"Race" in College Admissions FAQ & Discussion 4

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

epiphany, it’s low to deny the existence of AA against Asians at nearly every top university in the US solely because adcoms have not outright stated it.

</p>

<p>Well, a <em>smart</em> Asian American student would consider looking beyond the usual dozen suspects and stop defining “top university in the US” so tightly.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>

AA is a convoluted form of racism, period.

</p>

<p>Undoubtedly because you say so. First of all, it’s not AA to seek from equals to create a balanced class. The number of lower-scoring (for example) <em>under</em>-represented minorities – not ORM’s such as Asians – that get an “advantage” in elite college admissions is not appreciable. But lots of the pro-Asians-admissions-at-any-cost crowd on CC like to mix the two policies in admissions. One is a URM policy. The other is a diversity policy which does not operate on “compensation” premises. For example, a student who is economically disadvantaged but an OR minority or majority is often admitted “against” a wealthier student who is an ORM, but only if the achievements of the two students are comparable. (And for the millionth time, achievement /=/ a score. It does overseas. It doesn’t here. Achievement is a composite of grades, quality of scholarship in those grades (as verified by comments on teacher recs and other measures), academic awards, academic intiative off-campus, and all kinds of scores–not limited to SAT/ACT but including them–and degree of accomplishment in e.c.'s requiring discipline and commitment, and sometimes resulting in awards as well.)</p>

<p>Diversity (not AA) hurts most any population or segment of that population (for example, East Coast white boarding school students) who apply in very large numbers relative to students from other segments (such as rural students from Iowa). Or Asian students from TJHSST in VA, or from certain public schools in Silicon Valley in CA – applying in large percentages to the same 8 schools & expressing outrage when those schools pick only a handful of students from each. Surprise! Those 8 schools similarly pick only a handful of qualified candidates from virtually every school in the nation with applicant representation. Do the math, all you supposedly brilliant AMC and AIME types. There ain’t enough room for all the high-producing applicants.</p>

<p>But the assumption which is offensive to many people is that only Asians are high-producing, and/or that an Asian applicant will always be more qualified – on all the above measures of qualification – than students from other backgrounds. If you don’t think that’s racism, then you aren’t very self-aware.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

Or Asian students from TJHSST in VA, or from certain public schools in Silicon Valley in CA – applying in large percentages to the same 8 schools & expressing outrage when those schools pick only a handful of students from each. Surprise! Those 8 schools similarly pick only a handful of qualified candidates from virtually every school in the nation with applicant representation. Do the math, all you supposedly brilliant AMC and AIME types.

</p>

<p>Exactly. You KNOW that the system is not rank-everyone-top-to-bottom-based-on-SAT’s-and-GPA’s, so stop complaining that some people with super high SAT’s and GPA’s aren’t going to get in.</p>

[monstor344]

<p>

But the assumption which is offensive to many people is that only Asians are high-producing, and/or that an Asian applicant will always be more qualified – on all the above measures of qualification – than students from other backgrounds. If you don’t think that’s racism, then you aren’t very self-aware.

No, Asian applicants are not the only top-notch students; every race has its share of extremely apt students who would probably put the vast majority of people on this board, including you and me, to shame.
Do Asians have a disproportionately high number of qualified applicants? Absolutely; that is why AA exists in the first place. And by the way, I 100% support diversity in universities, just not the black-and-white (literally; I love making awkward jokes in the midst of a rather serious discussion) diversity that you likely envision. I completely support a socioeconomic type of affirmative action that supports students who come from poor backgrounds and yet have managed to stand out.</p>

<p>Let me ask, if you do not measure aptitude based on grades, test scores, academic competitions, and other achievements pertaining to academia, how else do you measure it? Perhaps, yes, you can make exceptions for unique scenarios, as I have mentioned above. And yes, if that poor kid with an ability to stand out happens to be a URM, by all means give him an advantage. But do not neglect to give advantage to the poor white kids or the poor Asian kids under similar circumstances. Nor should a wealthy URM’s relatively weak academic achievement be condoned by his/her status as a URM.</p>

<p>Racial affirmative action (I should have been using this term all along, as the umbrella term unfairly criticizes all forms of AA, some of which I do not condemn) is in part what enforces racial barriers. By holding members of different races to different standards, affirmative action is racist.</p>

<p>And let me reiterate, I do not believe that African-Americans or any other URMs are less capable of academic excellence and brilliance than Asian-Americans. I do believe that by far the largest cause for discrepancy in test scores is the attitude of African-Americans that arose during the Civil Rights movement. This sort of self-empowerment enabled the African-American community to gain the strength to become a fully respected ethnicity, yet at the same time the attitude is responsible for creating a new set of cultural ideals for the African-American community that strongly differ from the ideals of the rest of the world . One of these cultural ideals is the discouragement of an African-American from becoming scholarly, in order to avoid becoming a snobby elitist, the very type that suppressed the African-American race for hundreds of years. And the only way for this attitude to truly disappear is through time, not through artificial facilitation with racial affirmative action. Once again, this only establishes racial boundaries and further discourages the African-American community from challenging itself academically.</p>

<p>I forgot where it was located but I did once read an article indicating that African immigrants achieve even higher academically than Asian immigrants do, indicating further that there is no genetic disparity but is indeed a difference in ideals.</p>

[monstor344]

<p>

Well, a <em>smart</em> Asian American student would consider looking beyond the usual dozen suspects and stop defining “top university in the US” so tightly.

</p>

<p>Once again, let’s explore the two most prevalent majors for Asians (both of which have developed undoubtedly due to Asian culture): engineering and premed (or any field of sciences). The top universities in the US that are not in an Asian’s typical list of top choices are primarily LACs. </p>

<p>Perhaps a sufficient premed education can be learned at a top LAC, but is it similar to the experience received at a “top 12” university? Not quite, simply because size does matter in terms of research opportunities; the smaller the school, the less connected it will be with professors who conduct research.</p>

<p>Engineering? Aside from Harvey Mudd and Olin, there are practically no significant LACs that are strong in engineering. Have you heard of any engineers from Reed College work in Silicon Valley? Hell, have you heard of any engineers at Reed College, period? </p>

<p>Overall, Asians do not apply to these top LACs not because they are not prestigious enough but because they do not offer the fields an Asian primarily seeks.</p>

<p>Now, let’s look at Epiphany’s list of recommended schools:

Perhaps she means Olin, Hulnan [sic], Harvey Mudd, U of Washington, Michigan, CalTech, Georgia Tech, U of Wisconsin, U of Rochester, Cal Poly, USC, and many others…

First of all, many of these are already inaccurate. Caltech is overflowing with Asians, as is Harvey Mudd, along with the other schools here with excellent engineering departments (aside from Olin, whose student body is so minuscule that it doesn’t really count). But what about U Rochester? Cal Poly? U Washington? The bottomline is that while these are all highly respectable schools, they cannot compare to the opportunities offered at an elite institution. The are, not objectively but rather sensibly, not top institutions, and while I hate to promote the idea of rankings by drawing lines, certainly a threshold has been crossed at the point where Asians have to consider Cal Poly instead of MIT because of their racial status.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

Once again, let’s explore the two most prevalent majors for Asians (both of which have developed undoubtedly due to Asian culture): engineering and premed (or any field of sciences). The top universities in the US that are not in an Asian’s typical list of top choices are primarily LACs.

</p>

<p>Well, that’s the whole point. Why should an “Asian’s typical list of top choices” be any different from any other equally-smart kid’s typical list of top choices? Because Asians, in general, tend to draw the distinction of quality schools more tightly. Maybe if they HAD lists of top universities that went beyond “what Asians typically choose” they’d have more success? </p>

<p>

Perhaps a sufficient premed education can be learned at a top LAC, but is it similar to the experience received at a “top 12” university? Not quite, simply because size does matter in terms of research opportunities; the smaller the school, the less connected it will be with professors who conduct research.

</p>

<p>Sure, but again, you are overstating what it takes to get into medical school. I don’t know why this myth has grown up that it’s necessary to be at a top 12 (or so) university to get into medical school, when all you have to do is LOOK AROUND YOU and you can see that the vast majority of everyday doctors went to average-state-u and average-state-flagship-med-school and guess what? BCBS doesn’t pay them one penny less than they pay their colleagues with top-elite-u and top-elite-med-school backgrounds!</p>

<p>I GET that Asians, being new to this country, must think that the only way to med school is a top 12 university, because it’s undoubtedly like that in their homelands. It isn’t that way here. People who are allegedly “smart” need to also look around and see the situation on the ground. Go grab the phone book. Look at all the doctors listed. Do you seriously believe more than a handful have elite-school backgrounds?</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

But what about U Rochester? Cal Poly? U Washington? The bottomline is that while these are all highly respectable schools, they cannot compare to the opportunities offered at an elite institution. The are, not objectively but rather sensibly, not top institutions, and while I hate to promote the idea of rankings by drawing lines, certainly a threshold has been crossed at the point where Asians have to consider Cal Poly instead of MIT because of their racial status.

</p>

<p>The definition of elite in engineering is different from the definition of elite in many other fields. I don’t see Asian kids breaking down the doors of UIUC or Purdue, for example. Why not? Because someone TOLD them that the only engineering schools worth going to are MIT and Caltech. Gee, who would have told them that?</p>

[monstor344]

<p>

Well, that’s the whole point. Why should an “Asian’s typical list of top choices” be any different from any other equally-smart kid’s typical list of top choices? Because Asians, in general, tend to draw the distinction of quality schools more tightly. Maybe if they HAD lists of top universities that went beyond “what Asians typically choose” they’d have more success.

Like I said, their definition of top schools relies on a school’s strengths. Of course one can receive an adequate premed education at a public school or a LAC, but at the same time going to a top school for premed can be a bit of a leg up.</p>

<p>Look, of course not making a “top 12” school is not the end of the world. But there are still advantages present at those schools that aren’t at LACs or state schools, particularly for the premed and engineering (big emphasis on the engineering) tracks.</p>

<p>Oh, and you can’t suggest that an Asian conform’s to another person’s list because they are two entirely different people with 2 vastly different goals not just in college but in life.</p>

[chaosakita]

<p>

Well, that’s the whole point. Why should an “Asian’s typical list of top choices” be any different from any other equally-smart kid’s typical list of top choices? Because Asians, in general, tend to draw the distinction of quality schools more tightly. Maybe if they HAD lists of top universities that went beyond “what Asians typically choose” they’d have more success.

</p>

<p>If all “Asians” just apply to the exact same schools, tell me why they are overrepresented at virtually all high-level colleges in the nation.</p>

[monstor344]

<p>

The definition of elite in engineering is different from the definition of elite in many other fields. I don’t see Asian kids breaking down the doors of UIUC or Purdue, for example. Why not? Because someone TOLD them that the only engineering schools worth going to are MIT and Caltech. Gee, who would have told them that?

And I agree, there is too much of a make-or-bust attitude amongst the Asian race, but part of this drive is what makes highly qualified Asian applicants of such an abundance.</p>

<p>Additionally, there is a definite distinction between MIT/Caltech and UIUC/Purdue in terms of job opportunities. Of course, there are plenty students at the latter two who are succeeded far more than students at the former two, but on a whole, MIT and Caltech have their reputations because they do have unprecedented engineering departments.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>

But what about U Rochester? Cal Poly? U Washington? The bottomline is that while these are all highly respectable schools, they cannot compare to the opportunities offered at an elite institution.

</p>

<p>And therefore these institutions are beneath Asians? Whereas they are not beneath whites, Hispanics, & blacks? Exactly why are Asians by virtue of that identification entitled to elite institutions? Because Asians as a group supposedly (in your subjective mind) have “a disproportionally high number of qualified applicants?” Really, grow up. Millions of people in this country have not attended elite institutions, but are extremely succesful in profesional, yes, professional fields. </p>

<p>Opportunities are what you make of them. It may be <em>easier</em> to get opportunities via “elite institutions,” but it doesn’t mean that they aren’t available at other institutions for those willing to work to find them. Lots of “disproportionally highly qualified” Caucasians, blacks, and Hispanics have lowered themselves:rolleyes:to attend these <em>cough</em> second-class colleges like Cal Poly as undergrads. (Amazing how difficult it is to get admitted to “low-class” Cal Poly these days.) I mean, listen to this arrogance: </p>

<p>

a threshold has been crossed at the point where Asians have to consider Cal Poly instead of MIT because of their racial status.

</p>

<p>^^ Just like lots of Caucasians and blacks and hispanics have to, because there are ALSO too many of those who desire MIT and peer institutions, many of whom are every bit as qualified as some of the Asians who apply there. Therefore, it is not about “racial status” but about members of OTHER groups also not being accepted because not every MIT-qualified student can fit into the fixed number of chairs at MIT.</p>

<p>As to your other post, it’s extremely clear that you have AA and campus diversity confused. Despite your statement that you approve of diversity, you clearly think that overall diversity on many measures relates to AA or “less qualified” which it doesn’t. You go on and on about African-Americans and “poor URM’s.” Apparently it hasn’t occurred to you, although I gave you a big hint in my previous post, that there are poor OVER represented groups in this country. Some of those are minorities (such as southeast Asians); some, majorities, such as low-income whites. You imagine that anyone other than an Asian student must have much less academically going for them. That’s either a very insular view or an arrogant view. Some people don’t get out enough.</p>

<p>

Let me ask, if you do not measure aptitude based on grades, test scores, academic competitions, and other achievements pertaining to academia, how else do you measure it?

</p>

<p>The additional measure (not a replacement measure) that Ivies have used has been non-academic e.c.'s: singular advancement in performing arts (especially competitive ones – competitive awards, for example, earned in nat’l & internat’l arenas), in sports, in studio & creative arts, in demonstrations of successful, sustained leadership, especially off-campus. They have determined that this (e.c.) factor accounts more than any other single factor for success beyond college. The admissions committees are not selecting only for the 4-yr enrollment. When they can get both stellar academics and exceptional e.c. accomplishment, they will choose that, and believe it or not, lots of non-Asians can do both. (I know that’s really, really hard for you to believe.:rolleyes:)</p>

[NCL]

<p>

I don’t see Asian kids breaking down the doors of UIUC or Purdue, for example. Why not?

</p>

<p>UIUC: 14% Asian/Pacific Islander <a href=“UIUC%20Collegeboard”>url=College Search - BigFuture | College Board;
Illinois demographics: 4.3% Asian <a href=“US%20Census”>url=http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17000.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Prudue: 6% Asian/Pacific Islander <a href=“Purdue%20Collegeboard”>url=College Search - BigFuture | College Board;
Indiana demographics: 1.4% Asian <a href=“US%20Census”>url=http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/18000.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Based on the demographics, Cal (and UCLA) has a comparable percentage of Asian American students.
UC Berkeley: 42% Asian/Pacific Islander <a href=“Cal%20Collegeboard”>url=College Search - BigFuture | College Board;
UCLA: 38% Asian/Pacific Islander <a href=“UCLA%20Collegeboard”>url=College Search - BigFuture | College Board;
California demographics: 12.4% Asian <a href=“US%20Census”>url=http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[epiphany]

<p>Just to reinforce post 187:
I know all kinds of professionals – for example physicians and lawyers – who went to what I’m sure some Asians on CC would consider humiliating schools. One went to a loser of a public high school in a nothing-suburb, then to a mid-level UC, then to a public professional school, and from there to one of the most pretigious practices that could be imagined in any metro area. He’s Caucasian, doing better than peers who went to more prestigious schools – just because he is so damn brilliant and because he worked hard.</p>

<p>Yet I’ve been told over and over by the mythmakers, that “only certain schools” are avenues to successful careers in the professions. Bull. He’s living proof. And I can name a dozen others, too.</p>

[monstor344]

<p>

And therefore these institutions are beneath Asians? Whereas they are not beneath whites, Hispanics, & blacks?

No, but in the opinions of highly overachieving students of ALL ethnic groups, they are often not highly desired.

Exactly why are Asians by virtue of that identification entitled to elite institutions?

I believe that all extraordinarily high-achieving students are entitled to an elite education. Does this apply to Asians more than other races? If more Asians earn top merits, then yes. They are coincidentally connected; there is no causation, nor is there a superiority of the Asian race; never will I ever make this implication. If Hispanics had a high number of extraordinary students, then they would be affected by this idea. Is it so perverse to you to award opportunities based upon achievement?

^^ Just like lots of Caucasians and blacks and hispanics have to, because there are ALSO too many of those who desire MIT and peer institutions, many of whom are every bit as qualified as some of the Asians who apply there. Therefore, it is not about “racial status” but about members of OTHER groups also not being accepted because not every MIT-qualified student can fit into the fixed number of chairs at MIT

URMs do not face the same admissions problem that ORMs do. I’m not even sure what you’re trying to argue here except that you’re blatantly wrong. Let me remind you that affirmative action exists which is why we are discussing it on this thread.</p>

<p>And yes, an opportunity is what you make of it. But are you denying that MIT students, as a whole, will receive more job /research opportunities throughout their lives, than Cal Poly students?</p>

<p>

Apparently it hasn’t occurred to you, although I gave you a big hint in my previous post, that there are poor OVER represented groups in this country. Some of those are minorities (such as southeast Asians); some, majorities, such as low-income whites. You imagine that anyone other than an Asian student must have much less academically going for them.

</p>

<p>Except that I specifically MENTIONED BOTH THE POOR ASIANS AND THE POOR WHITES. And YES, I do believe they should receive AA benefits.</p>

<p>And while there exist quite a lot of highly-qualified URMs, there are more highly-qualified ORMs. That is why the are overrepresented. That is why there is affirmative action. Once again, you are disputing basic fundamentals here. I’m not suggesting that URMs are dumber. But their societal values do heavily influence their test scores, grades, etc.</p>

<p>

The additional measure (not a replacement measure) that Ivies have used has been non-academic e.c.'s: singular advancement in performing arts (especially competitive ones – competitive awards, for example, earned in nat’l & internat’l arenas), in sports, in studio & creative arts, in demonstrations of successful, sustained leadership, especially off-campus. They have determined that this (e.c.) factor accounts more than any other single factor for success beyond college. The admissions committees are not selecting only for the 4-yr enrollment. When they can get both stellar academics and exceptional e.c. accomplishment, they will choose that, and believe it or not, lots of non-Asians can do both. (I know that’s really, really hard for you to believe.)

Actually I have my own particular stance on non-academic extracurriculars and I personally dislike the weight these hold in American institutions as opposed to most foreign institutions (despite being a tentative recruited athlete myself). This is not the right place to hold a full argument on the holistic admissions process, but I believe that non-academic extracurriculars should largely be supplementary to the academic resume.</p>

[monstor344]

<p>

Yet I’ve been told over and over by the mythmakers, that “only certain schools” are avenues to successful careers in the professions. Bull. He’s living proof. And I can name a dozen others, too.

</p>

<p>Naming examples does not buck a firmly rooted trend. Considering the ratio of students at state schools to students at prestigious private schools, there is a much higher of successful private school students than there are successful public school students. An elite education will not guarantee success, nor will attending a state school make success difficult to obtain. But an elite education will generally offer more chances for success than a state school will.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

believe that all extraordinarily high-achieving students are entitled to an elite education.

</p>

<p>There aren’t enough seats at the “elite universities” to accommodate all the extraordinarily high achieving students. That’s how it goes. So, some aren’t going to make it into HYPSM et al. Them’s the breaks.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

a threshold has been crossed at the point where Asians have to consider Cal Poly instead of MIT because of their racial status.

</p>

<p>Well, every very smart kid who desires to study engineering should be looking at both the MIT’s and the Cal Poly’s of the world, because there aren’t enough seats at MIT to accommodate all the very smart kids. Why is that sadder if said kid is Asian?</p>

<p>You seem to think that life is supposed to be “fair” and that every single smart kid should have a spot in an elite institution ready for him.</p>

[monstor344]

<p>

There aren’t enough seats at the “elite universities” to accommodate all the extraordinarily high achieving students. That’s how it goes. So, some aren’t going to make it into HYPSM et al. Them’s the breaks.

Well, obviously. I am not oblivious to this fact. But in terms of distinguishing which of these high-achieving students earn an elite education, race should bear little, if any, weight.

Well, every very smart kid who desires to study engineering should be looking at both the MIT’s and the Cal Poly’s of the world, because there aren’t enough seats at MIT to accommodate all the very smart kids. Why is that sadder if said kid is Asian?

Because the way the system is currently established, a highly-achieving URM will almost never face this situation, whereas Asians are all too familiar with it.</p>

<p>Life is not fair, but that does not condone the racism of the admissions process.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>

Because the way the system is currently established, a highly-achieving URM will almost never face this situation, whereas Asians are all too familiar with it.

</p>

<p>Whoa. Again with the sheltered life. You have no idea how much racism (read, reduced opportunities) that blacks have encountered long before they step foot into any college -elite or non-elite – not to mention the racism that they will still encounter afterward.</p>

<p>Stop throwing that word racism around as if you have any clue what it means. You don’t. Racism connotes an attitude that certain races are better than others. (Hmmm. Just like some of what I read on this thread, perhaps? All the assumptions about which ethnic groups must be academically better than others?) It would be racist if all or most highly qualifed Asians were refused admission to all elite institutions. But they aren’t. In fact, population wise, far more numbers of highly-qualified whites are refused admission to elite institutions, because they are not unique or unusual enough relative to their region/school, for example. (Too many similar upper-income water polo players with high stats, poor babies.) But apparently it’s perfectly acceptable for qualified whites to be refused; not acceptable for qualified Asians to be refused.</p>

<p>As long as you let a name-brand define you and define your future, your vision and motivation will be limited in life.</p>

[Killbilly]

<p>

AA and campus diversity confused

</p>

<p>LOL are you serious? What is the difference between giving someone a boost for his race and calling it AA, and giving someone a boost because of his race and calling it “campus diversity”? AA is nothing but an attempt to create diversity, what did you think it was? </p>

<p>And you know what? Racial diversity is utterly worthless to a community. It adds nothing to the academic evironment of a college.</p>