<p>Use of any factors other than random choice is “discriminatory” and helps some people while hurting others. The right question is whether use of the factor is reasonable.</p>
<p>I favor admissions policies that seek to increase representation of students from under-represented, disadvantaged backgrounds. I also favor policies that do not hold Asian Americans to higher standards than whites/European Americans. Stereotyping by some of Asian Americans and Asians in public discourse here on CC and in admissions offices seems to be acceptable to a degree that would be considered outrageous if applied to other racial or ethnic groups.</p>
<p>[Asians</a>, not whites, hurt most by race-conscious admissions - Opinion - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/asians-not-whit.html]Asians”>http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/asians-not-whit.html)</p>
<p>Over-Represented and De-Minoritized : The Racialization of Asian Americans in Higher Education
<a href=“eScholarship”>eScholarship;
<p>The Opportunity Cost of Admission Preferences at Elite Universities
<a href=“http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/Tje/EspenshadeSSQPtII.pdf[/url]”>http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/Tje/EspenshadeSSQPtII.pdf</a></p>
<p>NEGATIVE ACTION VERSUS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICANS ARE STILLCAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE
<a href=“http://www.advancingequality.org/files/kidderarticle.pdf[/url]”>http://www.advancingequality.org/files/kidderarticle.pdf</a></p>
<p>My thought to the original post is there are plenty of good universities in U.S. for Asians. Why not have an Asian university, but put it in China? This university would be run like a top school in the US and have the same level of selectivity, but the majority of the students would be recruited from the US. The instruction of course would be in English, and the faculty would be top-notch. Top international students would also be allowed to apply. The university tuition could be reduced and could also be supplemented by running a study-abroad program for top universities in the US, so students get to be exposed to diverse peers. This will better prepare them for the glorious opportunities and challenges of the 21st century.</p>
<p>This university will likely have far-reaching impacts for Chinese, both in the US and mainland China. I want this to be a showcase and impact China positively as well.</p>
<p>It’s not just for AA anymore…</p>
<p>It may have started that way but is no longer necessarily confined to that use. Rather, the U’s have seen that achievement, drive, and promise in an <em>academic</em> setting and with an <em>academic</em> product in mind are signalled by many factors such as qualitative features that for one reason or another don’t have a “metric” equivalent or a scalable comparison.</p>
<p>I think this essay by Malcolm Gladwell </p>
<p>[gladwell</a> dot com - getting in](<a href=“http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html]gladwell”>http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html) </p>
<p>has already been mentioned in this thread. It is relevant to the issues discussed here, as is the book that Gladwell reviewed in his essay.</p>
<p>wis,</p>
<p>Many of us have lived a completely different American experience than you have in Wisconsin. I grew up in Hawaii, where I was made very aware of which students were Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipino, Samoan, Hawaiian, etc. I however, was considered one of “them” haoles. I don’t recall ever being asked about my white heritage, even once!</p>
<p>Here in Calif, our schools do not celebrate or recognize Christmas or Easter. It is Winter break and Spring break. Our P.E. classes offer yoga. French is being phased out due to non-interest, in favor of Spanish, Chinese and American Sign Language. My kids eat sushi for lunch. My D attended a Buddhist temple for a while with her friend and burns incence in her room.</p>
<p>I think you and your H would feel right at home here. Plus, going “green” is considered very environmentally friendly and politically correct! :)</p>
<p>
I really can’t get over this statement! The US was founded by Europeans who brought the influence of their home culture & laws to the new country. How can you set youself up as the one to determine the US is “too heavily skewed” toward the culture of its founders? Would you have the gall to complain that India is “too heavily skewed” toward its Indian roots? How about the Islamocentric nature of Saudi Arabia? Or the Caribbean culture of The Dominican Republic. Can’t those people get with it and conform to the standards of the rest of the world…</p>
<p>Are you really serious?</p>
<p>Bay, THAT us another issue. All I said was Asians were harmed. The other question is that price worth it? Yes if it actually performs as desired and is not used to give otherwise middle-class minority students an easy leg up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, here is a question that begs for an answer: Have YOU looked at the numbers lately? </p>
<p>Are you claiming that the Asians are discriminated by the University of California system? Do you really think that Caucasian and URMs have been **protected **during the past 25 years?</p>
<p>To OP, this is a terrible idea. We are American rather than “Asian American”. We may retain a varying degree of our cultural heritage but not to a degree that differs from other groups with different cultural/religious background. The unfortunate issue here is that americans with asian heritage are marked by their surname as well as skin colour. If discrimination exists, further segregation such as an “Asian american University” will only make matters worse.</p>
<p>I may add that many of the posts here are highly offensive.</p>
<p>“Are you claiming that the Asians are discriminated by the University of California system? Do you really think that Caucasian and URMs have been protected during the past 25 years?”</p>
<p>Has holistic admissions been used to prevent URMs from declining even further? If so, they’ve been protected. In my mind, that’s a good thing.</p>
<p>Re Post 185</p>
<p>“Relevant,” but now only partly so. Three years dated – merely the publication itself – but worse, the background noted is history, not necessarily current. The one “ancient” factor that nevertheless seems timeless is the concept of the scholar-athlete. Beyond that, the Elites are not choosing for ‘beauty contests’ reasons any longer, or to exclude socially, so I really wish this essay were not constantly cited as the <em>current</em> rationale for the <em>modern</em> concept (21st century, folks) of holistic admissions. It is not helpful to the OP’s inaugural question nor does it further discussion of this “provocative idea” – except to get provocatively off topic.</p>
<p>Look, the UCs don’t use race as an admissions factor. By law they can’t and they don’t. However, as I mentioned before, they do look at the ‘whole’ applicant in the context of scores, first gen, economic background, etc. It’s possible that with the addition of these other factors some individuals might be accepted when based on scores alone they might not have been. There’s some logic to this whereby a score of 1900 achieved by someone with a difficult background might actually statistically be more successful than someone with a 2100 from a priviledged background. These other factors apply regardless of race however and I don’t doubt that there are a number of Asians, whites, and others who have been helped by this contextual review although those at the end of the spectrum whereby they’re awarded admission points due to these other factors will benefit most from this type of review. And yes, it’s possible that someone with a 1900 plus these additional points might ‘displace’ someone who has a 2100 but none of these points. Who’ll appear to be displaced by this? It’ll likely be more noticable in the largest represented groups. For the top UCs that’s ‘Asian’ followed by whites.</p>
<p>One might argue that this primarily benefits URMs and statistically that might be true but keep in mind that the points are awarded without regard to race - i.e. if a Vietnamese or Chinese or white is a first-gen they’ll be awarded those points just as any other race would be. Ditto with the other factors.</p>
<p>“Look, the UCs don’t use race as an admissions factor. By law they can’t and they don’t. However, as I mentioned before, they do look at the ‘whole’ applicant in the context of scores, first gen, economic background, etc.”</p>
<p>I guess many people can’t help suspecting that the UCs (and lots of private schools, as well) are in fact using race as an admissions factor, but relying on other elements of holistic admissions to justify the decisions. Of course, this is essentially impossible to prove, because holistic admissions are so subjective. It’s against the law to admit somebody because he’s an African-American, but it’s legal to admit him because he’s a member of an African heritage dance troupe. Again, I approve of this approach.</p>
<p>Hunt:</p>
<p>I think if the UCs truly used race as an admissions criteria there’d be a big change in the numbers of the particular racial groups there. As it is now, the percentages of the racial groups attending is way out of proportion (way high for some, way low for others) to the demographics the general population.</p>
<p>Tha UCs can’t use race by law but many private colleges are quite open about the fact that they use race as a criteria.</p>
<p>X, we are talking about the here and now. Not 25 years ago.</p>
<p>Re Post 192</p>
<p>Three years dated – merely the publication itself – but worse, the background noted is history, not necessarily current</p>
<p>3 years is dated? What fresh data has emerged for you to say that? Jews established Brandeis since they were discriminated against. And answer to OPs question would be yes, if it is agreed that Asian numbers are contained in the mainstream institutions. I agree with Hunt and I too approve of the approach he mentions.</p>
<p>But merely beating around the bush and pouring vitriol on the other does not help the debate in any way.</p>
<p>“But merely beating around the bush and pouring vitriol on the ‘other’ does not help the debate in any way.”</p>
<p>I have never once done this, including here.</p>
<p>Perhaps you’re the one fond of “vitriol”?</p>
<p>The info is dated because it discussed the original rationale(s) for using factors other than (in addition to) strictly statistical ones. It’s been decades since the Elites operated this way. It is not thus pertinent to the OP’s inaugural question. (Again.)</p>
<p>For anyone interested in the UC/race/sdmissions topic, the following link provides info on the admitted UCLA class for the fall when this is the first year of their ‘holistic’ admissions. It includes some numbers that might be interesting. </p>
<p>[Nearly</a> 4,900 students plan to enroll as freshmen at UCLA for fall 2008 / UCLA Newsroom](<a href=“http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/nearly-4-900-students-plan-to-50199.aspx]Nearly”>Newsroom | UCLA)
So from this data the percentage of Asians went down, whites and chicanos/latinos up, AfAms up very slightly. Asians are the largest single category. Why any of these changes in percentages it’s hard to say although I’d expect chicanos/latinos to increase given the increasing population of that category in California.</p>
<p>Yes ^^. I think some of the terminology confusion/overlap has to do with not differentiating UC’s use of “holistic” with those of the Elites, where it can mean something else entirely.</p>