<p>marite said:Re Post #595:</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The offerings are there (Ph.D programs in Math, Physics, Bio, Chemistry, MB-BC.) It’s warm bodies they’re looking for. ;)</p>
<p>My bad. I knew that Wes had made great strides in these programs, and was looking for warm bodies.</p>
<p>On another note. I was wondering why Jian Li had decided to sue Princeton and not some of the other schools that also waitlisted him. </p>
<p>I looked at the Bowdoin CDS since, when we visited several years ago, the (Japanese-American) admissions officer made it clear that Bowdoin was trying to recruit more minorities and considered Asian-Americans to be minorities. I also looked at Harvard which does not publicize its CDS (at least in an easily accessible way) and reports percentages rather than figures. And finally at Princeton’s CDS.</p>
<p>So here goes:
Princeton 2005-2006 enrollment figures):
Af-Am: 403
APA: 623
Hispanics: 325
Total enrollments: 4761</p>
<p>Bowdoin (2005-2006 enrollment figures)
Af-Am: 101
APA: 204
Hispanics: 108
total enrolments: 1666</p>
<p>Harvard: Class of 2010:
Af-Am: 10.2%
APA: 21%
Hispanics: 4.7%
Total enrolled (class of 2010 only): 1684. </p>
<p>It looks like, compared to Bowdoin or Harvard, it is harder for an Asian-American to be admitted into Princeton.</p>
<p>Marite, you need more information to come up with your conclusion.</p>
<p>Dstark: Indeed. And I don’t know that the information that one would need to draw such a conclusion is available.</p>
<p>To conclude that there is discrimination, one would have to compare applicants with exactly the same stats, essays, recs, and ECs as well as geographical location, choice of majors, needs of the college, etc…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think these frivolous legal actions constitute harrassment of colleges and universities, where increasing minority enrollment is already a major institutional goal. If you read any elite college or university’s strategic planning, increasing non-white enrollment is a major, major goal.</p>
<p>On a related note: I have come to detest Linda Chavez’ CEO organization with a red hot passion ever since she had her legal team waged a legal challenge against Bryn Mawr, Haverford, and Swarthmore over their Tri-Co Summer program. This was a program started some 25 years ago to help already enrolled minority students adjust to college – a two week orientation/enrichment program before the start of freshman year. This is exactly the sort of the thing that the opponents of affirmative action claim they would like to see more of – programs to help prepare minority students for college. Here is a program, paid for by private funds, that is not hurting anyone. Yet, Chavez sees fit to go around the country using Gratz vs Bollinger to threaten legal action against these programs. Why?</p>
<p>Similarly, she has also been instigating legal challenges against privately-funded scholarship programs earmarked for minority students. Why?</p>
<p>That’s why I call her organization an Anti-African American lobby group. Her real motivation can only be to reduce the enrollment (and success of) minority students in elite colleges.</p>
<p>“the special diversity recruiting days during which colleges spend a fortune flying minority prospects to campus for overnight visits and special events”</p>
<p>Harvard Business does that with their MBA program, and the special one week(all expenses paid) program at one point was restricted to just minorities, although now they don’t explicitly state it that way. </p>
<p>Corporate sponsors (as part of their cherished "diversity) programs) pay for the travel and sometimes hotels and the B School pays for whatever is left, including food and other costs including professor time etc and othermisc expenses - and these same attendees (often upper middle class/wealthy blacks and hispanic) end up being given a huge advantage in gaining admission - entering with LSATs far below the range of other admittees</p>
<p>see <a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=347057[/url]”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=347057</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, they could even have LSAT scores of zero, as long as their GMAT scores are competitive. </p>
<p>If you make up stories, spend a modicum of time making them … believable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am also eagerly awaiting a response.</p>
<p>Marite you said, “Dstark: Indeed. And I don’t know that the information that one would need to draw such a conclusion is available.”</p>
<p>Marite, just stop there. </p>
<p>Interesteddad, you are probably waiting for some retort, but I respect your answers in post #605 to my questions.</p>
<p>“This was a program started some 25 years ago to help already enrolled minority students adjust to college – a two week orientation/enrichment program before the start of freshman year.”</p>
<p>Why not at least state the facts correctly?</p>
<p>The only change - to these specialized summer orientation programs such as Tri-co (other such programs are common at many universities) - mandated by recent Sup Court decisions, is to OPEN enrollment to ALL RACES, and not limit enrollment to selective races and ethnicities</p>
<p>“If you read any elite college or university’s strategic planning, increasing non-white enrollment is a major, major goal.”</p>
<p>The stated “goals” are irrelevant to whether the process of admission itself is lawful or unlawful under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and relevant court decisions</p>
<p>Of course, they could even have LSAT scores of zero, as long as their GMAT scores are competitive. If you make up stories, spend a modicum of time making them … believable.</p>
<p>Many of us have been required to take both the LSAT and GMAT and even more exams</p>
<p>However I believe the error was obvious on its face, and personally having the JD/MBA/LLM (plus bar exam/admission) combo - I sometimes confuse what test I took exactly when and what for</p>
<p>sorry for the error</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Supreme Court doesn’t care one iota about the Tri-Co Summer program at Bryn Mawr, Haverford, and Swarthmore. If anything, the Supreme Court justices (even Clarence Thomas) would probably applaud colleges spending their own private money to better prepare minority students for college and steadily improving graduation rates over two decades.</p>
<p>It is Linda Chavez and CEO organization, funded by anti-African American conservative groups, that is going from college to college finding any and all targets, and threating legal action that would tie up the schools for years in litigation.</p>
<p>Bryn Mawr, Haverford, and Swarthmore have racked up billable hours with their law firms and spent hours at Board of Managers meetings implementing changes to the program…all of which is a total waste of resources for a program that anyone who looks at the historic problems of minority education could only applaud.</p>
<p>One of the historic complaints with affirmative action is that minority students were not succeeding in these schools. Well, here is a program, implemented a 32 yeas ago, that has successfully addressed that problem. Begun in 1974 as a six week academic prep program for African American freshmen at Swarthmore, the program was changed in 1986 to address the changing needs as Latino and Asian American enrollment began to increase significantly. At that time, it was shortened to one-week, opened up to all minority students (including Asian Americans and Latino/a students that had become a significant part of the freshman classes), and shifted its focus from academic prep to cultural adjustment (i.e. how minority students could better cope on a historically white majority elite college campus). Since the Tri-Co program was opened up to Asian American students in 1986, Swarthmore’s Asian American enrollment has increased from 4% to 16%.</p>
<p>The issue is not whether white students are invited to a minority cultural adjustment orientation program. It’s not a big deal one way or the other. The issue is why Linda Chavez and her political lobby backers need to waste everyone’s time and money filing legal challenges to SEVENTY of these programs around the country – not just Swarthmore’s program, but Yale’s program, Harvard’s program, and Princeton’s program. </p>
<p>To then turn around and have Mr. Liu link up with these outfits and claim that these schools are discriminating against minority students is just absurd. I doubt that he has any idea how hard these schools have worked to increase Asian American enrollment and to provide a campus experience that is welcoming and comfortable. The people he is climbing in bed with want to undermine the very programs that have helped increase Asian American enrollment at these schools.</p>
<p>If anyone should be perturbed by the diversity efforts of these schools, it’s white students and parents. At Swarthmore, for example, white students have seen 48% of “their” slots in each freshman class go to African American, Latino/a, Asian American, and International students. White US enrollment has declined from 87.5% in 1976 to 58.3% in 2006, with by far the biggest beneficiary of that change being Asian American students. The white folk who attend and contribute to the college seem to be strongly supportive of the effort. Why should Linda Chavez care? Why should the federal government inject itself into a situation that is working well? What is the motivation here?</p>
<p>This race based program was doomed because it simply could not withstand constitutional scrutiny, and this was not about litigation expense. The issue was more basic: having no legal basis to sustain a case. Swarthmore’s own legal counsel told them precisely that. </p>
<p>From the (Swarthmore College) Daily Gazette, March 18th, 2005, this quote referring to President Al Bloom, Dean of the College at Swarthmore: </p>
<p>The article states as follows: </p>
<p>“Bloom read aloud a statement from Pepper Hamilton, Swarthmore’s legal advisor. Hamilton’s statement said, in no uncertain terms, that Swarthmore would lose in a lawsuit filed by organization such as the CEO.”</p>
<p>The article also previously states that “he (Gross) described the process that led up to the decision to open the program. Haverford received a letter from the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEo) threatening legal action unless Haverford ended its involvement with the Tri-Co program. The three Tri-Co schools met and solicited legal aid, and the recent Supreme Court decision barring the University of Michigan from holding a similar program caused the advice to be that the program would not stand up to a legal challenge. Once Haverford decided to pull out of any closed form of Tri-Co, Swarthmore solicited its own legal help and decided not to go it alone”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/daily/index.php?year=2005&month=03&day=18#n1[/url]”>http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/daily/index.php?year=2005&month=03&day=18#n1</a></p>
<p>Yes. I’m aware of the legal considerations. BTW, Haverford got the first letter from CEO, because it was their year to host Tri-Co (it rotates among the three colleges). CEO was demanding an immediate cancellation of a closed minority-only program.</p>
<p>The point is that nobody even remotely connected to Haverford, Bryn Mawr, or Swarthmore had any objection to the Tri-Co program. The ONLY complaint came in the form of a legal challenge from Linda Chavez’ CEO organization, whose sole function is to go around the country bringing challenges. Why?</p>
<p>How does threatening to sue Haverford, Bryn Mawr, and Swarthmore over a 32 year old program that helps minority students succeed in elite college education benefit society in any way? Does society benefit if minority graduation rates at Haverford, Bryn Mawr, and Swarthmore decline? Does society benefit if minority enrollment (including Asian American) at Haverford, Bryn Mawr, and Swartmore is driven down? What is the motivation here? Whose bidding is Linda Chavez doing?</p>
<p>BTW, there is concern that the next round of Chavez legal attacks will be focused on college funding of student support groups – the African American students associations, the Latino/a students associations, the East Asian students associations, the Southeast Asian students associations, etc. The colleges believe they can successfully fight these challenges, but it could be very costly. Again, why should they have to? Providing support mechanisms for minority students has proven to be crucial to their success at these schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When I was in college, the international students association was open to Americans. When I attended the Southeast Asia night at Harvard with my admitted S, I saw quite a few Caucasians among the performers of “traditional” dances and skits. I believe that most other ethnic groups are also open to all. This was also the case in S’s high school.</p>
<p>A link provided by Katonahmom on the Parent’s Forum is germane to this thread:
Colleges Practice Holistic Admissions
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=264167[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=264167</a></p>
<p>
I think most Americans would like to see a more color-blind approach to opportunity. Most would be very open to a program that helps disadvantaged kids, regardless of race. I know in the past, this program was open to rich minority kids who would have no difficulty succeeding at an elite college. That rubs people the wrong way. Opening it up to non-minorities is a godd thing, no?</p>
<p>The Swathmore program is one I was familiar with because of a co-worker. Here’s my perspective: Around 1985, I was a Rutgers grad (English major) looking to break out of my publishing low salary job & get into sales at a Fortune 100. I got into a temporary position in a department where new hires were evaluated & either bumped up or let go in a quick but brutal manner. I did well & was placed in the Young Management Development Group (or whatever it was called,) which was made up of Ivy leagers, elite LAC kids, and kids from some traditional black colleges like Howard. One of my co-workers & I hit it off & would commute together if the gang stayed out for drinks. He was one of those Swathmore minority kids who had been given special adjustment programs before the start of school. He was a black kid from a Catholic h.s., middle-class with two working parents. I was white, Catholic h.s., widowed mom. Definitely less advantaged than he from a $$$ standpoint. I was in awe of the program. He was a lucky guy, I thought, because programs such as this would never enter into the realm of possibility for a kid like me. I couldn’t even afford the transportation costs, never mind pack up & leave behind the family responsibilities I had to shoulder. (I commuted to college. Walked some days…through the snow…ha-ha.) The funny part about it, is he met his future wife at this program. She (also black,) was the d of a wealthy OBGYN. Economically disadvantaged white kids like me were left scratching our heads about why the doctor’s kid was fussed over and treated as someone incapable of handling college. Within a year or so, I became that kid’s boss, by the way. </p>
<p>Fast forward 20 years & I’ve heard much the same argument over and over. It’s disadvantaged kids who need the boost, not necessarily minority kids. I’m no longer disadvantaged, far from it, but I have a real soft spot in my heart for kids like me who have the stats for elite schools, but not the family circumstances that can make that a reality. I hope opportunity is expanded for everyone. I should really check out Chavez & her group before forming an opinion. (Her own kids are minorities, by the way, eligible for boosts & bumps by nature of their race. Even though she is loaded.)</p>
<p>“It’s disadvantaged kids who need the boost, not necessarily minority kids.”</p>
<p>That is the crust of the race based boost opposition.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>So, how did this story end? Did you cut him any breaks because he was Black? Or, did you feel you had to bend over backwards and not show any favoritism? Interesting dilemma considering the feelings you had at the time.</p>