<p>Your’re a lawyer, right Citation? I’m curious how a lawyer representing Mr. Li will deal with the overlap of characteristics that trigger equal protection concerns (like race) and those that don’t necessarily (like athletics or arts.)</p>
<p>
Nope. That 's not what I am saying anyway. I’m saying that exactly the same criteria are reviewed in determining whether or not someone can do (let’s say) P’ton level work. Beyong that, those criteria are not looked at again FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCLUSION. </p>
<p>Everything else that happens past this point isn’t exclusion, it is selection. There is a difference.The separators become the EC’s, the character, the rec’s , the feel the adcom gets about what this kid will bring to this campus, the feel the adcom gets on what the campus needs. </p>
<p>This is not racial and it’s not a mistake. Parents have been on here forever screaming about jocks given preference over gamers, socially adept over socially inept, outgoing over shy, legacies over non-legacies, rich over poor, anything my kid is over anything their kid is. </p>
<p>It’s the way of the world and scream and yell all you want but a rich, outgoing, socially adept, legacy, jock from Idaho has a bit of an advantage. That does not mean you have to like it but it doesn’t have a dang thing to with race. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So can anyone summarize what Stanford had been doing and what it’s doing now instead? I’m somewhat curious because the Stanford scattergram at our school looks completely different than any other scattergram. Out of 13 applications the two acceptences come from the middle of the pack. I know one was a legacy and a URM, I have no idea who the other student was.</p>
<p>
Do we have information so we know Princeton has not reviwed their admissions policies and outcomes? Just because it is not public knowledge does not mean it has not occurred. (We also have no info to tell us it has happened … we have no idea one way or the other (as far as I know)).</p>
<p>Sticker - I am admitted to DC among other jurisidictions, however as an attorney/accountant who in the past has worked primarily in the tax area - these questions certainly cannot be answered by me, instead it would take attorneys working with these issues on a day to day basis or constitutional scholars of some type </p>
<p>However, note at this point this is simply in the nature of an administrative action, - a complaint via The Dept of Education - Office for Civil Rights -where the presumed leverage (in a remote case) would be Princeton having their student loan programs potentially being put at risk - and this adminstrative agency is working within the structure of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which of course concerns race - but also is now in the context of recent Sup Court decisions which themselves have quite subjective specified criteria - the bottom line being there are no clear answers particuarly when Mr Li apparently is adding the issues of legacy, athletic and other preferences</p>
<p>Mr Li has filed no formal lawsuit and therefore I’m not sure even if he has a lawyer at this point</p>
<p>This link is to a Washington Post article from last year that discusses some aspects of the Stanford situation: <a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55160-2005Mar21.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55160-2005Mar21.html</a></p>
<p>Apparently, one of the things Stanford did was to train its interviewers on the subject of “shyness.” What I think they mean is that interviewers might have been misinterpreting culturally appropriate reserve on the part of Asian applicants as indicative of an undesired personality trait. It’s a really subtle point.</p>
<p>“So can anyone summarize what Stanford had been doing and what it’s doing now instead?”</p>
<p>Astute readers who have had the opportunity to participate in the countless threads on the issue of racial discrimination know that the references to Stanford date from one generation ago, and many, many classes ago. What are they doing today? </p>
<p>Without going in great details, Stanford is redoubling its efforts in reaching out to students in geographical areas it has not served well, as well as redoubling its efforts in reaching out to minorities that are underrepresented. Despite all the attacks on minority recruiting programs, one of Stanford’s focus is to increase its participation with programs such as ABC, Posse Foundation, and Questbridge. While such programs are hardly exclusionary on the race front, the objective is nonetheless pretty clear: Stanford net will be unfurled well beyond Palo Alto and California, and that it will continue to seek a student different from its regional competitors. When the school mentions that it fails in its recruitment in the South and Southeast of the United States, it does not take a Rhodes scholar to interpret what it as far as racial distribution of the students. </p>
<p>Last but not least, one should pay attention to the position of the faculty in departments such as Humanities about the need to refocus the school to a greater balance --meaning away from its “mostly” math and science reputation. Again, one could draw conclusions about what this may mean for the applicants’ pool of 2012 and beyond.</p>
<p>PS For the direct sources, check the Senate Minutes of Stanford for the presentation by Dean Shaw on the future of admissions at Stanford.</p>
<p>Again, one has to consider the timeliness of this report, if not the typical integrity of the education writers at the Washington Post!</p>
<p>When was the last year that Stanford offered interviews? Inasmuch as Stanford has PLANS to start working with its large alumni base and eventually offer interviews, that has not been the case recently.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So can anyone summarize what Stanford had been doing and what it’s doing now instead? I’m somewhat curious because the Stanford scattergram at our school looks completely different than any other scattergram. Out of 13 applications the two acceptences come from the middle of the pack. I know one was a legacy and a URM, I have no idea who the other student was.</p>
<p>Here is another link about that mentions Stanford and discrimination against Asians.</p>
<p><a href=“http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/10/asian[/url]”>http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/10/asian</a></p>
<p>From the article…</p>
<p>He also said that the bias is real — and cited his experience in his previous job as part of the admissions office at Stanford University. There, he said, the office did a study some years ago in which it compared Asian and white applicants with the same overall academic and leadership rankings. The study was only of “unhooked kids,” meaning those with no extra help for being an alumni child or an athlete. The study found that comparably qualified white applicants were “significantly” more likely to be admitted than their Asian counterparts.</p>
<p>Stanford’s admissions office responded with some serious self-reflection, he said, and officials now spend some time each year studying different kinds of bias — like letters that compare Asian applicants to other Asians — in an attempt to weed out any unfair judgments. With bias removed, he said, “there’s no way that a school or college can be considered too Asian.”</p>
<p>If Princeton really discriminates, the argument that they can’t do anything about it doesn’t work for me if Stanford can handle the issue.</p>
<p>xiggi, I may have misinterpreted the Washington Post article by assuming that the references to shyness pertained to interviews. It’s possible that the issue of shyness could also come up in other contexts. For example, a teacher or guidance counselor recommendation might mention that a student is “shy.”</p>
<p>Dstark, does context have ANY relevance to you? The comments by Reider are totally misleading. Since the “reflection period” started, more than an entire generation of students has been admitted at Stanford. </p>
<p>So, here we have ONE simple point of reference that is dated, to say the least, and … NOTHING since then! Any thoughts why that may be the case? Or would a simple walk through the campus provide a clue?</p>
<p>Xiggi, </p>
<p>I don’t know how to respond to you.</p>
<p>So if there was discrimination 20 years ago and it was fixed, and if (?) there is discrimination now someplace else, it can’t be fixed?</p>
<p>“Or would a simple walk through the campus provide a clue?”</p>
<p>Stanford fixed their problems. So why would walking around the campus today reflect a problem that doesn’t exist?</p>
<p>How are his remarks misleading?</p>
<p>If Stanford “fixed” its problems 20 years ago, doesn’t the fact that they gave Mr. Li the same answer as Princeton have some bearing here? I mean, here is a school that everyone is touting as “fairer”, without the geographic closeness that exists between Princeton and Livingston to account forthe denial, and yet he was still turned down by Stanford.</p>
<p>Dstark, I know how much you enjoy playing games! </p>
<p>Did you quote the references to Reider’s statement because they showed the problems might have existed and were fixed … or did you quote them to reinforce your viewpoint that discrimination exists today? </p>
<p>No, there is no need to answer that question! </p>
<p>However, you may ask yourself a different question: why wasn’t Mr. Reider more vocal about this issue from the day he was hired by Dean Jean Chu? It seems to me that, during his lengthy career at The Farm, he should have had plenty of opportunities to speak up about this thorny issue. Yet, did he not mostly speak about the need to develop the “intellectual vitality” among students, about the value of the liberal arts programs, and also about the positive value of the homeschool movement, or stress that grades and scores were NOT all that mattered?</p>
<p>Oh, by the way, would it be worthwhile to compare Princeton’s and Stanford’s change in the demographics of applications and admissions since the (Reider) study was made and Stanford was forced to reevaluate its bias and stereotypes?</p>
<p>“Did you quote the references to Reider’s statement because they showed the problems might have existed and were fixed … or did you quote them to reinforce your viewpoint that discrimination exists today?”</p>
<p>Yes to the first part, especially because Kluge said the problems couldn’t be discovered let alone solved if discovered.</p>
<p>To the second part, I have already said my gut tells me that there is discrimination or has been in very recent times. There are plenty of people arguing this point. As for Princeton, I don’t know.</p>
<p>“Oh, by the way, would it be worthwhile to compare Princeton’s and Stanford’s change in the demographics of applications and admissions since the (Reider) study was made and Stanford was forced to reevaluate its bias and stereotypes?”</p>
<p>It would be worthwhile, but it wouldn’t be conclusive. I hope you understand that distinction.</p>
<p>I noticed you didn’t answer my question.</p>
<p>What was misleading in Reider’s statements?</p>
<p>I was curious about the assertion that this complaint was based, not merely on SAT scores, but on the assertion that Asians are discriminated against when taking into consideration all of the “SAME CRITERIA” as are applied to other applicants. The only data source cited for the complaint was the Espenshade/Chung study based on data from the NSCE. That study is described thus:
Now let’s dig into that. The question is discrimination based on race, so that’s the unknown: X. I don’t think sex is an issue here, cancel that out of the equation. I’m assuming that “athletic ability” equates to “recruited athlete for college team” and not “was a really good high school tennis (or football, etc.) player” because there’s no objective way to assess high school athletic ability of non-collegiate athletes in that size of a cohort. So other than noting the athlete’s “hook” - and that of the legacy, for that matter, we’re left with SAT scores and “citizenship.”</p>
<p>I’m not sure how they quantify “citizenship” - number of hours of volunteer service, perhaps? But I’m dubious about the proposition that Asians are significantly more accomplished in this area than non-Asians. Which means, after you cancel out the non-relevant factors, the study concluded that Asians are statistically the victims of discrimination if the only valid factor under consideration is SAT scores. </p>
<p>But of course, SAT scores are not all of the “SAME CRITERIA” used in admissions decisions. So we’re left with people’s “suspicions” and “feelings” - and, of course, an ideologically-driven desire to attack anything which seems to favor historically disfavored minorities in any aspect of American life, in the guise of “fairness”. I think I’ll go with Mini and start calling this the “Anti-African-American” lobby.</p>
<p>Regarding geographic diversity - in most of the selective schools the number of kids from a particular state remains virtually unchanged from year to year? Coincidence? I don’t think so. The schools protestations to the contrary, and regardless of the exact way in which they choice to parse the language, geographic diversity is no doubt a goal in for the selective schools and that’s as it should be. However having a goal of geographic diversity is a completely different than the idea that racial ceilings or quotas of any kind are or should be acceptable. I can hardly believe that some of the posters here seem to be openly suggesting that it is. </p>
<p>I do agree with Citation’s basketball analogy. I too, have been scratching my head at all the references to overrepresentation as compared to numbers in the population. That is just another way of endorsing ceilings or quotas on people who are not even supposed to be considered as a separate group for purposes of admission! </p>
<p>Fortunately, there is the “minor” point that discrimination by race or ethnic background is totally illegal in this country as a matter of law and in a completely different category than selection of a class based on other factors! </p>
<p>Nevertheless, I believe this is an almost impossible case for any one individual to prove. I guess I’m just cynical in that I really do suspect that it is possible for schools to hide behind their “holistic evaluations” of students in order to accomplish any institutional goal (stated and unstated) they wish. Any biases that do exist become almost impossible to prove for any one individual. I really think that Li knows this and even knows his individual case may not amount to much on its own. His goal may be to raise awareness and demand that admissions offices (in this case he chose Princeton’s ) test this hypothesis and become more transparent on this issue. </p>
<p>BTW, Not only are there optional boxes where one is asked to check off ethnic background , but photographs of applicants are encouraged as well. It would be very interesting to completely eliminate the box and the photographs altogether for all non URM non hooked applicants and to also delete any reference to ethnicity from recommendations or interviews. If that happened, and an increase in numbers were the result it would be THAT difference that would suggest discrimination, NOT whether or not Asians as a group are overrepresented according to their percentage of the population as a whole.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Asian-American are “overrepresented” only when compared to the general population. However, their rate of overrepresentation should be even higher, since so many of them who were rejected were better qualified than many accepted students. What happened in Berkeley when race was no longer a factor in admission is evidence of this.</p>
<p>Roshke, you’ve missed the point, as have several others who are determined to believe that there is a deliberate “cap” on Asian admissions to some schools. No one who insists that this must be a case of “reverse dicrimination” appears to want to confront the phenomenon that there seem to be a lot Asian kids with very similar application profiles, with the predictable result that they drive down their individual prospects of acceptance at schools which routinely reject 50% of the applicants with perfect SAT scores. I don’t think anyone is arguing in favor of placing Asian kids at a disadvantage because they are Asian; the argument is that the Asian kids’ parents are putting them at a disadvantage by pushing them all into the same limited fields of intellectual, artistic and athletic endeavors.</p>