sell urself for a thick package. even if it is harvard.</p>
<p>idk about u all but i want to study then party, not listen to the asian down the hall crying about a 97 instead of a 100 (true experience). I havnt had that experience with whites/urms but I wouldnt want to be with anyone who has an attitude like that. Id like to go to school with people who think life is measured in more than just a letter or number grade.
for the asians who are an exception to the stereotype;rock on!</p>
<p>Yes, they would have to worry about stereotypes, even without indicating their ethnicity…</p>
<p>Those with Asian surnames would be then at a disadvantage vs. those that do not. There are stereotypes about income, wealth, special talents, geography, EC’s, essays, developmental issues, legacy status, etc…anything that requires a judgement call involves a certain amount of stereotyping. Even being in NHS involves stereotyping because it decided who is deserving of membership. The Key Club also makes those decisions,etc…</p>
<p>A holistic admissions process can treat applicants as individuals. The problem is that private colleges can choose a class they feel would be of the most benefit to their current students and alumni, as long as they are not transgressing laws. Again, it is the nature of selective college admissions to look at an applicant in detail. Many different things are considered, but some Asians like to focus on one or two aspect of the process–ethnicity and stats. </p>
<p>Usually, the complaint, here and elsewhere, is about the unfairness of the Asian stereotype–but it sometimes fail to recognize that lumping Latino applicants (at Harvard) with other URMs despite the 1% difference in rates between that group and non-minority applicants, reinforces a Latino stereotype. Why not lump them in with whites or Asians instead? Because it would weaken the point some posters are trying to make about stereotypes.</p>
<p>I don’t believe that Asians as a group don’t stereotype. All groups stereotype. Individuals can choose to steretype or not as well. The problem is that some people believe that their group is better qualified with respect to selective, private college admissions than others (which can be based on various things like, stats, income, ethnicity, gender, special talent et al.). That is true no matter which ethnicity, gender, region you identify with.</p>
<p>If you want to play the victim, by all means. That’s how a victim mentality gets entrenched.</p>
<p>
</p>
<ol>
<li>Using ethnicity as a factor creates many bad incentives. It encourages some people to lie about their race. It causes others to hide their race. It results in questions like, “Well, my great-grandfather emigrated from Portugal. Do I count as Hispanic?”</li>
</ol>
<p>In addition, it fosters racial tension. By favoring some races, it runs counter to the ideal of equality. It is certainly not desirable in occupations that require mutual trust (e.g. recorded instances of white firefighters calling their black co-workers “quota sergeants.”)</p>
<p>The use of race as a factor creates a sense of entitlement. Some parents in CC have stated that non-Blacks in this nation should be punished for historical sins. Others have supported artificially reducing the stats of certain applicants to benefit others. Thus, the most destructive effect of using race as a factor is the relegation of the meritocratic ideal.
There’s no good reason to use race as a factor, even as one of many. I hope the current Supreme Court will definitively rule against its use.</p>
<ol>
<li>While I think that stats are the most important factor, I do not think that they should be the only factor. In fact, the only factor that I have a problem with is race.</li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. If there were no stereotyping of any group in admissions, I’d have a problem with AA in general. That is not the case, as your firefighter analogy shows–through the majority’s attitude (current and historically).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just like others on this board suggest that they should not. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Artificially reducing the stats of certain applicants? What is the source to that claim? You mean like some posters who discount some of the factors that are used in a holistic admissions process like essays, recs, special talents, legacy status, gender, ethnicity, income, and geography?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, there is a good reason to use ethnicity as one of the factors in selective college admissions it’s diversity. You may disagree, that is your right. Another is that some groups have suffered much at the hands of the majority (whether in the Continental US or in Hawaii). That cannot be simply ignored as it shapes each individual’s interactions with others, the jobs they have, the rates that are charged for life insurance, mortgages, and medical coverage, as well as which schools they can attend. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>BTW–The Supreme Court did rule that diversity is a social good, which is why they okayed its use, at least for the next 23 years.</p>
<p>Here are two articles (1) about diversity (and the 10% quota) in college admissions and (2) ethnicity with respect to private school admissions at the secondary level…</p>
<p>Adjusting a Formula Devised for Diversity
by Joseph I. Berger
New York Times, 13 December 2006</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It depends on what people choose to define as necessary to selective college admissions…interesting how the 10% admissions scheme is similar to a quota system…no?!</p>
<p>Hawaii Schools’ Racial Enrollment Upheld
By Adam Liptak
NYT 6 December 2006</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here’s one from the Federal Courts. I’m sure you will disagree with the court, since you do not see the need for diversity or to correct for past oppression. Maybe the Supreme Court will take the case, maybe not.</p>
<p>Below is a posting I added to another thread in which an African-American student posted her stats after being admitted EA to Stanford and many started complaining about affirmative action. I think it can provide many of you with some insight here…and after reading many of the posts here in this thread, I have one more thing to add: be proud of who you are and your accomplishments!!! Don’t be modest about them! We want all different kinds of students: URMs, white kids, athletes, poets, musicians, rich and poor. And trust that many of us who work in admissions do know that you are all individuals and that’s how we evaluate you and all that you do/have achieved!!! We know that stereotypes do not represent individuals. PLEASE, give us a little credit guys - many of us have attended the institutions you’re freaking out about getting into and have graduate degrees! </p>
<p>I’ve read a lot of the posts on here, and it’s become clear to me that many of you really do not understand affirmative action and how it works in college admissions or why we even have it in the first place. It really is not used in the way many of you think it is and as often as many of you think it is. This being said, it saddens me, really, to read some of the accusations/assumptions in some of these postings. I say this as someone who has worked at several “most selective” institutions. </p>
<p>In admissions committee and in reading files, we don’t really “lower the bar” for “hooked” students - even legacies and athletes. Every student is evaluated based on the context within which they have achieved inside AND outside the classroom. That’s what affirmative action protects - the right of different social institutions to include people who have been disadvantaged in different ways or who have achieved in different ways that could benefit the institution. Keep in mind that NO ONE is admitted to highly selective colleges if they can’t do the work. Also keep in mind that, academically, the vast majority of students applying to highly selective institutions CAN DO THE WORK. Indeed, your 1450/2200+ SATs and 4.0+ GPAs are not that special in a national applicant pool at highly selective schools. And even if they were, it doesn’t mean you’ll add anything to the life of the particular campuses you’re applying to in the eyes of the institution. We in the admissions office know what we’re doing - trust us to make the right decisions!</p>
<p>Also, keep in mind that not all elementary and high schools are created equal! If we all went to the same high school and received the exact same education and had the exact same access to extracurricular activities, SAT prep courses, etc…, it would be easy for me and my colleagues to admit those that “deserve” to be admitted…But we don’t live in that world! Many students face prejudice, racism, and classism in their schools, a lack of a stable family life, a lack of good teachers or role models, etc…, and still share the same desire to learn as those who have not faced any of these things. Thus, we have to be as objective as possible in evaluating each student and their achievements. To do this, we have to consider the opportunities each student has - or has not - had and the obstacles they have faced in achieving what they have (or have not) achieved. To deny students access to elite institutions because they don’t “measure up” in quantifiable ways like others who have been privileged is, well, unethical in my opinion and perpetuates the inequalities that exist in our culture. </p>
<p>A word about athletes…Keep in mind that the time and devotion it takes to be an athlete talented enough to compete at the collegiate level is huge - even in Division III. Why is it okay to put down a student who has this kind of talent and devotion but not one with, say, musical talent? Or artistic talent? Or a huge committment to community service? I’m not sure I understand how many of you can say with certainly (because many of you do) that college athletes are “weaker” than the average student at highly selective colleges. Perhaps they may have lower testing ON AVERAGE, or even lower GPAs, but considering they are able to achieve academically at places like the Ivies and still commit over 30 hours/week to practices, travel, and competitions is impressive. Many of you are underestimating these students - many of whom have extremely high SAT scores and grades (I’ve seen several recruited athletes this year with SATs over 1500/2250 and 4.0 GPAs) and other extracurricular involvements. Don’t underestimate these students! Sure, there are exceptions to what I’ve just said, but in general, athletes need to make the grade or they aren’t admitted or graduated. Same thing applies to legacies nowadays, too, although there are some institutions that will bend over backwards for these kids. </p>
<p>A final point - there are hundreds of good colleges and universities out there! Those of you who are bitter because you aren’t admitted to Stanford or Harvard or Amherst or Brown or Hopkins but who view yourselves as “competitive” for admission to these schools should know that you can still probably get into over 95% of the 4-year colleges and universities in this country. If you truly can’t find the right fit for you outside of the US News top 20, then you aren’t doing your homework and are severely limiting yourself. What matters most is where you will be happiest academically, socially, activity-wise, etc…, not what sticker is on the back of your parents’ car or what your peers think of the college you are attending. If you’re happy there and can get all the opportunities you want, then that’s all that should matter!</p>
<p>Great post! ^^^^^</p>
<p>“we don’t really “lower the bar” for “hooked” students - even legacies and athletes. Every student is evaluated based on the context within which they have achieved inside AND outside the classroom.”</p>
<p>Allow me to translate this politically correct bureaucratic Clinton-esque gobblety goo into English: “We lower the bar.”</p>
<p>Thank you, AdOfficer!</p>