Rejected applicant alleges bias against Asians

<p>

</p>

<p>No, Dstark, the profound ignorance and bigotry was exhibited by the people who demanded a public apology from one of the most respected and straight-shooting Admission’s Deans in the country for having the courage to speak honestly and candidly about his experience. We all want more transparency, but seemingly have problems accepting it!</p>

<p>Do you have the pretension to say you might know what is contained in 20 years of admission files better than the Dean himself? Not to mention, twenty years of comparing the contributions of students AFTER enrolling in school to the promises of the application files. Oh well, one needs to make an effort to understand that part of the admissions’s puzzle!</p>

<p>Xiggi, I’m not even going to argue this.</p>

<p>Me" “an IB magnet program in a very low performing high school that was about 80% black. To my surprise, my sons often were the only black males in their IB classes.”</p>

<p>Hanna: how much do you think various factors contributed to this phenomenon? Did you see HS teachers failing to encourage the black kids to excel, or black kids not having the grades/scores to get into the IB program, or black parents having lower expectations and not requiring their children to take a challenging schedule? Or some combination of the above?"</p>

<p>It’s a combination of lots of things.</p>

<ol>
<li>Some characteristics of some gifted students also are shared by students who should be served by special ed programs or who have emotional problems. For instance, a kid may be misbehaving in class because they are bored due to giftedness or because they have learning problems or emotional problems. From what I’ve read and seen, black gifted kids who act out are far more likely to end up in special ed or disciplinary programs than in gifted programs.</li>
</ol>

<p>I know several very intelligent black adults who were misidentified as not being too bright when they were young, and the only reason they weren’t shunted into special ed was because their parents fought to keep them in regular classes. One such person graduated from Howard Phi Beta Kappa and then got a Stanford MD. Another was working on his Ph.D. at Berkely when I met him. From what I’ve seen, the people most likely to be misidentified are black males, who tend to be more active than are students of other races anyway. </p>

<p>I also heard a researcher state that there’s a disproportionately high black prisoners who are intellectually gifted. Apparently they were failed by their school systems, so turned to crime.</p>

<p>I also think that the African American community is more likely to be anti intellectual than other cultures in the U.S. This probably is related to slavery where learning to read could cause a slave to be killed; and demonstrating high intelligence also could make one a target from whites. Indeed, many African Americans were able to survive and avoid punishments by appearing to be very stupid. This also was true even into the middle of the last century. A black person who appeared to be “uppity” – educated, smart, etc. – -was at risk of being harmed by whites.</p>

<p>The schools where most black students are educated have large numbers of teachers trained in special education, and next to no numbers of teachers trained in gifted education. If one’s only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.</p>

<p>Due to the major problems with relatively low h.s. graduation rates, also the black community as a whole pays more attention to students who are having major academic problems, not the ones who are excelling or surviving. A black male who is simply in school – including h.s. and who hasn’t been to jail – is considered by many to be quite a success even if he has “D” grades. I’ve seen several articles in black publications that profiled black males who were successful and said things like, “Although many black men are in jail, X is not. He is…” Just look at how low the expectations are. I can’t imagine any other race thinking that it would be OK say something about a person who is successful.</p>

<p>With my own sons, who both are intellectually gifted, I repeatedly had to fight to have teachers expect my sons to work to their intellectual potential. Even with my husband and I pushing my kids and having high expectations for them, my sons seemed to bow to society’s belief that they were doing amazingly well to simply be taking AP classes. For instance, the school didn’t seem to care that my older S was carrying “Ds” in IB English despite having a 750 v and writing professionally for several major publications. </p>

<p>My younger son easily got As in IB upper level math classes, but when the school instituted an even higher level math class, S’s teacher (who was a very nice guy who also was in general supportive and well meaning) told S that he should not take it because only people like a kid who had gotten an 800 on the m test would be able to pass that class. Since next to no one was recommended for that class, and since my husband and I aren’t mathmeticians, we assumed the teacher was right.</p>

<p>The next year, however, that same teacher noticed that S was sailing through with easy As in his class, the second highest level math class. S also easily got a 780 M SAT. The teacher then realized that S should have been in the top math class and suggested that S take it the next year, but, unfortunately, it wouldn’t fit into his schedule.</p>

<p>Back more directly to your question. I have seen overall that black parents don’t appreciate the importance of their smart, capable kids taking an intellectually challenging curriculum. Understandably, often the kids don’t realize this either particularly since by selecting such a curriculum, they’ll probably be isoated from other black students, some of whom may also make fun of them for “acting white.”</p>

<p>In my city, the school system steered some black students into IB because the school system wanted the program to appear to reflect the racial make-up of the city. However, the school’s expectations for the black students were low. The black students were considered successes if they simply remained in IB until graduation. Meanwhile other students – including non native English speakers who hadn’t yet learned English well – were expected to make NHS and to obtain the IB diploma.</p>

<p>Northstarmom:</p>

<p>I think you’re forgetting that the LACs tend to want to have a full range of EC activities at their schools – especially athletics! – and so have to be even more careful than the Ivies to admit kids who are going to be carrying that load. My virtual niece is a freshman at Amherst; something more than 2/3 of her class is participating in intercollegiate athletics.</p>

<p>By and large, I think the population of kids at the Ivies and at the top LACs is functionally identical, with a few differences. The LACs, I think, are somewhat whiter and preppier. Most importantly, the very smart kids who choose the LACs all value intimacy to a relatively greater extent, and the kids who choose the Ivies tend to want a bigger stage and more flash. Also, while all the schools value focus these days, I think HYP take a much larger proportion of the kids who are really already formed and mature about what they are doing than the LACs, whereas a “bright, well-rounded kid” is more likely to wind up at one of the top LACs. But all of these are differences in weight, not night and day. I don’t know that there is really much difference at all between the kids at Dartmouth and Williams, say, or Brown and Swarthmore.</p>

<p>Interesting stats on USC interdad. So much for the white frat boy image…</p>

<p>“I think you’re forgetting that the LACs tend to want to have a full range of EC activities at their schools – especially athletics! – and so have to be even more careful than the Ivies to admit kids who are going to be carrying that load. My virtual niece is a freshman at Amherst; something more than 2/3 of her class is participating in intercollegiate athletics.”</p>

<p>I’m not surprised that that because most of the students whom I know do some kind of athletics.</p>

<p>What I’m thinking, however, is that the level of ECs isn’t done to the type of intensity that exists, at least at Harvard and probably P and Y, where many of those students spend as many hours a week on ECs as nonstudent adults spend on some jobs.</p>

<p>Due to size reasons, the LACs also can’t offer the range of ECs that the places like H do. Consequently, they may be perfectly happy to admit plenty of Asian swimmers or tennis players/ violinists/ biochem majors. By comparison, Harvard, which has more NCAA teams than does any other college in the country, and which produces something like 40 student theater productions a year plus has hundreds of other ECs – needs more of a diversity in students’ interests to fill all of those EC slots. Consequently, the “typical” Asian Ivy applicant may be overlooked in a HPY pool, but very welcome in an Amherst, Williams, Swat pool.</p>

<p>The same principle would hold for students’ prospective majors. LACs offer fewer majors than do places like Harvard, so having an abundance of, for instance, biochem majors would not cause as much of a problem at a LAC than at Harvard, which has to attract students who’ll want to major in some very obscure things.</p>

<p>Northstarmom:</p>

<p>I am familiar with one of the Universities you mentioned (which IMO has the most highly evolved ECs of any school in the country – its true undergrad strength) and one of the top LACs. </p>

<p>Correcting for a difference in selectivity (e.g. the LAC wouldn’t get Yo Yo Ma or Natalie Portman) I don’t see any difference in the profile of the students the two schools accept in terms of ECs. Basically, you don’t have a snowball’s chance in Hades of getting into either without some kind of interesting activity.</p>

<p>I do think that students tend to focus a bit more heavily on ECs and a bit less on academics at the university, but that is, in part, because the specific structure of that university results in the EC organizations being places that provide a sense of community in a rather decentralized environment.</p>

<p>Otherwise, I don’t see much difference. I won’t go into details, but there was a group of students so heavily involved in a national level political issue at the LAC over the last two years that they basically stopped going to school. They graduated, presumably because the school recognized the educational value of their extreme commitment (organizing rallies in Washington, DC., reporting from overseas for MTV, raising tens of thousands of dollars, etc). They have gone on to found a non-profit organization in Washington after graduation. Basically, the EC portion of their undergrad experience became their career path.</p>

<p>Likewise, take a look at this EC activity, War News Radio, that has been syndicated by quite a few NPR stations around the country:</p>

<p><a href=“http://warnewsradio.org/[/url]”>http://warnewsradio.org/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I think the major difference is the breadth and depth of activities. Obviously, with 1500 students, you can’t stock as many different activities in as much depth as you can with 7000 students. So, there tends to be an ebb and flow to the activities over time rather than a constant menu from year to year. However, I don’t see any difference in how strongly the schools value that kind of endeavor, either on campus or in admissions.</p>

<p>NSM - I think what you are describing as a difference in emphasis between HYP and an LAC is less a matter of intention and more a function of scale than anything else. The average NESCAC college (New England Small College Athletic Conference) fields nearly as many varsity and club sports as Harvard but in order to do so, must devote a much larger chunk of its student body to athletics. This is what gives them their preppy undertone (at least as far as the traditional preppy sports like xc, lacrosse, swimming and diving, tennis and field hockey are concerned) and with the possible exception of Williams, it is something that they all struggle to balance with other activities like theater, music and political activism.</p>

<p>"NSM - I think what you are describing as a difference in emphasis between HYP and an LAC is less a matter of intention and more a function of scale than anything else. "</p>

<p>I can see the possibility of the above kind of comments being true. It’s probable that since I don’t live in an area where lots of students apply to LACs, geographic diversity plays a role in the types of students whom I see from my area who get acceptances. Compared to HPY accepted students from my area, the top LAC accepted students have ECs that would not stand out in a HPY pool. That, however, may not be true all over.</p>

<p>I am not aware of any URMs or Asians from my area who apply to top LACs, so I do suspect that for both groups, the LACs may be willing to take students with even more ordinary ECs in order to get even more diversity in their classes.</p>

<p>The actual number of students at some top LACs in the middle and upper middle income quintiles of the U.S. population (roughly $40-$90k) is very small, and outside of some bi-coastal and large suburb communities, this is where the bulk of academically talented public high school students come from. At Amherst, it is likely under 8% (and 8% of an entering class of 375 or so is an awfully small number). Likely similar at Williams. I don’t have numbers for Swarthmore, but given percentage receiving no financial aid, Pell Grant recipients, and those in the top quintile receiving aid, the number just isn’t going to be very large. At many of these schools, that’s where lots of the non-prep sport athletes come from, which accounts for all those rejected vals and sals from small towns and communities.</p>

<p>The numbers are similar at the Ivies, but with some notable exceptions, the LACs have substantially higher percentages of “student-athletes” in their populations.</p>

<p>At Williams, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and Hispanics all have significantly lower rates of participation in athletics than white students; I wouldn’t be surprised to find that at the Ivies as well.</p>

<p>The point being that, when it comes to prestige school admissions, all three groups have quite a lot in common. They are all much less likely to be legacies, or have the money for developmental admissions. They are less likely to be recruited athletes. They are less likely to have connected GCs or come out of well-connected private preps. They are less likely to be sons and daughters of Senators and Congresspeople. And, at least on a total population basis (I don’t know about the actual applicants), they are all less likely to be able to pay full-freight.</p>

<p>Given all these factors, I think analysis of most college data would find all three groups over-represented in prestige college admissions.</p>

<p>And low participation in top notch music programs, or any music program, too. I have noticed this for years as I travel the elite music track and see few to no African Americans. Even in the high school honors band level, there are almost no AA students. </p>

<p>We have talked about this elephant in the room within the classroom too, where so few black students are in honors or AP courses.</p>

<p>Allmusic, I’d think the lack of African Americans on elite music tracks is linked specifically to the lack of musical education in public schools. In the city where I live, there is no instrumental music education: kids in band, orchestra etc., come in knowing how to play because their parents had the means to pay for private music lessons.</p>

<p>I think that Interestdad’s posts and the stats he has included do a good job of showing how statistics can be manipulated to prove a point – so at a given school it may be that when you look at percentage of admissions which correspond to certain SAT scores and/or GPAs, it may seem that one group is at an advantage – but when you look at the raw number of applicants, admittees, and ultimate enrollees, there may be a different story. I haven’t had time to look closely at the lists of colleges with the highest percentage of minority enrollment that he posted, but I’ll bet that those highest on the scale probably correspond with more urban areas.</p>

<p>One thing that colleges need to take into account when accepting students is anticipated yield – and I think it is pretty well known that yield of African-Americans tends to be a problem for elite universities. Again, I don’t think you would get a true picture unless you ran numbers based on differential criteria – urban vs. rural, geographic distribution, public vs. private school applicant, etc. </p>

<p>I that Xiggi’s comment about his own school, “one has to understand that the school does welcome --and accept- asians who fit the profile of the school with open arms and wallets” is telling, especially with Li’s admission in interviews that he applied to Princeton hoping to be rejected. Is Li a good match for Princeton? If I go by the results that I saw with my own daughter’s applications, I can say that her application to Barnard really exuded “fit” – everything on her app, her essays, her short answers, the comments in recs, seem to shout out that she was the quintessential strong-willed & independent minded Barnard woman. But I don’t think the emphasis on same qualities did anything whatsoever to further her application to Brown, where she was duly rejected. </p>

<p>So I am wondering if Li simply is a better fit for Yale than Princeton; and I also wonder if his g.c. had a sense of where he really wanted to go. Li was competing against others at his own school, including Asians & whites who may have had a narrower range of preferences and stronger reasons to want Princeton over other Ivies… it isn’t all that hard for the g.c. to tailor the recommendations to try to highlight characteristics that will get each student into the top choice schools. Even if it didn’t come down to something in the recs … it’s hard to be all things to all people, and it is hard for someone really do their very best on an application if he is secretly hoping to be turned down. In the highly competitive environment of Ivy admissions, very subtle factors that are communicated through choice of words in an essay or body language at an interview may make the difference. In other words, Princeton may simply have chosen other applicants from Li’s high school over him because they seemed like they were better fits and more likely to attend if accepted.</p>

<p>Maybe he had an interview at Princeton, but not at Yale. ;)</p>

<p>“especially with Li’s admission in interviews that he applied to Princeton hoping to be rejected.”</p>

<p>So why is he filing a complaint against them if he wanted to be rejected?
Or he wanted to be rejected in order to file a complaint? Maybe he’s complaint-happy? Or did he want to go to Princeton?</p>

<p>“I think that Interestdad’s posts and the stats he has included do a good job of showing how statistics can be manipulated to prove a point – so at a given school it may be that when you look at percentage of admissions which correspond to certain SAT scores and/or GPAs, it may seem that one group is at an advantage – but when you look at the raw number of applicants, admittees, and ultimate enrollees, there may be a different story.”</p>

<p>Sorry, I just don’t get how interesteddad manipulates statistics. Do you mind elaborating about this, as his analyses seems solid. He is restating published data.</p>

<p>^That’s what she’s saying–that was his point, to show how stats can be manipulated and cherry-picked to say what you want them to say. She was agreeing with him.</p>

<p>Golden is reported today as saying the advantages to the legacies and developmental candidates are the worst. Princeton has repeatedly said that the legacy admits on average don’t differ substantially in their statistics from other admits.</p>

<p>At this point, who DO we think has a right to go to Princeton? Or Harvard? Only a poor kid who scores 800 on every SAT they ever take and gets straight A’s? Now, while that kid to my mind clearly is a great admit, is she really the only one who has a chance at making an impact on society? Which as I said many posts ago is really how they choose who gets admitted.</p>

<p>Getting a little silly out there now. Like a tulip investment bubble.</p>

<p>collegialmom -
I think Calmom was referring to Interested dad’s post #268 where he showed how others manipulated statistics to try to show something which is not actually true. I do not believe she was saying that Interested dad himself manipulated any statistics. </p>

<p>All of this can get a little confusing sometimes!</p>

<p>EDIT - Sorry, I just noticed Garland already made this same pont above!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m sure that’s true.</p>

<p>Reminds me of a heated discussion I had with an Eph alum recently who was all up in arms about Early Decision. He was spouting the “200 point” advantage of Early Decision – from studies using the same old technique of comparing predicted admissions rates and the ubiquitous “equivalent to an extra 200 points on the SAT”.</p>

<p>I kept telling him that there is no statistical difference between ED enrollees and RD enrollees. He kept saying I was nuts, that there was a 200 point difference and kept proving it from “the studies”. He finally was so determined to prove me wrong that he started Googling articles from Williams Admissions Dean. </p>

<p>First thing he came up with was the average SATs for the enrolled ED cohort and the entire enrolled class for a recent year. The average for the entire class was 1417. The average for the enrolled ED cohort was 1419. He was shocked, especially because he’s well aware of the heavy use of ED for low-stat tips in Williams athletic recruiting. I wasn’t shocked. I’d been telling him that statistical profiles for ED and RD are comparable at most selective colleges. Heck, the statistical profiles of the entire applicant pool and the enrolled cohort are similar.</p>

<p>It’s just so hard to actually let go of the notion that SAT scores = admissions or that SAT scores are considered in an absolute sense. SAT scores do not make a great applicant. They may provide some context for the applicant: for example 1600 SATs and a mediocre class rank is death as in “slacker”. Conversely, if a college gets a great African American applicant and the SAT scores are on the “low” side, that wouldn’t disqualify the applicant: the admissions offices know that, on average, African American students don’t score as well. That “lower” SAT may still be in the top 1% of all African American test takers. The admissions officers would similarly discount SAT scores for a first-generation college white applicant from Appalachia.</p>

<p>“The admissions officers would similarly discount SAT scores for a first-generation college white applicant from Appalachia.”</p>

<p>How many poor white applicants do you think actually wind up applying, getting accepted, and then attend Ivy League schools? Are there any stats available or can they be figured per Pell grants, etc.</p>