<p>^I wouldn’t hold your breath, if I were you. The guy was admitted to a PEER institution. His civil rights were in no sense violated, in that he was given the opportunity to compete equally, along with all others, on measures that he doesn’t get to decide, members of CC don’t get to decide, Espenshade & Chung don’t get to decide, for a finite number of spots significantly smaller than the total number of applicants, both of HIS national/ethnic identity, and in total. </p>
<p>Discrimination & bias have to be consistent & systematic & based solely on factors in categories pertinent to discrimination & bias, in order to qualify legally for the term. Plenty of other people of his same background were in fact offered admission. (And lots of those in that same category, btw, chose Harvard over Princeton, which is why Enrolled Students NEVER tells the story.)</p>
<p>If I just put down Hispanic, will I be at a disadvantage? I mean, will I be counted under those that don’t report anything? I do want my URM boost… : /</p>
<p>Because I do not plan on filling out the other part (where you are asked whether you are Asian or Black/AA or White or Pacific Islander or Native American) as I do not consider myself part of any of those.</p>
<p>Post 771:
Too bad if my accurate understanding of civil law – which in fact I did study prior to also entering education as a professional – offends you in its accuracy. That is in fact the basis of “discrimination” lawsuits in this country, whether you or anyone else on CC likes or dislikes that fact. People well-read in law understand this principle. People unread in law do not understand the American civil concept of “discrimination” when applied to ethnicity, race, and other protected groups.</p>
<p>would like to see the final report on the inquiry before jumping to conclusions about what Princeton was or was not doing in any particular admission case. To the best of my knowledge (I would be happy to be corrected on this point) the finder of fact in that inquiry hasn’t yet reported any findings.</p>
<p>On a particular application I’m currently doing, I have the option of selecting White, Asian, or both for the race/ethnicity section. It would probably be to my disadvantage to select only Asian, but I’m debating whether I should present myself as multiracial or just white in order to best position my application. Thoughts?</p>
<p>That’s nice for him but irrelevant to the investigation of Princeton.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whether it’s equal opportunity is still under investigation. That the investigation was expanded certainly raises eyebrows.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The investigation is not about who decides Princeton’s admission standards but whether those standards involve illegal disparities for Asian applicants. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Espenshade & Chung may help to decide the investigation, though. Their findings are not conclusive and may not come from Princeton data at all, but they are certainly suggestive. Every major category that is known to receive an admissions preference (athlete, black, legacy, etc) shows up with a realistically estimated admissions boost in their statistical model. If the same model shows Asians having a noticeable admissions deficit, that requires some explanation, because the analysis does detect the preferences in the cases where the universities admit that the preferences exist. </p>
<p>A much simpler calculation, that the Office of Civil Rights will certainly perform, is to see whether Asians are admitted at a lower rate while having a better statistical profile. If that’s the case, as was found at other schools in earlier years, Princeton would have the burden of explaining how this occurs without illegal racial discriminaton. </p>
<p>I believe that Princeton has entirely meritocratic explanations available for some practices that disadvantage Asians. Some of those procedures amount to racial profiling, such as discounting the SAT scores of groups known or believed to engage in more extensive test coaching (elite prep school kids, Chinese in parts of CA, Koreans in Bergen County, etc). Others are nonracial, such as discounting the math scores of students who participate in math competitions since elementary school and list such competitions on the application. I think that Princeton and its peer schools perform both types of analysis, but may run into legal problems because of the group-based profiling. Princeton is, statistically, right to assume that Asian applicants from particular high schools in California, having a certain “look and feel” to their applications, have misleading aspects to their resumes. Princeton is justified in not wanting students whose credentials overstate their abilities, but the profiling involved in weeding them out may be hard to perform legally.</p>
<p>My guess is that issues will be found by OCR, but the Feds will reach a quiet settlement with Princeton rather than jeopardize affirmative action nationwide.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Much weaker statistical proof is accepted in employment discrimination cases. I think Princeton will have some difficulty even if its admissions practices are completely fair and legal.</p>
No form of profiling is justified. Statistical dishonesty on applications is something common to all who want to get a foot ahead. Targeting any group, let alone a racial group, not only fails to accomplish something good; it also creates the racist cultural boundaries America has tried to break free of for decades.</p>
<p>Following this thread throughout much of its existence, I have observed that many of my posts end up being responses to racial AA supporters, suggesting that a socioeconomic AA system would be much more sensible and would be an important step in eradicating the racial biases that still burden our nation.</p>
<p>And yet, throughout the course of this thread, I have seen few, if any, arguments arguing specifically why racial AA is a fair solution, as opposed to socioeconomic AA. I have heard reasons why racial AA exists (political motivations stemming from historical segregation AKA guilt, racial diversity, etc) but none have adequately supported why racial AA is useful for the purposes of “evening the playing field” and creating a reasonable admissions process. Do supporters of racial AA agree that the purpose of affirmative action isn’t to create a more-balanced admissions process but is rather motivated by political and, well, superficial reasons?</p>
<p>Wow, if you’re Asian and happen to come from those areas, but you don’t decide to do test prep, hard luck. Even when coaching seems to change scores less than 50 points.</p>
<p>That’s true of any profiling, whether racial or not: it can be statistically accurate for the population, and useful for its (non-racial) intended purposes, but inaccurate in individual cases. Colleges process individual applications but, from their point of view, admissions can only be a statistical process of building a class (yield is a bummer). Hence the need for rules of thumb. </p>
<p>Admissions officers have posted in these boards that applicants from seemingly “advantaged” backgrounds (prep school, rich ZIP code) are expected to do better on the SAT. Tough luck if you’re a prep school WASP who, for whatever reason, hasn’t had any academic advantages, or has invisible disadvantages; your scores will be marked down all the same. Still, such profiling may increase the overall ability level of the entering class by weeding out over-groomed sons of the rich. </p>
<p>Certain types of Asian applications present a false positive, not because the applicants lie, but because the endlessly prepped, honed and arms-raced credentials falsely inflate the true ability level of the candidate. Asian complaints that the colleges deflate those credentials down to a (statistically) more correct size, are in effect saying that any process that can’t be gamed is too meritocratic for Asian tastes. Consider what the response would be if prep-school WASPS from Greenwich Village were displaying the same persecution complex as Ivy-coveting Chinese parents.</p>
<p>umm, no. Its your identity, but it shouldnt be used to marginalise you, so stop freaking out. Im just saying, Middle Eastern isnt anywhere near White. We dont look anything like whites!</p>
<p>Since the beginning of federal law on the subject. There has never been a separate “Middle Eastern” category (even though some people in some eras have asked for one) and Middle Eastern people have long been construed as just as white as Icelanders, Italians, Greeks, Latvians, and Irish people for purposes of any law in the United States that distinguished white people from other people. </p>
<p>One consequence of this is that there was much more immigration to the United States in the 1920s by Arab people than by Chinese or Japanese people (who were banned from immigration to the United States). There have been various social consequences of this after arrival as well. </p>
<p>This may not make sense to you, but it is the law. </p>