<p>RE: UCB’s correction, I posted, as you know:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I find your line of inquiry distasteful. As I said, see: eugenics and the rise of the Nazi’s. </p>
<p>In the end, in the united states, we have many different races, and our objectives, as citizens, may not be to maximize the potential of only 5.8% of the population. Our objectives may run more along the line of maximizing the potential of a much larger majority, and, historically, as with immigration from underpriveledged countries, we choose to continue to believe this is more important, that the majority is served as best as possible.</p>
<p>However, I have frequently stated that I believe it is completely false to claim that asian women do not have to have higher stats than any other applicants to the college pool. To pretend they can assume admissions based even on the mid range given in the college data sets is not useful, at all. I have also stated that I completely understand why individual students feel ripped off during the admission process, and mostly I have been very empathetic to these STUDENTS.</p>
<p>The parents are another matter. I think the parents need to just grow up. Life isn’t fair. It isn’t fair to the kid born in poverty, or to the girl born in Afghanistan, or to the asian woman applying to college. But it is MORE fair to the asian american woman than it is to most. So? No Harvard? Probably somewhere still damn great.</p>
<p>According to the paper on page 14 it appears that white chicks rule.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suppose you could surmise that the reason for this is a change of major. There are other possible explanations as well I suppose about how different people mature intellectually or the traits necessary for success in college. I cant tell if the paper makes a conclusion because after this point it seems to drop the distinction between white and Asian. </p>
<p>I pretty much think these types of studies are pointless, so Im not going to read it in detail but if somebody can point me to where in the paper they give the reason for this piece of data Id be interested. I may very well have missed it.</p>
<p>Re the article Beliavsky linked (a good read, btw).</p>
<p>There’s hard work and then there’s the intelligence of being able to read the world around you. I commend the parents in those articles who sacrifice so much and emphasize hard work and respect for academic challenge. However, so now their kids got into Stuy – and 4 years from hw their kids will be posting on CC about how they have to get into Harvard or just die, and that Cornell is just barely acceptable, and blah de blah blah. And that’s where all the memorizing of math formulas doesn’t do a darn bit of good if their parents can’t figure out that there are many, many good colleges in the US beyond a storied few and that the characteristics of intelligence and hard work are what cause success, not a handful of names on a diploma. Intelligence has many forms and standardized test taking is just one of them.</p>
<p>I had no idea that America was a planned society that dictated to its citizens what they have to do to serve the collective (i.e. go to a second tier school because there are too many of you over achiever Asian types in the first tier schools).</p>
<p>I always thought America was about individualism and self-determination. Silly me…</p>
<p>So how would you explain the tax code? How would you explain financial aid or social security or medicare. How on earth would you explain the 14th ammendment?</p>
<p>We have a history of slavery in this country. Also genocide.</p>
<p>I’m not really sure what you are refering to, except that yes, if your child, controlling for outside factors, can compete at the top level with his or her peers, peers being those from the same background? They will gain admission. Self=determination is in your boarding school child’s hands. All he has to do is be better than his peers. No, he is not going to compete with someone from the inner city streets of Chicago, but if he can be better than everyone at his boarding school? He will be a shoe in.</p>
<p>What are you defining as first vs second tier? Please don’t tell me it’s Princeton vs Duke. </p>
<p>Anyway, your mentality still acts as though it’s the college that determines the student’s fate. A student who has what it takes to go to a first tier school who winds up at a second tier school will still do fine in life. Stop it with the scarcity mentality.</p>
<p>“Self=determination is in your boarding school child’s hands. All he has to do is be better than his peers. No, he is not going to compete with someone from the inner city streets of Chicago, but if he can be better than everyone at his boarding school? He will be a shoe in.”</p>
<p>Or maybe not. There isn’t enough room at the elites for everyone. However, this is not a problem unless one is under the erroneous assumption that not going to a tippy top school means a job trajectory of fry cook to counter staff.</p>
<p>From the looks of the data from the Duke paper (Post #173), the nerdy Asian kid at Stuy not only has higher standardized test scores, but also has higher overall “Achievement”, more rigorous “Curriculum”, better “Essay”, better “Personal Qualities”, and better “Letters of Recommendation”</p>
<p>I wonder how different college admissions would look if there was a mandatory test of right-brain skills like artistic talent, empathy and “big-picture” conceptual thinking.</p>
<p>Well, so what happens if it doesn’t get Duke but has to settle for Vanderbilt or Tufts? Does the world come to an end? does Duke “owe” him a spot?</p>
<p>Anyone who cannot manage to get a terrific education at one of the many fine State Flagships, top LACs or top Privates isn’t going to do well in the real world anyway. There are plenty of washouts among those who finished in the Ivies, and many more massive success stories from undergrad state U’s.</p>
<p>Teach your children to thrive where they find themselves. This is a useful form of education, as well.</p>
<p>And these are all things that that child (and his/her family) has had years to prepare for, with years of support. How would a genius kid from a very disadvantaged background have a chance under these parameters?</p>
<p>Well, if your belief is that Duke is actively and deliberately turning down Asian applicants because they want to help “undeserving” or less deserving black applicants, and you object to that on moral fairness grounds, the solution is simple - you tell your kid not to apply there, because a) clearly they are racist jerks and b) your educational experience will be ruined by all those less deserving students in the seats. </p>
<p>The notion that you don’t like what they’re doing and how they pick the class but you really want your kid to be a part of that class makes no sense.</p>
<p>The more license people in authority have to make decisions subjectively, the more people with talent are liable to be screwed.</p>
<p>That may be a significant consideration when discussing admissions issues. However, it’s how the world turns. Sometimes, I use the love/marriage analogy: did you pick your life partner based on test scores and a few high school titles? Or some broader pattern of “match” and a sense this is the partnership that will meet a variety of goals, in the near future and long run? And, didn’t you “get to know” this other person through some interaction? </p>
<p>On one hand, just because one kid scored well, no one at a top private owes him anything. You are fooling yourself if you think the standard CC formula is what holistic adcoms follow. They are not beholden to your kid, they do not “owe” him an admit because he succeeded statistically in high school, was BMOC there, and you believe in him or her. That notion can apply more to a lateral move, in the context of local rules: wanna switch high schools, maybe to a test-in program? Ok, there are your qualifications. </p>
<p>College is not 13th grade. It’s a leap to a different academic tier. The measures put in place by local school districts, principals, teachers- and other hs students- to define “success” do not necessarily apply. Top colleges do not offer an admit as a “reward” for hs performance. A gimme that you can count on because you met some quantitative bar. It’s about the potential you exhibit to succeed and thrive in their college environment and beyond- both in class and on campus. That makes it qualitative, as well. They define the “quality” they seek. Their decision whom to pick for their team. </p>
<p>You know the talk that H ends up with 3x the number of finalists to the seats available. Plenty of top stats, beloved kids will not even make that final cut. Of the 6000, numerous considerations will apply in picking admits. To say your kid was bumped by another “less qualified” is to assume your kid was some sort of “must have,” is under-informed about what matters to these top colleges, a little self-serving, and awfully quick to label an “opportunity” kid as automatically less desirable. I shake my head at that. Sorry.</p>
<p>Well, it turns out, Sally, that by the end, caucasion women do the best, and all gpa metrics narrow over time. So, should they only admit caucaision women since they seem to do best in school over time?</p>
<p>Really?</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, GMT is fearful for the future of her child who attends one of the old school feeder boarding schools. I think he/she is annoyed there aren’t feeders anymore. However, if her student is the top of his class? He has a much, much better chance than the val at an inner city school in East L.A., or the val at a school even in the middle of nowhere.</p>
<p>The tax code, social security, and medicare do not treat people differently on the basis of race. The 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause is defacto in opposition to discrimination on the basis of race.</p>
<p>What difference do you honestly think this makes in the broader life trajectory? What do you fear will happen to your child if he is not accepted to the top school (whichever one you deem top?)</p>
<p>You need not be afraid. Many of our best people have come from the dregs of University of Michigan or even the University of Nebraska, of all places. :eek:</p>