<p>I don’t think the suit is about Li. I think the value of the suit is that it brings a nagging issue that many people believe into the forefront. I think it needs to be investigated because too many people believe that there is an Asian detector at work at the top schools, and there is an Asian quota of sorts in effect. I don’t agree with this, but many people do. If this can be proven in a way to dispel some of the belief,Li’s suit is valuable. If you look at it in terms of Li trying to get into Princeton, it is a frivolous suit given the holistic nature of ivy admissions and so many components of an app that are confidential. If a teacher gave Li a bad rec, and he signed a confidentialty consent, it cannot come to light. Given so many part of the app are confidential, parts that these schools say are very important, the individual case cannot be judged. There is no where that says a certain gpa and testscore will get you into HPY, even perfect numbers. So, on an individual basis, Li has lost. It’s the idea that Asians are are directly discriminated against that is the issue. There are many, many intelligent people out there that believe that a scoring card is kept on an app (that is often true),and if the adcom finds out you are Asian, there is a minus 50 or whatever number that is taken off that score. I don’t believe this is true. Or they believe that once so many Asians are taken, they lay off the Asian acceptances in fear that the school would turn too Asian. I don’t believe this either. But my belief, no more than these beliefs, make the situation true, so it would clear the air for some studies and info to dispel this very common notion that runs rampant in elite admissions crowds, particulary among the Asians.</p>
<p>Interesting, Isleboy. There are a number of schools, even public, here on the mainland, even on the east coast that openly favor certain groups. The Regis School in NY was gives 1st generation Americans preferential admissions treatment. In the interest of balance, race is taken into consideration in many public magnet school admissions. Many scholarships are earmarked for certain ethnic groups too without discrimination charges.</p>
<p>“In the interest of balance, race is taken into consideration in many public magnet school admissions”</p>
<p>that could change soon</p>
<p>CP:</p>
<p>What is scary is that all the scholarships earmarked for particular groups with respect to ethnicity (Southeast Asian, Native Hawaiian, latino, Irish-American, etc…), athletic ability, merit (high test scores and/or grades) would ‘necessarily’ be discriminatory, as would aid awards (since they sometimes limit choices). </p>
<p>With respect to ethnicity, all programs that encourage minority achievement could then be attacked on the same grounds. Likewise, programs to encourage women in sciences would be deemed unsavory. It goes on and on.</p>
<p>What is interesting is that all posts (mine included) are a matter of where one draws the line, rather than an all or nothing proposition as some suppose. If colleges, work, schools, etc…are blind to ethnicity and/or gender, then as a part-white, part-asian, male, I’d be in a very good position; However, I’d lose in both big and small ways by not being around others who are socioeconomically and culturally different than myself.</p>
<p>I hope that private schools retain their right to use diversity as well as a holistic admissions process in choosing their first-year classes. Likewise, I hope that merit and other scholarships are retained despite being, according to some CCer’s, ‘discriminatory’ in practice.</p>
<p>I agree with you, Isleboy. Discrimination will always exist as it is inherent in any process where you are picking some over others. The simple, first come, first served, becomes discriminatory when you look at those who have roadblocks to getting somewhere due to location, lack of transportation, and any number of factors that are not within control. And if it happens to be a racial or ethnic group that falls into this category, it can be said that the policy discriminates against them! Yet unacceptable discrimination does exist, so it is a slippery slope here. </p>
<p>Just as aside, the cancellation of the early programs at the top schools, such as EA for Harvard, is going to be a blow for those types of students who tend to get it together and apply early. From what I have seen, Asian kids make up a bulk of that group. Is this an anti Asian move? I don’t think so. Is the EA advantage lost to these kids many of who are Asian going to affect them? It may well do so. Who will benefit? The colleges are hoping the less advantaged and URMs will,but I think they are already given their leeway even in RD. It’ll be the later filers, the ones who would not get their act together that quickly, but have a good app with a good resume. Whether they are Asian, or not, I don’t know.</p>
<p>Ikki: Just a comment on legacies, who you lump with athletes as being unqualified to attend top colleges.</p>
<p>Once upon a time, it was accurate to say that admissions offices accepted alumni children were marginally qualified. My roommate at an Ivy 30 years ago fit that description. However, things have changed. Colleges have come under significant pressure, particularly as the number of applicants skyrocketed and writers like Dan Golden pen articles, to rethink their legacy policy. I think you would be hard put to find a totally unqualified legacy on an elite campus. Is it possible that said legacy does not have 1600/2400/4.0 GPA? Yes – but I’ll bet he/she has at least 1400/2100/3.8, and most likely significantly higher. And those stats are good enough for a selective college. And if you scour these boards, you’ll find dozens of examples of legacies with very impressive stats who are rejected – with parents who are active alumni and give lots of money. </p>
<p>Colleges accept legacies for more than just monetary reasons. For example, legacies are more likely to attend, which boosts the matriculation rate (a factor in the US News rankings). But there is also a sense of tradition and school spirit that colleges want to see continued. Did you love Yale? Do you plan on attending reunions, joining an email list, interviewing applicants, mentoring a current student, hiring a Yale graduate? All that is important to the life of a university long after graduation. Colleges are looking to accept students who will carry that school spirit with them after they get their diploma.</p>
<p>sly_vt: obviously, I’m not saying that legacy students are per se unqualified, but I don’t think their legacy status should be taken into consideration during admissions. Two reasons:</p>
<p>1) Fairness. Yes, most legacy students are qualified, the average legacy applicant is probably more qualified than the average applicant. But if that’s the case, then there’s more reason, for fairness sake, that they should be judged on the same standard as other students - the fact that the students’ parents went to yale gives the students enough of an advantage already, don’t you think - in terms of having educated parents/wealth? What moral reason would you have of giving them even more advantage?</p>
<p>2) Utility. I already mentioned that legacies might bring money from alumni donations. This is an empirical question, and I don’t know the answer to that. As for other positive externalities like matriculation rates and school spirit: I would think that a top school like Yale and Harvard does not need additional help with its matriculation numbers - or just admit more students if they’re worried about matriculation numbers (aren’t the schools always saying that there’s too few spots for too many bright students?) </p>
<p>Moreover, I think it’s pretty insulting to non-legacies to assert that they would not have as much enthusiasm or school spirit for their college just because their parents didn’t happen to go there. From my experience, many of the under-privileged kids at Yale who may have been the first in their family to go to college or Yale were a lot more appreciative of their experience and opportunities: the ones who went through Exeter/Andover –> Yale and spent their childhood hanging out with their parents at the Yale Club seems to view their college experience more as their birthright. If they got in based on their merit alone, fine, but I don’t see need to give those people even more help.</p>
<p>Edit: and yes, I did love my college, and I plan to help my fellow alumni throughout my life, despite the fact that my parents didn’t go there. I know, shocking.</p>
<p>Ikki, legacy does bring in more money. It helps to keep it all in the family. There is a strong economic component here. it also helps in the sense of community and spirit. Many of the alums who return to help on events do so because their kids are now there. When my son was at his school which I don’t consider a heavy alum type college, I was surprised at involvement of alums. I have to say that it added alot to the events, and the subsidies provides were substantial. Not to mention the networking. All of this helps when you accept their kid. Could you imagine how a parent would feel about helping in job placement or career opportunities for a school that rejected his son, when said son was qualified for admissions? It is an important component, and is being reduced each year as the spots get tighter. Many schools are looking at the development and involvment of the alum in giving legacy preference. I think it is a statistical reality that the first in the family alums are not as supportive OVERALL not certain individuals, as the dynasties. It isn’t a matter of giving those overpriviliged people more help,but the matter that those overpriviliged people give the university more help. And they are statistically happy, succesful and a credit to the school. You are taking more of a chance with the unknown factors, though I doubt this is a big consideration. THe reason is that it is a definite benefit to the school to give legacy preference. The question is how much and to whom.</p>
<p>I think that in today’s climate, legacies are judged on the same standard as other students. I don’t think they are given a break. I think a higher percent are accepted because they are highly qualifed. When colleges are comparing two equally qualified students and one is a legacy, in that situation it might help. I also think that legacies, because of their greater knowledge of the campus, may be able to put together a more compelling application which appeals to the admissions committee. Also, there are overlaps – legacies who are athletes or Intel winners or URMs or live in North Dakota, and are accepted because of those hooks.</p>
<p>As to fairness: Since when is life fair? I never argued that there is a moral reason for legacies to have an advantage. But then, I’m not sure how often morality comes up in admissions decisions. </p>
<p>I also never said that nonlegacies would have less school spirit. I did say that there is a lot more to being an alumni than giving money, and that colleges know based on years of experience that legacy children feel affection for their school.</p>
<p>Also – when I think of selective schools, my list is a lot broader than Yale and Harvard. When I think of top colleges, I have about 50 schools in mind. And for most of them, yes, matriculation percentages matter a lot.</p>
<p>Nope, they are given a break at many schools that come right out and say so. Also, the stats for legacies is slightly lower than the overall pool. Now that does not take into consideration that these kids have other highly desireable things as well, but considering that the majority of them are not in the lower scoring sub groups, it is pretty clear that some consideration is given to them. But the schools themselves readily say that legacy is a consideration, so we don’t need to guess about this.</p>
<p>It may sound petty–it may BE petty–but if my son isn’t accepted at his Dad’s alma mater (he certainly has the stats, but who knows what else they’ll be looking for?) I’d be highly offended. I don’t know if my husband would stop giving them money; maybe he’s less petty than I am, but I guess I feel that they ask for loyalty when they ask for money and, in my narrow mind, I feel like loyalty should be a two-way street. Not to suggest a school should accept a less than qualified applicant, but I do expect a little tip (don’t know if he’ll get it though) for the legacy factor.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Probably the highest % of Asians at a UC is at Irvine and it probably runs in the low 60’s if you count all of those who did not declare a race as Asian. Lowest % at UC Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz. Of course, California is a pretty special situation since there are so many Asians in the population in the first place. </p>
<p>A better example of colleges that can become 75% of one group if admission committees didn’t “discriminate”: liberal arts colleges and women.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>When D applied to Stanford, we received a letter from the admissions people saying that if 2 candidates were exactly the same, the legacy consideration would be a tip. But then when are two candidates exactly the same? </p>
<p>I got the impression that the legacy tip existed, but it really isn’t as strong as it might have been in the past.</p>
<p>Most colleges are constantly reviewing their legacy treatment trying to get the optimum policy. You don’t want the college to be nearly all legacy, as once upon a time it was. So the impact is diminishing. But in school where there are so many qualified students, even a tip,all things equal can be a big deal, and make the difference.There are often a heck of a lot of students who are in a pool where they are all considered equally qualified. So you pull the legacies out and they are the ones accepted. In the top schools, there are also a number of development/legacy , celebrity/legacy kids and the impact of the factor other than legacy really trumps the legacy. Some of those kids are definitely not just getting a “tip”. It appears, though, that there is not the outcry for the tip, or even flag that legacy, development and celebrity give to an applicant.</p>
<p>From a Daniel Golden article:
from <a href=“WSJ in Higher Education | Trusted News & Real-World Insights”>WSJ in Higher Education | Trusted News & Real-World Insights;
<p>Note the box in the article that show legacies have a 40% acceptence rate at Harvard - that seems like more to me than simply Harvard alums having smart kids.</p>
<p>Just a few things I’ve learned from reading posts on this parents board:</p>
<p>1) parents of college bound kids take comments quite personally if those comments might even remotely reflect negatively on their kids or their own set of beliefs about how the admissions work or ought to work. </p>
<p>2) parents are a lot less concerned about questions of how the system ought to work, and a lot more concerned about how the system might affect them or their socio-economic peers. </p>
<p>3) I suspect the vast majority of parents on this board are well-off, well-educated, and white, given the immediate outcry against any ideas that might upset the perpetuation of the privileged class. </p>
<p>I’m not saying these things to offend or hurt anyone’s feelings, but come on, I’m HARDLY a very liberal person, but reading the posts on this board makes me feel like a communist!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>:eek: I almost fell off my barstool. Us conservatives?</p>
<p>All of us are neo-cons who think GW sold out to the left. You are not the first to recognize our incredible almost unanimous tilt to the right. </p>
<p>(I sure hope driver sees this wherever she is. ;))</p>
<p>Ikki, the board is usually castigated for being somewhere to the left of Hugo Chavez.</p>
<p>Ikki: Welcome to human nature! Most people do take things personally, especially if it concerns their children or their money. You know how that mother bear protects her cubs – human parents can be the same way.</p>
<p>Now, why is it OK for you to be critical and disagree with our opinions, yet when we do it you suggest ulterior motives?</p>
<p>As for discussions about how the system should work – search a little on CC and you will find plenty of discussions on how the current system should be changed. We parents are fully aware of many of the problems with how the college application process works, and have numerous suggestions on how things could be better. The parents who disagree with your specific argument on Asian admissions have looked at the numbers and the statistics, and come up with a different conclusion than you do. They don’t feel that something is broken in that specific area of admissions.</p>
<p>As Huey Long liked to chant, “Don’t tax me. Don’t tax me. Tax that fellow behind the tree.”</p>
<p>No doubt that you don’t want to be in the group that loses any advantages for admissions. Just to give a personal glimpse, neither my husband nor I have had any benefits for college admissions due to legacy preferences, and do not expect to have any in the future. Our third one, along with the two before him, is not a fit for our schools. And I don’t think it 's going to be a situation with the others. We are not even thinking in terms of how legacy preferences will affect us. But both of us support a legacy preference. It makes sense to us. </p>
<p>We are not URMs. Yet we support consideration for that category. </p>
<p>I am Asian. You know my stance on Asian discrimination at the top schools.</p>
<p>So in this case, I don’t think you are on the mark. I think many of the parents on this board support positions that do not benefit them, and even hurt their personal causes. I see a strong sense of social responsibility among these parents. They know it is not all about them. But we are looking for the best avenues for our situation, no doubt about that. And are open to others’ suggestions and free sharely our information. How much better can you get than that?</p>
<p>The funny thing that occurred to me driving into work today was this: when I was in law school 30+ years ago we still had Affirmative Action for Asians applying to law school. If I recall correctly, the story was that all but one of the Asians in my class were “special admits”. I would say that, based on my experience, Asians were underrepresented in the legal profession back then (early 70’s) - certainly among trial lawyers - a situation which has changed significantly since then. Who knows? Maybe AA worked for Asians in that one sector. It’s been discontinued since then (outlawed in California) but there are still lots of Asians at the law school. Other minority enrollment has declined, however.</p>