Princeton answers to Jian Li claims

[calmom]

<p>I don’t really buy into the idea of the personality-focused stereotypes. Yes, there are many quiet and shy Asians, but there are also plenty of outspoken ones in the applicant pool. My guess is that the larger problem is a tendency to focus on certain majors that are extremely competitive. Whether the student declares the major or not on the application, it is apparent from the record where the interests and achievements lie – no one thinks that a kid who spent his high school years participating in math competitions is going to suddenly decide he wants to become an art major in college. So students are evaluated according to the profile they have created for themselves – if the application telegraphs “math nerd”, then whatever the ethnicity, it is going to be evaluated against the profiles of other math nerds. And they are all going to have SATs at or close to 800, given the reality that they have all studied far more math than is actually covered on the exam. And at the same time, no one is going to turn away a poet who can’t do better than 650 in math.</p>

[Momwaitingfornew]

<p>Kidlat wrote: "harvard accepts what you call shy white " bookworms “,”</p>

<p>Not too many, I’d bet. The Ivies tend to accept mostly those who are engaged in the world, and a shy bookworm of any ethnic group would not have this quality.</p>

[Momwaitingfornew]

<p>BTW, kidlat, it would be a heckuva lot easier to follow your arguments if you made an attempt to punctuate and capitalize. I rarely comment on the grammar/spelling of posters since we all make mistakes, but your run-on sentences, with no clear beginning or end, are sometimes a challenge to decipher.</p>

<p>This is friendly advice. Not a flame.</p>

[StickerShock]

<p>

People who apply to music , fine arts programs, theater etc. are not judged by their SAT scores but by their talent or portfolio…

Not true, kidlat. These kids still have to meet the standards of the school & their applications go through the admissions department just as all other applications do.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>I agree with 821 and 822 that stereotyping is not the dynamic. It’s the similarity of interest & capability (when it’s there). An overabundance of aspiring students in one area can “impact” a major or a field (a term also used to signal funding compromises at Public U’s). Overly flooded majors will be the most competitive ones. This has been true for decades at UC Berkeley, in Engineering. Before CA’s demographics became so affected by influx from out of the state & out of country, it was always extremely tough to get into the Engineering School at Berkeley, when there were fewer Asians applying & more Caucasians. There was a very high bar for anyone of any ethnicity applying to that field.</p>

<p>I also think that cptofthehouse was not implying that most math-centered Asians are quiet & shy; rather, that being quiet & Asian will not preclude one from acceptance to elites, because those acceptances come in generous numbers & are made not necessarily with consideration of personality type, but with the asset to the U of any supremely capable student.</p>

[cptofthehouse]

<p>Kidlat, Princeton along with the other top colleges very proudly will say they denied admittance to candidates with a 2400 SAT. Can’t get higher than that, and it is clear that they accepted MANY kids with lower scores than that, many of them Asian. In fact I do not personally know ANYONE, Asian or otherwise with perfect SAT scores, even at the 1600 range, but I know plenty of them, many of them Asian who were accepted to HPY and other top schools. And many of them fit the sterotypical category–not all in that category are rejected; many do get accepted. So Princeton will not be embarrassed to produce non Asians with lower scores than Jian Li’s who accepted there that year. They can also produce Asians with lower scores than Jian Li’s who were accepted that year. Jian Li was not rejected because of his scores. He was rejected because he did not have much else to offer Princeton other than numbers. He was certainly Princeton material, and COULD have been admitted, but he was in an overfilled category that many kids are in that apply to super selective schools and was just unlucky enough to be rejected. He fared better at Yale. It is no surprise he was accepted there, but it would not have been a surprise had Yale rejected him as well. The scores are not the only criteria in selective school admissions, and most schools do not even differentiate between perfect and a lower threshhold that they determine as top category for that piece of info. Then on to the next item on your resume that can benefit the school. There have been non Asians with such scores that have been turned down at these schools as well.</p>

[cptofthehouse]

<p>Sorry, third sentence is bad. I meant that "I don’t personally know ANYONE, Asian or otherwise with perfect SAT scores, even at the 1600 range but I know plenty of kids with imperfect scores and grades, many of them Asian who were accepted to HPY and other top schools.</p>

[bdean]

<p>

That statement is untrue. According to numbers reported on by Hillel, at the undergraduate level, Jews are enrolled in the Ivies at approximately the following rates:</p>

<p>Penn - 31%
Harvard 30%
Columbia 25%
Brown - 25%
Yale 23%
Cornell-22%
Princeton 14%
Dartmouth - 11%</p>

<p>The overall enrollment rate at all 8 Ivies is 24% (approximately 13800 undergrads identified as Jewish out of approx. 58,200 overall).

</p>

<p>The statement is from “The Chronicle of Higher Education” for the year 2000.</p>

<p>Here’s the direct quote from the Harvard Crimson article.</p>

<p>

According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, Jews, who still comprise less than two percent of the American population, comprised one third of the Ivy League in 2000—an astronomical amount, and one now readily accepted by admissions administrators, who no longer force Jewish applicants to do battle against a stereotype designed to prevent them from succeeding.

</p>

<p>And let’s say the % has indeed changed from 2000 to what Hillel reports currently. For a group that makes up less than 2% of the US pop. - a 24% Jewish student body is certainly one that is overrepresented, certainly more so than Asian-Ams who make up significantly less of the student body, and yet, at the same time make up more than DOUBLE the % of Jews in the US pop.</p>

<p>And furthermore, wouldn’t you say that Asian-Ams comprise a much more diverse group than Jewish-Ams? Coming from numerous ethnic backgrounds with different cultural heritages. After all, aren’t these universities interested in “diversity”?</p>

<p>

Frankly, people don’t know Asian-Am parents if they think that these parents don’t know about what elite colleges are looking for. Extracurricular activities are emphasized, just like academics."</p>

<p>The problem that I’ve seen is that the Asian kids all are pushed into, strongly encouraged to participate in or are attracted to the same kind of ECs: swimming, tennis, classical piano, violin, Model UN, Mu Alpha Theta, National Honor Society, Chinese school.

</p>

<p>And since when are Asian-Am parents exclusively the only one pushing their kids into pursuing swimming, tennis, NHS, etc. (which, btw, isn’t really accurate) - are you telling me that WASPY kids in affluent suburbs aren’t pushed into tennis, swimming, golf, etc. or Jewish kids aren’t pushed into playing classical instruments?</p>

<p>And what other interests, exactly, are the elite universities looking for? Yearbook, HS paper, theater, other sports? Yeah, there are no Asian-Am kids participating in those activities.</p>

<p>

I do know Asian American parents and kids – from a variety of Asian cultures. I also have been told by the students during interviews and socially that they wanted to do things like art, acting, football, but their parents wouldn’t let them. Consequently, what happens is that a student who may have passionately and creatively pursued acting, art or football and then stood out in admissions ends up half heartedly doing what their parents wished, and then blending in with the other Asian and white students who used the same activities in vain attempts to punch an admission ticket to elite colleges.

</p>

<p>First of all, there are a good no. of Asian-Ams who do play football or other “non-Asian” sports - soccer, lax, baseball, etc., but unless one excels at the sport, good enough to be a recruited athlete, participation in those sports really don’t improve one’s admissions chances.</p>

<p>Btw, there are plenty of Asian-Am students pursuing “non-traditional Asian” interests/careers - for example, 13% of FIT students are Asian-Am and where do you think all the AF news anchors come from? (Plus, the Times article noted that the stereotype of Asian-Am students pursuing non-creative activities is untrue.)</p>

<p>

Note: I also mentioned white students who do those activities (with the exception of Chinese school) because they, too, tend not to stand out in admission because so many white and Asian students use those activities as resume dressing. The URMs, however, who do those activities can stand out in admissions because relatively few URMs do those activities. (Certainly, URMs who qualify for admission to top colleges will stand out, too, because of their rarity).

</p>

<p>Since when do Asian-Ams all go to “Chinese school”?</p>

<p>

Thank you. (That was to calmom)
I continue to be amazed at the number of otherwise sophisticated, educated adults, who will believe something written in a book, excerpted in a magazine, which claims to be a “study,” claims to be investigative (well, it certainly can be, just selectively so in some cases), claims to be authoritative, even “scientific,” or at least accurate and definitive.</p>

<p>Depends on what you’re investigating, how you’re investigating, how throughly, what your design & methodology are. And when comparing two <em>seemingly</em> similar phenomena or factors, getting your facts & stats accurate is critical. So is not presupposing ahead of time such a parallel, & then fitting your “findings” in to “prove” a hypothesis.

</p>

<p>You can say that about any study, article, etc. Ans in this case, it’s not just Golden - but a no. of other academics/journalists have studied this issue as well.</p>

<p>

Jewish culture has changed much from the days when the old Jewish stereotype of the typical smart, musical, ambitious kids with the ambitious parents existed. Yes, the type still exists, but not in the number that it does with Asian kids.

</p>

<p>Not when you factor in the pop. difference (plus, I think, not surprisingly, you give a bit too much credit to one side and not enough to the other).</p>

<p>

And those Jewish kids have the same “discrimination” issues that the Asian kids do. But in our school, we have yet to have an Asian kid on the football, basketball or hockey teams, all hot teams for top school recruitment. A number of Jewish kids, however, and several have and are captaining. And we have a substantial number of Jewish and Asian kids at our school. No Asian kids in the band; the orchestra is majority Asian. A dearth of male Asian voices in the choirs; none this year, nor any in the male a cappella groups.

</p>

<p>I can give you an entirely different snap-shot at other schools.</p>

<p>

Most of the postings on this thread have been from the perspective of the “wronged Asian applicant.” Few seem to want to acknowledge what will likely happen to these top universities if they fail to balance their racial/social/cultural enrollments.

</p>

<p>There doesn’t seem to be any attempt (presently) to balance out racial/social/cultural enrollments with regard to Jews - a much less diverse group than Asian-Ams in all of those aspects.</p>

<p>

I agree that an increased, even 100%, Asian percentage would not reduce the reputation/quality of the upper U.C.'s. However, for those seeking a fuller freshman exposure/experience, it would reduce the universal degree of that aspect of the attractiveness of a campus. Anyone going to an in-State of any quality already knows that there will by definition less overall diversity in the undergrad student body, because of the preference for residents. When there is a perceived or actual imbalance of one ethnic group over another, on top of regulated residential preferences, one comes close to the “tipping point” effect mentioned above.

</p>

<p>So what’s the “tipping point” for Jewish enrollment?</p>

<p>

What I would really like to see is any evidence that shows that Asian-Americans do face systematic discrimination in elite school admissions.</p>

<p>What’s been presented:

1. Asian-American applicants have very slightly higher SAT scores than white applicants.
2. Asian-American applicants have a lower admission rate than white applicants.
3. Asian-American applicants tend to be rated lower in personal qualities by admissions officers than applicants of other races.
4. There are Asian-American quotas in place at top schools.</p>

<p>I dismiss #4 outright, partly because I think admissions committee members actively try to avoid hard cutoffs for anything, and partly because I don’t think they’re stupid.

</p>

<p>Nos. 1-3 is the “soft way” of getting around no. 4. You’re right, admissions commitees aren’t stupid - that’s why when Californians voted to do away with considering race as a factor for admissions - they found other ways to keep up non-Asian minority enrollment.</p>

<p>

As for #1-3, I think it’s more parsimonious to assume that the outcomes we observe are as a result of Asian-Americans applying disproportionately to a small handful of schools – there seems to be evidence for less self-selection by Asian-Americans. Students of other races tend to apply to a wide range of schools (LACs, other privates, non-elite publics), while the evidence seems to say that Asian-Americans are more likely to apply to top schools exclusively. That lack of self-selection, in my opinion, could easily account for the lower admission rates and the lower personal qualities scores.

</p>

<p>Right - and Jewish-Ams and WASPs from affluent suburbs don’t do the same - please (btw, how do you then account for the fact that 24-30% of the student body at Ivy League schools are Jewish - despite being less than 2% of the US pop.?) - please.</p>

[bdean]

<p>

They do if they want the American institutions to mirror the priorities & procedures of other country’s institutions. If I move to <em>settle</em> overseas & expect their educational or any system to mimic that of the U.S., I’m going to do 2 things: (a) not succeed in integrating into that system, in a way which allows me to take full advantage of that system, (b) spin a lot of my wheels and/or create a lot of tension in a futile effort to Americanize them.

</p>

<p>Who’s asking for that?</p>

<p>

“Also, many, many 2400 test score, shy, bookworm kids are admitted to HPY each year. And many of them are Asian. The question is whether they should ALL be admitted which would change the college communities that increase the percentage of that type. Nearly all of the colleges in the country are drooling for these kids. It’s just their apps tend to be clustered in the top schools where they are looking for other types as well.” (Also mentioned elsewhere, & by others, but yes, it does bear repeating.)

</p>

<p>First, you’re assuming (just like admissions officers seem to) that Asian-Am kids are shy, bookworm types at significantly higher nos. than other groups.</p>

<p>Second, do you really think the admissions offices would pick a “well-rounded” Asian-Am applicant with lower test scores (but on par with white applicants) over a shy, bookworm Asian-Am applicant with higher scores?</p>

<p>

Hmm, cbreeze, here’s the link to Princeton’s engineering school: <a href=“http://engineering.princeton.edu/[/url]”>http://engineering.princeton.edu/&lt;/a&gt;.
Brown asks its engineering applicants to submit an additional reference and essay.
And University of Pennsylvania has a pretty well known business school.
Almost every school asks for the applicant’s major.

</p>

<p>And many Asian-Am parents are well aware of the biases so they encourage their kids not to put down “Asian majors.”</p>

<p>

You mean a lot of people want " diversity " ? I don’t see a lot of Asians complaining as to whether they have 1 or black classmates. You are presuming that people who have not gone to school with people are automatically racists.
Way back in the 80’s and 90’s there were more blacks than Asians at the University of Iowa, did Asians demand preferences to increase their numbers. If Asians at that time at jhe University of Iowa said " increase our numbers " during the administration of U of Iowa would increase their numbers. Whereas if the black students said the same thing, it is more like a press conference would occur. Now that there are more Asians than blacks at the University of Iowa are they demanding that Asian numbers should increase , blacks certainly are…

</p>

<p>The 2 situations aren’t analogous.</p>

[pmyen]

<p>I agree with cpt of the house that Jian Lee does not have a realistic chance in making his case, and that is why I felt he may have had “sour grapes” or was “trophy hunting” depending on his real interest in Princeton relative to other elite schools. My daughter graduated from a nationally-recognized magnet school that sends a fair number of students to the Ivies and top LACs. The valedictorian in her year had close to perfect SATs and very good-excellent ECs (not stellar). He applied early decision to Princeton and was deferred. Later, he was rejected. He also was rejected by Harvard and Amherst but was accepted by Yale, Penn, and the state university honors program as a merit scholar. He obviously was very interested in attending Princeton but it just didn’t work out for him. Others in his class, with lower SAT scores, did get admitted. By the way, he was white. He also is quite happy at Yale and has never looked back.</p>

[WindCloudUltra]

<p>I don’t see why being ‘forced’ to play a classical instrument is a bad thing. Frankly, you have to start young on somethings. On the otherhand, I would like to see more people play non-violin/piano instruments. Wind and percussion perhaps?</p>

[bdean]

<p>

I agree with cpt of the house that Jian Lee does not have a realistic chance in making his case, and that is why I felt he may have had “sour grapes” or was “trophy hunting” depending on his real interest in Princeton relative to other elite schools. My daughter graduated from a nationally-recognized magnet school that sends a fair number of students to the Ivies and top LACs. The valedictorian in her year had close to perfect SATs and very good-excellent ECs (not stellar). He applied early decision to Princeton and was deferred. Later, he was rejected. He also was rejected by Harvard and Amherst but was accepted by Yale, Penn, and the state university honors program as a merit scholar. He obviously was very interested in attending Princeton but it just didn’t work out for him. Others in his class, with lower SAT scores, did get admitted. By the way, he was white. He also is quite happy at Yale and has never looked back.

</p>

<p>That’s why you look at systemic patterns (and not just one individual). </p>

<p>For instance, just b/c one black person gets promoted within a company or gets an offer of membership at a country club doesn’t mean that there isn’t an overall discriminatory practice.</p>

<p>

I don’t see why being ‘forced’ to play a classical instrument is a bad thing. Frankly, you have to start young on somethings. On the otherhand, I would like to see more people play non-violin/piano instruments. Wind and percussion perhaps?

</p>

<p>I really don’t think an Asian-Am applicant, who plays lead guitar or drums in a band, is going to get an admissions nod if his/her scores aren’t on par with other Asian-Am applicants.</p>

[ICargirl]

<p>I actually do think that there is a relatively simple difference between Jews and Asians in regard to admissions: the Jews applying to colleges today are, for the most part, the grandchildren of immigrants, while a far higher percentage of Asian students are the children of immigrants, or were even themselves born in another country. Given this, it makes sense that Jews would be more assimilated and more accurately reflect the population at large in their interests than Asians would.</p>

<p>I actually agree with those of you that think it is wrong to artificially limit the numbers of Asians at top schools simply because maany students wouldn’t like to go to a heavily Asian school. It is fine to give extra consideration to URMs, since they bring something different to the class, but it isn’t acceptable to limit the number of Asians simply because we don’t want too many of them. Just as we find it acceptable to have schools that are 65 % white, it should be acceptable to have schools that are 65 % Asian, and only 20 % white, if that is how it works out. Such a school would not be less diverse; it would simply reflect a different demographic.</p>

<p>However, the evidence we have doesn’t necessarily prove discrimination, because there are other factors that might limit Asian admission that have nothing to do with their ethnicity. To use the orchestra example, while I wouldn’t find it acceptable to have an unofficial cap for the percentage of Asians making up your orchestra, it is fair and even necessary to cap the number of violinists. If there are a disproportionate number of Asian violinists, than many of those cut from the orchestra despite being “qualified” will likely be Asian. That would not be discrimination.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

I actually agree with those of you that think it is wrong to artificially limit the numbers of Asians at top schools simply because maany students wouldn’t like to go to a heavily Asian school. It is fine to give extra consideration to URMs, since they bring something different to the class, but it isn’t acceptable to limit the number of Asians simply because we don’t want too many of them. Just as we find it acceptable to have schools that are 65 % white, it should be acceptable to have schools that are 65 % Asian, and only 20 % white, if that is how it works out. Such a school would not be less diverse; it would simply reflect a different demographic.

</p>

<p>Thumbs up.</p>

<p>There are a few users here who believe that it is right to discriminate against some in favor of others. I cannot agree with such an idea, and I am glad that it is a viewpoint held by very few.</p>

<p>I’m sure that most supporters of affirmative action do not advocate the punishment of non-Blacks to address historical grievances.</p>

[calmom]

<p>

@epiphany #715

In a recent talk we attended, by Columbia, it was stated that only 30% of their applicants are qualified to attend.

I was very skeptical of this report, so I emailed the Columbia admission’s staff as follows:

On an internet forum, a parent has stated as follows:</p>

<p>“In a recent talk we attended, by Columbia, it was stated that only 30% of their applicants are qualified to attend.”</p>

<p>Is that correct? I know that Columbia turns away many qualified applicants for every one that it accepts, but find it hard to believe that only 30% of the applicant pool would be qualified for admission even if space were available for them all. </p>

<p>So, my question is: what percentage of the overall applicant pool is qualified, even if they do not get accepted?

I received an answer today from Adina Berrios Brooks, Admissions Officer, as follows:

We do not calculate that number, so I suspect that parent misunderstood some other statistic.

I do not mean to embarrass or attack anyone, least of all epiphany, who I am sure heard something close to what she reported. However, I did feel that for purposes of accuracy it was important to try to verify the statistic, especially because it is something that could easily rise to the level of “accepted wisdom” on a board such as this. I certainly would not want future high-stat, high-achieving applicants to Columbia, including those who have been rejected, to misjudge the level of their competition - which I am pretty sure is daunting.</p>

<p>As I said before, I think that the people involved in marketing & outreach for schools, are prone to exaggeration to further whatever point they are trying to make, and “qualified” is a slippery term. But I’ll bet that 65-75% of applicants to all Ivy league schools, including Columbia, are extremely capable, high achieving students who would “qualify” for admission if they happen to also have whatever other qualities (such as bassoon proficiency) make them attractive candidates to that particular school in that particular year.</p>

[mini]

<p>Only the “most qualified” get accepted. (Do you think they’d ever admit otherwise? Isn’t it redundantly tautological? ;))</p>

[calmom]

<p>

@bdean

The statement is from “The Chronicle of Higher Education” for the year 2000.

Nope. Sorry, but I did an internet search of the Chronicle of Higher Education and found no such quote. Golden’s and/or the Harvard Crimson attribution is second hand, and since it doesn’t provide specifics to support the citation, I can only conclude that the stats have been misstated or extrapolated. The only reference I could find in the CHE was an commentary (editorial, not fact) by James Freedman, the former president of Dartmouth, trying to dispel Dartmouth’s reputation for anti-Semitism:

Jews now attend Ivy League colleges at 12 times their presence in the general population. They constitute approximately one-third of the students at those eight institutions.

Ghosts of the Past: Anti-Semitism at Elite Colleges, The
Chronicle: 12/02/2000. <a href=“http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i14/14b00701.htm[/url]”>http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i14/14b00701.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Freedman did not cite a source for that assertion, and it is possible that he simply made an error in math extrapolating information from another source, since Jews now comprise about 2% of the US population, and 12 times 2 is 24, closer to the number I cited by doing the math with the Hillel figures. There was a time in the past when Jews did indeed comprise 3% of the population, which would allow one to extrapolate a higher figure, so that may simply be a mistaken assumption based on unfamiliarity with current census data. Freedman could also have been relying on older figures, as Jewish enrollment at Ivy League schools has declined in recent years, possibly as a direct result of increased enrollments of students of other ethnicities, including Asians. </p>

<p>Students are not asked to state religious preference or identity on their applications, so there is no way for college presidents to know what the percentage of Jews are on their campuses. I think the Hillel statistics are the best and most reliable source, and even those tend to be ballpark figures.</p>

<p>And one reason that Jews may get into Ivies at higher rates than Asians, relevant to their proportion of representation in the population, is that Jews tend to have a very wide variety of interests and activities. Jews go to college to study creative writing or history or theater or psychology with as much frequency as they do to study math or science; Jewish parents like it when their kids become doctors and lawyers, but they have no aversion to their kids aspiring to be filmmakers or philosophers, as Jewish culture tends to value education as an end in itself, rather than as preparation for a career or a means of social advancement.</p>

<p>Also, observant Jewish parents tend to be more concerned about issues such as antisemitism and the availability of services and amenities to support religious observance, such as availability of kosher dining options, than they are about prestige. This has enabled the success of schools such as Emory and Washington U. in recruiting Jewish students in their own efforts to boost their rankings and reputation, and is why Jewish parents would tend to prefer that their kids attend a southern university like Emory over the more prestigious and highly ranked Princeton, which is still widely perceived as a bastion of antisemitism. (whether that perception is accurate or not is beside the point)</p>

[calmom]

<p>Yes, mini, but we know that the number of “most qualified” is 10% or so, except in the ED pool, where this year it is around 25% or whatever figure it was that I found as to the ED rate. </p>

<p>In terms of the instant discussion about discrimination, it is somewhat relevant to know how many people are turned away who would have been in the running for admission, if only there were enough room for them.</p>

[mini]

<p>Why? (if they had more room, or fewer applicants, they’d decide that more of them were “most qualifed”, as they will five years from now, if they are affected by population trends.)</p>

[cptofthehouse]

<p>Both the number of Jewish and Asian students are underrepresent. I know too many of each category who do not identify themselves. In order to be counted as such, you have to let the Hillel know, and to be considered Asian, you have to report yourself as such. On a few representative facebooks, I found major discrepancies.</p>

<p>I do believe there is more diversity among Jewish students. I live in an area where there are several predominently Jewish/Asian school districts and my sons’ school also has a large number of both categories. Just taking the sports; there are hardly any Asian students in the 6 seasons of football there. About 20% Jewish. The orchestra is about 60% Asian. Can’t pick out the Jewish kids from there. If you look through 10 years worth of year books, there are definitely Asian clusters. I do not see any overlap of athletic recruits and Asians from the 6 years of college admissions where those things are marked. Also few Asian males in the choirs, very few and none in the last several years in the special acapella choirs. I think the Jewish kids are scattered through the school representing every single activity. Gay/Straight Union–no Asians, Political activists–no Asians. Lots of Jewish kids. Theatre, again, light on the Asian. Though I cannot say for sure on the Jewish kids, lots of Jewish sounding names in all of these activities. As for those Jewish kids who have profiles that are similiar to the stereotype that has been drawn of Asian kids, they too, are not accepted in the numbers that kids with hooks have. The same with non Jewish, non Asian kids. Only URMs will get a boost,as that category has been targeted at many top schools. </p>

<p>I have said many times on this site that Jian Li’s suit has merit, because of this pervasive belief of a systematic discrimination of Asians in top schools, and that there is an Asian category. There is not an Asian category for admissions nor are there Asian detectors at the top schools. That many Asian students fall into an overrepresented profile is just the way it worked out and anyone, Asian or not in that profile other than specially sought after groups is going to have the same issues. Another category that is getting “shafted” if we want to go down this road is the “BWRK” which was once the hot thing for getting into elite colleges. And it doesn’t matter if the BWRK happens to be Asian, Jewish or Wasp. If he doesn’t have a “hook”, he gets the “hook” of the admissions stage.</p>