<p>To those posters who said there are no Asian kids on team sports…I am looking at the sports pages of the San Jose Mercury News and I see several Asian names in area high schools football box scores. They are in the playoffs now so only better -than -average teams get to this point.
There are several Asian names on the basketball teams.</p>
<p>Just different demographics. Funny how that effects your perspectives.</p>
<p>"We do not calculate that number, so I suspect that parent misunderstood some other statistic. " </p>
<p>I did not “misunderstand.” If the rep misspoke, the rep misspoke, period. Not hard of hearing, with faulty memory, or have difficulty “understanding.”</p>
<p>You did not “embarrass” me, as I did nothing wrong, reported nothing incorrectly, but apparently the rep was misinformed or made a mistake. She spoke clearly; I did not mishear the number “30.” Perhaps it was a reversal. Perhaps she meant to say, “only 30% of our applicants are NOT qualified.” But it’s equally believable that there’s a miscommunication within Columbia.</p>
<p>Anyway, I’m glad it’s cleared up now & that people do not have a faulty expectation. (And 70% qualified would probably not be far off.)</p>
<p>(I also suspect that it may be a particular interpretation of “qualified” that indicates a subset of the applicant pool, that gets the final look, etc. The rep was very specific about the word “only,” which obviously fits 30 better than 70.)</p>
<p>On to the thread: Sorry if this is a repeat, so I won’t repost any contents, but I refer readers back to Princeton’s own page, describing the importance of keeping all elements of an application in perspective, & all aspects of the review process in balance:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/pr/admissions/u/brief/22.htm[/url]”>http://www.princeton.edu/pr/admissions/u/brief/22.htm</a></p>
<p>Where we live the Asian students dominate the basektball team (the Taiwanese and Chinese) and more than a few play rugby and soccer (especially the Koreans). Asian students sing in the choir and take drama classes at a fairly high rate. One of the top drama students in the past few years was half-Taiwanese. He went on to a top drama program in the US.</p>
<p>Even the Asian Music Science geeks had compelling ECs in a country where ECs don’t matter a bit. The son of one of my best friends (Korean) is a nationally ranked cellist but had an extraoridanary interest in botany as a small boy, collecting hundreds of plants for experiments. He supplemented those experiments with an interest in salt water fish adapting to life in fresh water–out of pure curiousity and nothing more.</p>
<p>My favorite Maths teacher at the school said that one Korean graduate was the best student she taught in her 30 year career. He was also a top ice hockey player. He’s at an Ivy league school now.</p>
<p>If anything, in mixed groups, first and second generation Asian immigrants appear to be more introverted and introspective than the general population. They can be quite boisterous amongst themselves (judging by the Singapore Club Christmas Party this weekend). The quieter demeanor holds them back socially and politically–especially in a nation like the US which is dominated by mad crazy extroverts. </p>
<p>Succeeding generations appear to be less introverted. </p>
<p>Jian Li’s complaint as a Chinese citizen is frivolous and doesn’t get to the heart of the real discrimination toward Asian Americans in the US. I don’t admire him at all as I believe he has been cruelly manipulated by Chinese adults with a political agenda.</p>
<p>There may yet be an Asian Rosa Parks–but Juan Li is no Rosa Parks.</p>
<p>cheers’ double-post took all my space. (JK) ;)</p>
<p>Building on what I said a page back, about Columbia & the figure (again), I do not think that even IF “only 30%” are “qualified,” as reported by the admissions rep, any student should assume that Columbia is not a reach in the same class as other Ivies. Personally, I wouldn’t go by what a rep says, even if the rep can prove the figure is accurate, & comes to the info session with tables of a non-wooden kind. Just read the C.page; read the Fiske & other guides; read the Columbia Accepted Threads on CC from the past 3 cycles minimum. It hardly looks like a non-reach, including for high-scorers! Three cycles ago there was the Yale EA Massacre; 2 cycles ago was the Columbia ED Massacre; and a CC student posted that C. rec’d this cycle the largest # of applications in its history. Generally the more apps a U gets, the more selective it can afford to be.</p>
<p>If flagship publics like UCLA publish that the last cycle was the most difficult acceptance year in its own history, can Columbia be far behind? :)</p>
<p>
I have news for you, Kidlat – the “potential benefit” to the Ivies and “potential benefit” to the world is not correlated to SAT scores or to GPA. A kid with a 2150 SAT who who ranks 8th in the class but has spearheaded genuine community service projects and spent hundreds of hours devoting to helping poor people in his community clearly offers more “potential benefit” to the world than a kid who has spent all of his energies in high school focusing on getting the best grades or test scores. A kid who is likely to lead the college basketball team to victory, or who will likely take over editing the college literary magazine when the current editor graduates is of far more “potential benefit” to the Ivies than a one more kid taking up space in an already overly crowded organic chem class. If a kid is truly special, like those kids taking Math 55 at Harvard, then the Ivies will want that kid as well – but having a perfect SAT score doesn’t qualify as “special” – the kids with that level of talent have already won national or even international recognition due to their prowess. </p>
<p>What the Ivies don’t need is any more egotistical, smug, self-absorbed students who are in love with their own test scores …of any race or ethnicity. </p>
<p>Li was qualified to do Ivy quality work, but he wasn’t a desirable candidate to Princeton or most of the Ivies he applied to. His SAT scores are irrelevant, because Princeton doesn’t decide admissions on the basis if the highest score, and neither does any other college – nor should they. The reason that he wasn’t desireable is that they had other candidates for admission who were more attractive to them – all of whom offered something to the college that Li didn’t offer.</p>
<p>“What the Ivies don’t need is any more egotistical, smug, self-absorbed students who are in love with their own test scores …of any race or ethnicity.”</p>
<p>what ???</p>
<p>Kidlat wrote: "Let me tell you why, a significant number of Princeton faculty and staff send their kids to Princeton . "</p>
<p>Yes, Kidlat, but not ALL faculty children are accepted these days. Still, the rate is higher. Why? It’s complicated. For one, if your parent is educated/intelligent/whatever enough to teach at Princeton, then chances are you have not only inherited the intelligence but also have been raised in a household that values education. Perhaps more importantly, however, Princeton, like most universities, offers free or reduced tuition to all dependents of faculty members. They have to do this to attract faculty members who could have chosen much more lucrative careers in non-academic settings. College professors have never been in a good position financially to send their children to college. (It used to be that faculty of an Ivy League college could send their children tuition-free to any Ivy League college, but that practice ended sometime in the early 1980s. Other schools - Brown, I know - offered to pay full tuition to ANY college, but that benefit was reduced in the 1980s to half-tuition and is now probably a much smaller amount.) So, yes, while accepting faculty children to Princeton can be called “selfish,” it’s also necessary. </p>
<p>And anecdotally, I have heard of at least two faculty kids being rejected from Princeton last year. </p>
<p>Staff members have no such privileges. The only advantage high level administrators get is name recognition at the admissions office, and even that is questionable.</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>Yes…we ASIANS only LOVE $$. Hell with philosophy and film making (in case you didn’t know Bollywood makes the largest number of movies in a year).</p>
<p>My father was on the faculty of MIT. He was hired at a time where faculty kids got full-tuition to MIT and up to 1/2 of MIT’s tuition to be applied to the tuition of any US college or university. Of the kids, 2 of us went to schools other than MIT. Even the 1/2 tuition benefit eliminated any need for loans. The 3rd kid did go to MIT for essentially the cost of r/b. We all graduated debt-free.</p>
<p>
I do, for one.</p>
<p>I think the Asian-American SAT score numbers indicate that, just like any other ethnic group, Asian-Americans are admitted to elite schools on the basis of factors other than SAT scores – that SAT scores are the first filter, but after that, recommendations, extracurricular activities, interviews, and all of those factors form the basis for selection.</p>
<p>mollie,
…(which is essentially the message in the linked page from my post #845). Princeton cites the importance of a variety of factors, that there is not a predetermined hierarchy of factors, & that factors are not particularly weighted (except that h.s. academic rigor is important).</p>
<p>The peoples of california,Michigan has spoken.When will the people of New Jersey speak?That is the question.I love the part regarding the short Korean immigrant trying to add “diversity” to the basketball team.
<a href=“http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d27beb94-62ae-4811-953f-3bb7e0449451[/url]”>http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d27beb94-62ae-4811-953f-3bb7e0449451</a>
Will UM obey the rule of law???or try to circumvent it?Breaking news:
<a href=“Lansing State Journal - Home”>Lansing State Journal - Home;
<p>The LEFT will never give up on race based admissions - which is sad because it has done a huge amount of harm, and has unfairly stigmatized 1000’s of (otherwise on the merits) success stories</p>
<p>It will come…race based admissions is an unsustainable business model. Jews overcame it.</p>
<p>Let us look at the numbers at elites (approximately), 15% asians, 30% jews, 10% Af. Am, 8 % Hispanics. That leaves only 37% for WASPs and Catholics. As more complaints like Li is filed and more states go the Cal, MI route, pressure will build and guess which part of the holistic admission will be out the door? As I have predicted before ~ 20 years.</p>
<p>The “holistic” method (one in a long series of pro-AA buzzwords) is more a legal strategy, rather than an admissions policy. It has clearly done a great job of confusing matters even further, which is exactly what was the intended consequence -which ends up buying some more time for race based quotas </p>
<p>(sorry disguised quotas are still quotas even with yr to yr variations)</p>
<p>Yes, but before that happens, Asians will have to ‘buy’ influence (just like the jews) by donating $. Asians can’t expect respect and equal footing unless they are willing to contribute back to society.</p>
<p>When most highly qualified college applicants diversify their own lists to include a variety of regions & categories/styles of institution, all colleges will drastically reduce their need to institute measures to ensure ethnic, regional, & other forms of diversity.</p>
<p>If you don’t like what you assume are “caps” (i.e., merely 5 times the representation in the population, as opposed to 10 or 20 times the representation), then stop forcing the “name-brand” elites to put the brakes on runaway demands by particular segments to attend a relatively tiny number of colleges.</p>
<p>You are entitled to attend public higher institutions in states where you legally reside. You are not entitled to a particular education at a particular private institution.</p>
<p>In other words, grow up. (Addressed to anyone with a sense of Entitlement, not limited to any particular group or person or poster.)</p>
<p>I don’t really understand your argument CITATIONX. I don’t see how admissions can and should be anything other than an imprecise system which looks at the whole applicant and the applicant pool and tries to craft a class which makes sense for the university’s needs. A class filled with all 2400 scorers would not necessarily meet the school’s needs for talented athletes, diversity and a strong oboe player, just as a class filled with all swimmers or all debaters would not necessarily meet the needs of the arts organizations or the creative writing program. I have been reading this entire thread intently, but I have yet to see anyone articulate what would constitute a better admissions system. I for one would hate to see standardized testing be the most important factor, because it is such a limited part of a student (and, of course, is also skewed towards the student who can afford expensive tutoring). I would also hate a system that was based on pure extracurriculars because that would disfavor the true intellects. While I understand the arguments of those who feel that the legacies, athletes, faculty children, and URMs are given an undue advantage, the university feels that it needs to field strong sports teams, that the student body as a whole benefits from ethnic diversity, that it needs to retain professors and that fundraising and alumni volunteerism are improved because legacies are accepted at a higher rate. These are not necessarily bad choices for Princeton (or any other school), although I think that arguments can be made that some of these factors could be limited and the university would still have a strong class. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, there are an enormous number of talented kids who do not get accepted to one or several of their reach schools because there are other talented kids who strike the admissions committee as better at an instrument, better at a sport, more inclined to contribute to classroom discussion, more inclined to contribute to the community, etc. I don’t think that Mr. Li has much of a case, but I also welcome this type of discussion, as it may lead to a better system.</p>
<p>simba,</p>
<p>This is not intended to inflame, but since you “opened the door” with your anti-white bias post, let’s start a thread listing “The Greatest Asian-Americans of all time (past and present).” Ok, go…</p>