<p>So, generally: </p>
<p>URM: #1, #3, and #4
ORM: #2 (although Indian Asians and East Asians are the ORMs of the ORM group here, Southeast Asian should be listed as URMs) </p>
<h1>5 isn’t considered a minority technically, although Middle Eastern should count.</h1>
<p>^^ I agree, Southeast Asians should be a URM <em>cough</em>.</p>
<p>And yeah, what everyone said. If you’re a Inuit/Native American, you’ve won the college lottery :P.</p>
<p>Okay, so Black, Pacific Islander, and Native American are URMs.</p>
<p>
Yeah, so do colleges consider whatever you put down to “describe your background”. Because if you select white for example you are then prompted to either check European or Middle Eastern, so shouldn’t they care about that? I would think they probably do, same with south east asians.</p>
<p>
I don’t see how asking this could “stir the pot”, but I sure can see how you letting **** come out of your mouth can **** people off.</p>
<p>
Yes, I wonder this too.</p>
<p>i got 99 problems but a BUMP ain’t one</p>
<p>I get to mark this myself right? Because on my high school records, for some reason it says I’m Chinese. No, I am not Chinese. They also have down my language as Mandarin, what the heck? Yes I speak Mandarin, but that is not my native or first language. I native and first language is Laotian. I am a mix of Laotian and Cambodian. My parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc are native Laotian/Cambodian. And Southeast Asian should be URM! lol</p>
<p>Saying just because someone is “asian” that their chances are slim to none? (ivy league selectivity) </p>
<p>It’s probably one of the most biased opinions on CC.
Asians probably have just the same chance as white people, maybe a little more competitive. But the difference is minimal, and it’s definitely not to the extent everyone makes it out to be. </p>
<p>Why don’t they just take 50% African Americans and 50% hispanics then.</p>
<p>Because schools don’t want 50/50 AA/Mexican.</p>
<p>they want some of each ethnicity. And since there are lots of qualified asians they have more competition to get those spots. This is at private schools where they are allowed to consider these things.</p>
<p>At public schools such as Berkley, Asians comprise aboout 40 percent of the school.
source:[Fall2008EthnicDistribution</a> < Main < TWiki](<a href=“http://osr2.berkeley.edu/twiki/bin/view/Main/Fall2008EthnicDistribution]Fall2008EthnicDistribution”>http://osr2.berkeley.edu/twiki/bin/view/Main/Fall2008EthnicDistribution)
which compares
to 20 percent for Harvard
[Should</a> Colleges Have Quotas for Asian Americans? (washingtonpost.com)](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26499-2004Oct12.html]Should”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26499-2004Oct12.html)</p>
<p>Thats a pretty big difference</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Which is way beyond the 5% of the overall US population that Asians comprise. So it looks like Asians have a pretty good chance of getting in.</p>
<p>^ also asians make up 12.5% of California population which is far higher than the national percentage.</p>
<p>Yes but at private schools this works against them because they are competing against each other for these spots.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Asians are overrepresented by 300% at Harvard, 550% at MIT, and 800% at UC Berkeley in respect to the percentage of Asians in the entire US population. Obviously, it is possible for an Asian to get admitted to any school. It may be slightly more difficult for them than for Whites, but it’s not a significantly large difference. You’re just being over-paranoid if you ask me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what I said. I didn’t say it was equal either. I just said just because you are asian, does not mean your chances drastically drop from a 60% to a 5 % chance. (If compared with caucasians).</p>
<p>And if they are overrepresented, doesn’t that mean more asians get accepted?</p>
<p>no one knows the answer to this but can pointlessly argue over the chances of asians at top schools?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Jews also had a “pretty good chance of getting in[to]” Harvard in the 1920s under your logic, but that didn’t mean the system wasn’t stacked against them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That really isn’t a relevant comparison, sarcasm aside.</p>
<p>When you have an enormous number of Asian applicants applying to a top school, almost all of whom have the same ECs (math/science-olympiad(s), orchestra, etc.) and most of whom are lopsided towards math and/or science, you’re going to have to toughen requirements a little. The reason many Asian applicants with incredible stats are turned down is that they come across as being brilliant in the classroom, but lacking everywhere else. In my opinion, that’s usually a false impression. But prejudices lie within admission committees, and I doubt they’re going away anytime soon, so there’s not much one can do about the matter. Still though, as I stated earlier, Asians are very overrepresented at top schools, so it’s far from impossible for them to get admitted to Harvard and the like, wheareas Jews in the 1920s… :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But Jews in the 1920s WERE “very overrepresented.” It even got to the point where former Harvard President Lowell was trying everything he could to decrease the percentage to 15%, which the most he was willing to live with. He tried a secret quota, but Harry Starr, who could very well have been the Jian Li of the 1920s, made knowledge of the quota public. Surprisingly, in spite of institutionalized anti-Semitism, the quota plan was killed ([Source](<a href=“http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/harvard.html]Source[/url]”>Harvard's Jewish Problem)</a>).</p>
<p>That didn’t stop Lowell, however. He tried limiting scholarships to Jews, but they came anyway. He also tried implementing “geographic diversity,” but he ended up getting Jews from “geographically underrepresented” areas. The only thing that worked was “holistic” admissions. It didn’t take long for Jewish enrollment to decrease to 15% ([Source](<a href=“http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/10/10/051010crat_atlarge]Source[/url]”>Getting In | The New Yorker)</a>).</p>
<p>Just because you’re “very overrepresented” doesn’t mean there wasn’t discrimination.</p>
<p>I need to freshen up on my Jewish history lessons… probably because I’m a Muslim-American. :)</p>
<p>I do wish to respond to this, but I won’t out of fear of sounding like a bigot, although that’s certainly not the message I would have wished to convey.</p>
<p>“Jews also had a “pretty good chance of getting in[to]” Harvard in the 1920s under your logic, but that didn’t mean the system wasn’t stacked against them.” </p>
<p>That was then; this is now. 1920 was 90 years ago. Women and blacks couldn’t vote in most places then. But nowadays women and black can vote. The system isn’t stacked agsinst Jews at Harvard any more and Lowell is no longer president of the school. And all over the country Asians are doing just fine in admissions to selective colleges.</p>
<p>^What I learned from history is that while time changes, human nature does not. I think the raw emotions of fear and greed operating during the tulip mania is the same as that operating in the recent real estate bubble.</p>
<p>"plus </p>