<p>The point of the NBA example - is that current (elite college) asian enrollee rates between 3 to 5 times their proportional representation in the general population of United States -does not in and of itself refute the charge of discrmination against asians</p>
<p>However I have repeatedly noticed posters making this precise argument - as if a certain threshold representation level would on its face negate discrimination</p>
<p>The talent level of the group ultimately determines the ceiling, not some arbitrary claim that the specified group is already “overrepresented”</p>
<p>Kluge, the issue of whether Princeton discriminates against Asians isn’t really at the top of my list. </p>
<p>The people I know well that have gone to Princeton can be added up by my fingers. Most of those people are good people. One is jerk, but I digress.</p>
<p>I would like to know what is going on at admissions at Princeton, but I am interested in college admissions, otherwise what would I be doing on here? :)</p>
<p>The bigger issue for me is just reading posts from very educated people. They are so sure of themselves and they don’t know crap.</p>
<p>I never got into the Duke rape case thread. That must have been an amazing thread. :)</p>
<p>Anyway, I agree with most of what you wrote, but my conclusion is a little different. I want to know what is going on.</p>
<p>I don’t think it would hurt for Princeton (and for that matter, other top schools) to take a look at its admissions process in the way that Stanford did, just to see whether Asian Americans are being treated as fairly as the adcoms would like them to be treated.</p>
<p>Stanford did this. Stanford was surprised by what it found and made changes as a result of its findings. Perhaps the same thing might happen at other colleges.</p>
<p>Citation, I agree that it’s a good analogy if college admissions were based on stats only. But admissions are holistic. Now, there is plenty of room in there to assign “desirability” to any characteristic or EC and therefore get the make-up (racial, geographic, whatever) that you sought all along. It’s pretty widely accepted that this was done to keep Jewish admissions rates lower than a stats-only policy would have done. I just don’t know how Mr. Li’s claim can be proven because colleges keep their admissions standards fairly fungible so they can admit whomever the heck they want.</p>
<p>Many of today’s Asian applicants and their parents believe that Asians are being treated today the way Jews were decades ago. And it is pretty much the consensus now that the way that Jewish college applicants were treated in the past was a disgrace. </p>
<p>I, for one, want to know whether this sort of thing is happening again, to a different group of people.</p>
<p>CITATION X, of course you’re not surprised at what you choose to misinterpret a conflicting opinion to be. And you can continue to avoid surprise by a scrupulous avoidance of any effort to understand what anyone other than your favorite bloggers and radio hosts say. But if you want to participate in the discussion in any way beyond shouting “RIGHT GOOD, LEFT BAD!”, here’s a tip: try to define “talent” when it comes to choosing the 1806th of 1807 students who will be offered admisison to Princeton next year.</p>
<p>Yeah, but as many posters have seen in our own little communities, Asian kids are selecting a very narrow group of ECs in which to participate. How many violinists and Mathletes does any college need? At CalTech, probably lots of Mathletes. Not so many at LACs. An orchestra has a finite amount of seats available in ANY section. But clubs, theatrical productions, etc., can, and do, spread like mushrooms at vibrant colleges. If Asian kids showed they were more likely to get involved in those activities, they would increase their likelihood of acceptance.
(I will add again that my d would appear very Asian on paper. I admire the dedication that music, math/science, and popular Asian activities require. I’m just not counting on those to make my “honorary Asian” d stand out from the crowd.)</p>
<p>Could this be interpreted as meaning something like “If Asian kids want to be accepted into top colleges, they would be well advised to stop acting so stereotypically Asian”?</p>
<p>And is this really much different from the pressure that Jews felt decades ago to deemphasize all aspects of their Jewish culture and heritage – a heritage that nowadays Jews are encouraged to embrace and celebrate? </p>
<p>If we REALLY want diversity in this country – including cultural diversity as well as a diversity in the appearance of people’s faces – is it really a good idea to encourage people to deemphasize their cultural heritage, including such aspects of that heritage as preferences in academic fields and extracurricular pursuits?</p>
<p>Besides, who says that a college can have many theatrical groups but must only have one orchestra? It would make just as much sense to have many orchestras and only one theatrical group, if that is what the interests of both the students and the potential audiences dictate.</p>
dstark, the geographical example is a good one to use because we don’t have to walk on eggshells. </p>
<p>I believe only about 15% of the kids entering Princeton are NJ residents. Is that “fair?” They make up more thatn 15% of the qualified application pool, I am told. Princeton states in the CDS that your state is not considered in their decision-making process. But maybe indirectly it is. Perhaps kids living on ranches or reservations are valued by Princeton. Not too many in NJ. Is this discrimination? Perhaps Princeton wants to reach out to first-generation college kids. Jersey has the highest education level of any state, so again, NJ is not the state to target if that kind of kid is what you value. Is this discrimination? Looking for poor kids? Again, NJ has the highest income level of all 50 states, so you better look elsewhere. You could give example after example of how discrimination is practiced. The very fact that rejecting applicants occurs, for whatever reason, is evidence of discrimination.</p>
<p>This discussion seems to be going in circles.
The point has already been made. Applicants–of whatever ethnicity–who apply in droves to the same majors, come from the same geographical areas, are involved in the same oversubscribed ECs are going to have a harder time being admitted, no matter what their ethnicity. </p>
<p>If an Asian-American violin and tennis-playing premed applicant from the Mid-Atlantic states or NE does not get into a top college, is it because the orchestra(s) do(es) not need more violin players, the college wants to fill its crew or football team, it wants to get more students from the Midwest, the profs are demanding more students interested in Classics or the study of religion, or is it because the applicant is Asian-American? </p>
<p>Some have drawn their conclusions one way, and others the other way.</p>
<p>On the issue of orchestras, we were told by an interviewer that it was a pity my S was a piano player; he’d have better luck if he’d been an oboe player. A prima facie case for suing? I suspect people would have laughed in our face if we had.</p>
<p>Marian, the funny thing about “diversity” is that we are encouraged to CELEBRATE our diversity & differences! But if we notice them, we are called bigots or racists.</p>
<p>I would change your sentence to read, “If ANY kids want to be accepted into top colleges, they would be well advised to stop acting so stereotypically Asian.” Simply because there is an ENORMOUS pool of qualified elite-admissions level candidates who happen to be Asian. Thus creating a glut of similar talents. Wonderful talents, yes. But similar nonetheless.</p>
<p>I will agree that emphasizing one’s cultural heritage, provided it is non-European and non-Eastern-Asian, will probably win points. I don’t think this is fair, but it is what colleges seem to be swooning over.</p>
<p>Citation X ain’t listening but I am glad to see we are back on the same side. ;)</p>
<p>I don’t know how to get any traction for the idea we both share that admissions at uber selects is not a 1500 meter run where there is a defined loser and winner and ranking 1 through whatever. I swear I have been in meetings with folks just like those on this thread. Folks who refuse to accept the idea that perfect stats does not mean acceptance over someone with lesser stats. That is usually followed by cardiac arrest when the same parent is told that “scholarships” at some of these uber-schools are not based at all on stats, but on who is from the humblest home.</p>
<p>This seems to fly in the face of all they believe and what they believe SHOULD BE. And as I said earlier, this refusal to understand ain’t an ethnic or racial thing (as I was once among them). It’s an “uninformed” thing, or in the case of some posters “a refusal to accept that the elite colleges believe differently so it must be prejudice” thing (or sometimes a “mistake” thing)- all because their little Johnny had better grades, class rank, and scores. </p>
<p>They view the acceptance to an elite school as the ultimate recognition of excellence in preparation for college, a grade, an award, a reward that goes to (or dang sure SHOULD go to) the most “deserving” student and that is simply NOT what it is. This is where the disconnect happens. How could that school possibly pick “lesser” student A over "better " student B? If the posters were being frank , they would admit that is exactly what they think. Their kid is better and more deserving - not equally deserving - MORE deserving of that spot. </p>
<p>How many times does an adcom have to say that several classes of kids just as qualified were denied before it sinks in?</p>
<p>One may assign different definitions to the term “talent” in the context of a student’s academic achievements - which colleges certainly examine, however the color of a person’s skin cannot in anyway be construed as being covered under any definition of this concept.</p>
<p>The reality is race today is currently being utilized as a material and often decisive factor in college admissions.</p>
<p>Jian Li has legitimate reasons to be filing such a complaint.</p>
<p>Marian, this has been stated pretty clearly several times. It’s not that the activities are “stereotypically Asian.” The problem is that if you have 50 kids whose applications look very similar, and 10 who look different, all else being roughly equal any one of the 10 are going to be statistically more likely to be accepted than any one of the 50. And the problem is that the academically elite Asian kids as a group tend to be less heterogenious in their interests than non-Asians (at least anecdotally, and I don’t see anyone on this thread challenging that perception.) </p>
<p>And I’d note: I know Asian kids who are totally counter to the perception - wrestlers, basketball and football players, etc. But they’re not Ivy League academic candidates. (Asia is a large continent.) It’s the universe of top academic Asian kids which seems to have been compressed - by their parents? - into a relatively small slice of the intellectual zone.</p>
<p>'Mudge - the thing I like about CC is that - with some annoying exceptions - the “alliances” are constantly shifting!</p>
<p>We can now see why race blind admissions will probably never happen, as the pro-affirmative action advocates (as demonstrated in here) will continue to insist that the Jian Li’s of the world are looking for guaranteed admissions based upon raw stats - when in fact they are simply requesting they be judged based on the SAME CRITERIA as other applicants</p>
<p>Did I miss something in Li’s complaint? Did he actually say anything about wanting to be judged on the same criteria as other applicants? I thought he was just complaining about a policy that purportedly allows quotas for the admission of other minorities?</p>
<p>"I believe only about 15% of the kids entering Princeton are NJ residents. Is that “fair?”</p>
<p>Geographic based “discrimination” simply doesn’t trigger equal protection type issues in a constitutional sense, and the same can be stated (in most cases) in regards to athletic, artistic, and legacy based preferences</p>
<p>In contrast race and ethnicity (and gender to a lesser degree) is another matter, as significant constitutional issues are now presented</p>
</p>
</p>