"Race" in College Admissions FAQ & Discussion 4

[monstor344]

<p>

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

</p>

<p>You mean this? All of these treat Asians as ORMs except for the state flagships and the less selective universities on this list. None of these are actually interested in receiving Asians, and some of these schools do practice AA. In fact, my cynical opinion is that the only schools who are actively interested in Asians are schools with weak academic reps.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

Like I’ve said earlier, you would have to be naive to not realize that many Asians focus is on engineering and premed in undergraduate school. There are very few schools actively seeking Asians that provide a strong basis for either field.

</p>

<p>One more time. With respect to premed, one can be premed ANYWHERE and one can go to med school ANYWHERE in the US. I know there are people who think that their chances of getting into med school are heightened if they attend HYPSM, and think that they’ll magically do better as doctors if they go to HY(etc) medical schools, but medicine isn’t that kind of FIELD. Really, the top medical schools take comers from all types of undergrads, from no-name schools to other elites … and what determines your “fate” as a doctor is your residency, not the medical school you went to. Really, the state-flagship-undergrad / state-flagship med school doctor gets paid the exact same amount from the insurance companies, and does the exact same things on a day to day basis, as the Ivy undergrad / Ivy med school doctor in the office next door. </p>

<p>Medicine isn’t law or consulting or i-banking where the schools serve high signaling purposes. </p>

<p>If Asian parents wish to believe that you “can’t do premed” anywhere but HYPSM, and that only HY-type med schools are worth pursuing, that’s their prerogative – it’s a free country (and that’s why they’re here!). But that doesn’t make them correct. All they have to do is open their eyes and see that most doctors are indeed non-prestigious u-grad / non-prestigious med school graduates, so not going to HYPSM doesn’t hurt one’s chances for being a doctor.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

In fact, my cynical opinion is that the only schools who are actively interested in Asians are schools with weak academic reps.

</p>

<p>Why do they have to be “actively interested” in Asians? Why are the only choices “actively interested in” or “actively lobby against”?</p>

[epiphany]

<p>

None of these are actually interested in receiving Asians, and some of these schools do practice AA.

</p>

<p>Let’s see your evidence. So far, you’ve presented only suppositions. You see, this is one thing that students on CC never understand: they think that admissions is about absolutes, not relativities. (New plural word.) They assume that if a well-qualified student applies who happens to be Asian and does not get in, therefore there’s AA in admissions. That’s not evidence of AA, because you would need complete comparative data to determine that it’s AA: meaning every application received, rejected, and accepted, and the ethnic backgrounds of each of those applicants. And the college is not going to give that to anybody on the outside. So unless a college says in its admissions literature, or through the lips of a live admissions rep: “We practice AA,” or “we’ll reject more qualified applicants in favor of adequately qualified ones who meet our goals of ethnic balance,” then you have no basis for your statement.</p>

[mam1959]

<p>All of this talk about degrees of racial purity and bloodlines and which tribe should have preference over another would make the uninitiated think that this board was full of a bunch of racists. It is like a Faulkner novel. </p>

<p>As we continue to intermix and break down racial barriers, I assume that we will soon - perhaps within the next 5 years - cease altogether to classify people by race and make race a non-factor in admissions? Doesn’t everyone support this as they now can read 11 plus pages of unprovable stereotypes which appears to reflect an undue emphasis on the amount of certain shades of pigment in one’s skin?</p>

[monstor344]

<p>

So unless a college says in its admissions literature, or through the lips of a live admissions rep: “We practice AA,” or “we’ll reject more qualified applicants in favor of adequately qualified ones who meet our goals of ethnic balance,” then you have no basis for your statement.

</p>

<p>I think this discussion has reached a new-low.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>Post 166: How 'bout the undue emphasis on being from The Right Family (rich, & preferably legacy), The Right Location (East Coast), and from The Right Schools (boarding)? Because that’s the way, largely, that Ivy acceptees used to be chosen. The drive toward a variety of ethnic representation in higher education will never be perfect; there will always be some degree of clumsiness and self-consciousness (on both sides) associated with it. But to ignore the need for social & ethnic & geographic integration within the Elites is to return to an earlier era of strictly privilege. The Ivies used to be virtually closed to white westerners, white southerners, white midwesterners. Not to mention those of any ethnic background without the funds to pay full freight. I prefer the current “corrections,” imperfect as they are, to the former system, which was way more un-American than the current efforts.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>Post 167:</p>

<p>OK. It’s “low” to require scholarship. (Presenting evidence for a statement.):rolleyes:</p>

[tokenadult]

<p>

caring about not shaming the family, which is uniquely Asian

</p>

<p>I can’t agree that there is any kind of Asian uniqueness here, and I call this out as a racist comment.</p>

[tokenadult]

<p>

I assume that we will soon - perhaps within the next 5 years - cease altogether to classify people by race and make race a non-factor in admissions? Doesn’t everyone support this as they now can read 11 plus pages of unprovable stereotypes which appears to reflect an undue emphasis on the amount of certain shades of pigment in one’s skin?

</p>

<p>I would like to see that happen. I [anticipated</a> that forty years ago](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062907620-post72.html]anticipated”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062907620-post72.html). Alas, it is taking much longer than I had hoped for people to eradicate bogus “race” categories from their minds.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>I don’t think it’s happening in 5 years. I think when and if there’s truly a comprehensive broadening by all groups (economically, ethnically, geographically) to apply across a spectrum of schools (types, locations, sizes), then the ‘Elites’ will not have to work so hard at lopsided student bodies, because balance will take care of itself. Until then, don’t hold your breath.</p>

[chaosakita]

<p>

Wrong. Caucasian families are overall far more open to diversifying the college list. They may, like many Asians, focus especially on fave 10-12, but virtually always there are realistic matches & safeties in there, even when there should be more. That is one of many reasons they do choose to hire college counselors – to better ensure some high matches if dream schools do not come through. Yes, these families also have high goals. It’s just not the black-and-white perception that it is in China: The Best, or lifelong poverty/failure.

</p>

<p>So, what are our “fave 10-12?”</p>

<p>I’m not so sure who pays $40,000 to make sure their kids get into “high matches.”</p>

<p>

tokenadult’s posted statistics show that there is still plenty of highly desirable room on the part of those colleges. Ethnic <em>balance</em> (not absolute numbers but basic proportionality) is not nearly as much an issue with the non “elites” as it is with the most selective U’s in the country.

</p>

<p>Some of those (Harvey Mudd, Olin) are some of the “most selective U’s in the country.”</p>

<p>It’s only not a problem because those colleges don’t receive nearly as much applicants to try and make a balanced class.</p>

<p>

There’s a difference between acknowledging that elite schools offer unique opportunities – shared by parents of all races and cultures – and a belief that not attending an elite school dooms one to a mediocre life, which is uniquely Asian.

</p>

<p>lol @ “uniquely Asian”</p>

<p>

Why do they have to be “actively interested” in Asians? Why are the only choices “actively interested in” or “actively lobby against”?

</p>

<p>Tell me a school that doesn’t fit into either of these two categories.</p>

<p>

So unless a college says in its admissions literature, or through the lips of a live admissions rep: “We practice AA,” or “we’ll reject more qualified applicants in favor of adequately qualified ones who meet our goals of ethnic balance,” then you have no basis for your statement.

</p>

<p>Tell me where a college has ever said that, especially the ones that are well-known for practicing it.</p>

<p>Oh, on a different note: why doesn’t Columbia University practice affirmative action for whites? There seems to be a significant shortage of them there.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

The drive toward a variety of ethnic representation in higher education will never be perfect; there will always be some degree of clumsiness and self-consciousness (on both sides) associated with it. But to ignore the need for social & ethnic & geographic integration within the Elites is to return to an earlier era of strictly privilege. The Ivies used to be virtually closed to white westerners, white southerners, white midwesterners. Not to mention those of any ethnic background without the funds to pay full freight. I prefer the current “corrections,” imperfect as they are, to the former system, which was way more un-American than the current efforts.

</p>

<p>Agree completely, epiphany.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>post 173:
I don’t particularly appreciate the mix of quotes without attribution, within one post. I made some of those statements, did not make others.</p>

<p>So since I don’t respect your own stereotyping which speaks as if everyone who disagrees with your position is by definition anti-Asian, I’m not going to intermittently argue a post which combines quotes from at least 2 different posters. pizzagirl and I are not one, and we have different opinions on a number of subjects, including variations on this one.</p>

<p>I will respond only to this, since it’s just another example of your extremely poor scholarship:<br>

especially the ones that are well-known for practicing it.

</p>

<p>Well known by whom? And by what evidence?</p>

<p>I sincerley hope you’re not planning on becoming a scientist. You have far to go in any sense of discipline applied to a single subject matter. You rely on rumor, then challenge your debate opponents to disprove a rumor.</p>

<p>Good job.</p>

[Hope_Full]

<p>mam1959: There’s not enough interracial marriage to eliminate racial preferences in our lifetime, let alone 5 years. </p>

<p>First, the achievement gap is not closing, notwithstanding years of affirmative action, “No Child Left Behind,” and the host of other similar programs. I attended a presentation at a local college last week on Affirmative Action. The speaker predicted that the economic climate will have a devastating impact on college attendance for African Americans. In 5 years, if the economy approves and the numbers of AA in college declines and the achievement gap increases, I think colleges will become even more race driven. Affirmative action took its lumps during the Bush presidence, and I anticipate that it will be reinvigorated during the Obama presidency. Because African Americans continue to lose ground in the higher education process, I see more – not less – emphasis on race in 5 years in order to address the issue. </p>

<p>Second, interracial children do not end racial issues. Talk to one sometime. They are as confused and frustrated by race as anyone else. A white (or Asian) mom/black dad mix like President Obama is considered black by most, unless that person fights the classification (Tiger Woods). White/Asian mixes are considered ORM, so their existence won’t change anything. Hispanic people are already mixed, for the most part. Even if the world suddenly became 51% mixed, the “more pure” students would still be fighting it out to diversify a campus.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

Why do they have to be “actively interested” in Asians? Why are the only choices “actively interested in” or “actively lobby against”? </p>

<p>Tell me a school that doesn’t fit into either of these two categories.

</p>

<p>Oh man, what self-centered arrogance! Believe it or not, not everyone in the United States or in the world of college admissions sits and thinks about Asians all day long, either from the perspective of “how can I get more of them?” or “how can I keep them out”?</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

So, what are our “fave 10-12?”

</p>

<p>The Ivies and a few others (MIT, Caltech, Stanford, Berkeley, Duke generally). Maybe an NU, JHU or WashU. Surely you can’t seriously try to deny that there are far more posts on CC from Asian students who explicitly say that their parents want and expect them to get into these schools, and that they (the parents) aren’t particularly interested in hearing about schools not in the top 20 or so.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

I’m not so sure who pays $40,000 to make sure their kids get into “high matches.”

</p>

<p>It tends to be more Caucasian families, because they seem to see colleges as a system that can be gamed (e.g., if I position my kid to do this or that, then he will be more appealing). Based on CC, the Asian families tend to believe it’s more of a pure meritocracy and that’s why they are “surprised” that perfect or near-perfect GPA / SAT’s and state or national awards don’t necessarily guarantee someone getting into an Ivy or similar school.</p>

[monstor344]

<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>I would embrace the day when ethnicity ceases being a factor in admissions. AA is a convoluted form of racism, period.</p>

[monstor344]

<p>

mam1959: There’s not enough interracial marriage to eliminate racial preferences in our lifetime, let alone 5 years.

</p>

<p>How are interracial marriages relevant? How about simply avoiding the designation of people in racial categories?</p>