Rejected applicant alleges bias against Asians

Parent Cafe
521

<p>“The reality is that you (meaning yours truly) are SUBJECTIVELY selecting a small number of elements --probably math test scores-- all the while avoiding the entire issue …”</p>

<p>Now THAT’S speculation! I am NOT talking about test scores. The perception of many is that Asian-American applicants are at a disadvantage when EVERYTHING OTHER THAN RACE IS CONSIDERED and that having seen the results at local magnet high schools for a lot of years, it’s my perception. Indeed, based on press accounts, I believe this was a topic that was much discussed at the annual meeting of the association of college advisors. (I forget the exact name, but the organization that brings us the list of schools which still have openings on May 1.) So, a LOT of high school guidance counselors share the “subjective” perception that Asians are being treated unfairly. </p>

<p>The point is that many think a “holistic” review of an applicant’s file which takes race into account for reasons other than affirmative action is wrong–both morally and legally. Li is testing that claim. If Princeton didn’t consider his ethnicity at all, why did it ask him to state it on the application? </p>

<p>There was a Princeton Review book about college applications that said that if your last name is something like Lee which might be Asian and you aren’t Asian, you should include a photo or make reference to your blonde hair or your Southern roots in your essays, so that you won’t be disadvantaged by the assumption that you are Asian. So, the PR folks think being Asian hurts you in admissions.</p>

<p>Did any of you read the quote from Jon Reider, who used to be an associate director of admissions at Stanford? He said that Stanford did its own investigation a few years back and concluded that it WAS discriminating about Asian applicants unintentionally and it therefore revised its procedures to insure that Stanford was treating Asian applicants fairly.</p>

<p>Maybe Princeton needs to do that. </p>

<p>It is simply untrue that people who advocate an increase in the number of Asian-American students–and I don’t think anyone is actually advocating that, just that they shouldn’t be discriminated against–are trying to limit the number of URMs. </p>

<p>Why not do the following? Ask applicants to indicate on their college applications whether they belong to a URM group, but don’t ask anything further about racial/ethnic identity. Why does it matter whether an applicant is Caucasian or Asian? College applications no longer ask about religious beliefs, and I assume that if Princeton (or Harvard, Yale, Stanford, et al) were to ask applicants to state their religious faith on their application, a few folks here would think that’s wrong. Jews are no longer discriminated against in admissions–though the folks at Ramaz would say that Princeton does discriminate against Orthodox Jews–in part because there’s no “box” you are required to check off to indicate your faith. Jews are just lumped in with other whites–they aren’t a separate category. So, why can’t we just lump Asians and whites into one big “not an underrepresented minority” category? What reason is there to ask if you are Caucasian or Asian unless the INTENT is to discriminate? </p>

<p>Then take the other step that stopped outright discrimination against Jews in admissions. Hire some Asian-American admissions officers and/or where admissions decisions are made by faculty, make sure that Asian faculty are put on the committees. </p>

<p>Why do so many of you assume that it’s all right to demand that Asian applicants’ ECs be viewed in the context of other ASIAN applicants? Why is an Asian applicant who plays piano any more “zzz” than a white candidate who does? Why should anyone CARE that Asians are “concentrated in the string section?” Why should it matter that many Asians who play sports play tennis and run track? Why shouldn’t those who do be treated the same as white tennis players and runners? </p>

<p>What if your white son was a good football player, and someone said to you, "That’s a white activity. He should do Japanese flower arranging so he can stand out from other white male applicants. " I suspect that’s about how an Asian parent would feel when told by a helpful poster that his kid should go play Pop Warner football. (There aren’t many Asian males who are big enough physically to play football competitively.) </p>

<p>If what Princeton really did was choose between two Asian kids from the same high school…isn’t that WRONG? Isn’t this say that a de facto quota on Asians is okay? Why is race being considered–if it is? </p>

<p>Li thinks it was and that it hurt him. If you think it’s fair to consider race and to hold Asians to different standards by comparing them to other Asian applicants, have the guts to say so without attacking him or Asians generally. Whether it is fair to consider race in college admissions if your intent is something other than benefiting those who indicate their race is the REAL question here. Is “holistic” a code word for racist?</p>

522

<p>

Not if they typically only take ONE from that high school. Every kid in every high school in the United States is in competition with their classmates from the same high school, and the elite colleges tend to be fairly consistent about how many students they accept. The de facto quota is on the high school, not the ethnic group.</p>

523

<p>“If Princeton didn’t consider his ethnicity at all, why did it ask him to state it on the application?”</p>

<p>Isn’t listing your ethnic background completely optional?</p>

524

<p>

</p>

<p>The main reason is that the government requires colleges to report their enrollment broken down by ethnic categories. However, the ethnic checkboxes on the application are clearly labeled as voluntary. Double-digit percentages of applicants at my daughter’s school do not check a box. Their ethnicity is reported as “unknown”.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>They do that already. I think you will find that all ethnicities are represented on the following list:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.swarthmore.edu/contactadmissions.xml[/url]”>http://www.swarthmore.edu/contactadmissions.xml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I expect that Princeton’s list is similar.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It doesn’t make any difference. Cookie-cutter ECs are cookie-cutter ECs that keep an applicant from standing out in the applicant pool. It doesn’t matter if the applicant is Asian American or white. One of the things that good applications do is bring ECs to life in a way that communicates personality. This stands out in the applicant pool. Good Asian American applications stand out. Good white applications stand out. Good African applications stand out. Good Latino/a applications stand out.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It is more likely that Princeton is “discriminating” against Jersey kids. Most colleges get flooded applications with from their home states…more than they could possibly consider for admissions. Jersey, New York, and New England are all horrible places to apply to selective colleges from. Terribly over-represented in the applicant pool with a LOT of cookie-cutter applications. Maybe some Jersey kid could threaten to sue Princeton over that, too?</p>

525

<p>Do you ever wonder how much national energy, money, angst is spent on select college admissions? Travel, and counseling, and testing, and test prep, and course selection, and EC selection, and enrichment activities, and bulletin boards. Not to mention the right high school, middle school, pre-school , and sperm/egg donor. </p>

<p>Do you ever ask yourself after those not insignificant sums of time energy and money were spent , what did we gain? And maybe more importantly, what did we lose? Just wondering. </p>

<p>At the most selective schools “selecting” a class is NOT a competition process (or ranking process) where the “best” student wins. It is a selection process where the college chooses who they want on their campus, without regard to who is “better”. Once qualified, “better” doesn’t enter into it. </p>

<p>Arguing the “higher” stats of the denied versus the “lower” stats of the accepted just shows that you don’t get it. If you don’t have this basic understanding of the selection system you will continue to be frustrated. (Like Mr. Li.)</p>

<p>And this failure to understand the selection process is a problem that transcends race and economics. It’s a problem for everyone who thinks that a 4.0uw , 35 ACT, 1580 val is a lock for HYP (and TOP 100 merit scholarships) and brothers and sisters - that’s pretty much everyone . ;)</p>

<p>BTW, full disclosure - that “everyone” I speak of included me about 24 months ago. ;)</p>

526

<p>Jonri, I didn’t see anyone arguing that a certain set of ECs are more likely to be denied depending on race. I, and others, have argued that an over-represented EC profile, and/or intellectual goal, is going to be denied more often, just for being overrepresented. No matter who presents it. I’d bet that a white student who played violin and did medical rsearch in the summers and wants to major in molecular biology is going to have the same tough row to hoe–that whole pool is probably competing against each other, and going to have to present higher overall credentials in order to be admitted, no matter who they are.</p>

<p>Six years ago, when we knew nothing about college admissions, my D, with very high “stats”, applied to only one reach school, and we are not talking HYP reach. It was Tufts. She was turned down, despite the 1470, 4.0 uw, etc, which all put her way above their top 25th percentile (again, remmeber this was quite a while ago, SAT averages at top colleges have climbed a lot since then). But, she made the mistake of saying she wanted to major in biology (not interested in medicine at all, liked the eco/marine side of it.) We thought that a girl who wants to do science would look good–how naive, didn’t realize that everyone wants to do science, esp bio, these days. And that even high stats ones are going to get turned down.</p>

<p>I think it works the same for everyone.</p>

527

<p>Curmie,</p>

<p>great post!!!</p>

528

<p>

</p>

<p>My S was REQUIRED to report his ethnicity in order to get paid for grading problem sets. It was not optional. </p>

<p>I’m sure the intent was not to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity!<br>
hmmm… Let’s see. Do we pay only Caucasians? What about the kid adopted from China by Causasian parents… Or the bi-racial kid? Only half-pay? The possibilities are endless.</p>

529

<p>For what it’s worth, a Harvard Crimson editorial on AA and Asian-Americans. I understand that a significant number of Crimson writers are Asian-Americans.
<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=515908[/url]”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=515908&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

530

<p>Interesting quote from that article:</p>

<p>“(Asian-Americans make up about 4.5 percent of the nation’s population, but only 10 percent to 30 percent of students at elite U.S. universities.)”</p>

<p>Why “but only”? This statement implies that the writer believes that 4.5 % should translate into a higher than 30% at elite colleges.</p>

531

<p>I should add that I know the article is in favor of diversity and the current process, but still, that one line struck me.</p>

532

<p>I think that line is just an example of bad late-night editing.</p>

533

<p>Lee, by the way is a good Irish name. Not southern, although Robert E. sure did bring plenty of honor to the name.</p>

<p>

All AA discriminates against somebody. Government bean-counters are alway breathing down the necks of schools & businesses to capture such data.</p>

<p>

I agree with garland. Simply stating that this is a very common Asian profile is not racism. Are we all going to pretend we haven’t noticed it? </p>

<p>

I think you misinterpreted posters here. I don’t see anyone stating that Asians should be competing against Asians for Asian spots. Rather, by choosing to get involved in very similar activities, the Asian kids are forcing that comparison. They will be treated the same as white runners & tennis players. But not against team players in contact/rugged sports. You may not agree, but the team sports are considered more indicative of character building & ability to work as a team-player & handle conflicts/disagreements. That’s why the two sport categories are evaluated differently.</p>

<p>If my 10 year old son plays h.s. football, as he hopes to, I can guarantee you right now that no Div 1A program will come calling. So his football EC will not gain him oohs & ahs from admissions. Maybe Japanese flower arraging would be the ticket? Who knows. I really am not crafting a “Get to the Ivy” schedule of ECs for my kids. They are too stubborn & noncomplient anyway!</p>

<p>My kids are musicians & I would love for that to give them a boost getting in where they want. But it certainly is not unusual. It is much more unusual for a kid to be capable of playing Div1A football than it is for a kid to be able to fit in as a college concertmaster. </p>

<p>

Again, I haven’t read any post indicating that.</p>

534

<p>Lets say the NBA passed a rule saying only 40% of the League’s players could be black - but claimed no one could call this discrimination against blacks because it represents more than 3 times the 11% black population in the United States - I suppose the pro-AA types would be perfectly happy with that</p>

535

<p>Citation, the NBA doesn’t use holistic review. Run, jump, pass, shoot. Pretty straightforward. THe NFL is probably the purest meritocracy, where tenths of a second seperate you from a multi-million dollar career or being cut. It’s just so much harder to be fair in the college world when there are so many different definitions of merit.</p>

536

<p>Put these links together, and one can see that colleges are not like the NBA–and should not be.</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=263145[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=263145&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://www.fairtest.org/facts/satvalidity.html[/url]”>http://www.fairtest.org/facts/satvalidity.html&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=263046[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=263046&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

537

<p>I am really surprised by how many people are taking Princeton’s side without really knowing the facts.</p>

<p>You can see how discrimination can linger for decades right under people’s noses.</p>

<p>It’s not like these elite schools ever discriminated against anybody. No. The people at these schools would never do that.</p>

<p>I don’t understand this geographic argument at all. Maybe if New Jersey kids are discriminated against we shouldn’t worry about discrimination of people in certain ethnic groups? OK.</p>

<p>If Stanford found discrimination in its admission process and has taken steps to fix these problems, maybe, Princeton has similar problems. Just maybe. Not for sure. Just maybe. Would it really hurt to find out?</p>

<p>I would like to know this…who knows with 100% certainty whether there has or hasn’t been discrimination against Asians in the admission process at elite schools and in particular Princeton?</p>

538

<p>Discussions of race and ethnicity can become quite frustrating and this board is no exception. Always try to avoid the heat while searching for the light. Best wishes.</p>

539

<p>I think we know for an absolute fact that there was discrimination at elite schools in the past. It is well documented.</p>

<p>Currently, when I see who has been admitted and who is denied, I think there is a large element of crap shoot involved. I have no idea whether or not there is discimination (against Asians or anyone else), but I will say that the vagaries of elite admission have had me scratching my head more than once. So, from my perspective, anything at all is possible.</p>

540

<p>DStark, I imagine my lack of enthsiasm for an investigation is because even if I accept the premise of the complant - that the average SAT scores of Asians accepted to Princeton is higher than the average SAT score of other ethnicities, I don’t see a problem with that. What I see a problem with is two things: the Ivy-centric insanity of parents, and the blithe acceptance of the assumption that a kid with a 2400 SAT score and 4.0 GPA is, by virtue of those facts “more qualified” to be accepted into X University than some other kid who “only” scored a 2100 and has a 3.9 GPA.</p>

<p>If the issue was who gets to go to college at all, and who doesn’t get that opportunity, there might be grounds for this kind of microscope on the admissions process. But it’s not. It’s over who goes to Princeton and who goes to Tufts, or NYU, or wherever. And in my opinion all of the students at all of the colleges would suffer if their student bodies were homogenized, either by race, or academic interests, or EC interests, or any other single criteria, beyond the requirement that they all be bright kids. Above all, college should be a time for kids to be exposed to different viewpoints, different ideas, and different assumptions. I’m pleased to see that the most selective colleges are following that philosophy, even if it ticks off some parents and kids who think that they have successfully checked off all the boxes which lead to “Ivy acceptance” but somehow aren’t accepted at every college they apply to.</p>

<p>Of course there’s “discrimination.” There has to be, unless you admit everyone who applies. The question is, is it “bad discrimination” or “good discrimination?” I don’t see anything in the complaint in this case which suggests “bad discrimination”, so what’s to investigate?</p>