<p>Yes, but the decline is confined to the “low-income” Asian students.</p>
<p>Hmmm…the UC system was supposedly the most stats based system in the country. How is it that white numbers didn’t fall? Very curious.</p>
<p>Why do you call it a zero sum game, padad? Also, I agree that Affirmative action for AfAm is a cost for society but I don’t look at it as a personal ‘expense’. Or if I did look at it that way, I would quickly find that my bright boys can well afford to pay that cost by going to a (slightly) lesser ranked university–which still gives them amazing opportunities. The ‘expense’ won’t affect the course of their lives.</p>
<p>Wouldn’t bright Asian students view it in the same way? If not, why not?</p>
<p>Cheers, For most “low-income” Asian American students, UCLA and Berkeley are their dream schools. My lament is not on affirmative action but that procedural changes in UCLA’s admission clearly made it more difficult for this particular group of students.</p>
<p>
I don’t know about this current year but the percentages of Whites at the top UC schools has declined and percentage of Asians increased for years.
<a href=“http://www.aim.ucla.edu/profile.html[/url]”>http://www.aim.ucla.edu/profile.html</a></p>
<p>UCLA changed its admissions evaluation criteria (more ‘holistic’ now) for the fall 2007 class which is likely what resulted in some changes in percentages.</p>
<p>padad/cheers - do you have a link to the stats you’re referring to?</p>
<p>
Given that race is still not used as a criterion in UC admissions, what do you think changed that had this result on this group? Were other groups affected as well? Again, if the percentage of a particular demographic goes up then those percentage points must come from other groups.</p>
<p>Okay…I get it. It makes sense. Admissions systems that rely on stats will admit a higher percentage of first and second generation Asian and European immigrant students. The stats based system is comparable to the admissions systems for universities in Asia and Europe.</p>
<p>I’m in favor of the Stats plus ECs admissions system used in the US–even though I acknowledge that it has flaws and weaknesses. For me, the flaws in the stats-based system are more disagreeable.</p>
<p>uc’s-dad, my information came from the NYT sunday magazine cited above. The article aslo indicated that a UCLA law school professor had requested the data. Presumably, the data will become publicly available in the future. The NY Times article singled out a fall in “low-income” Asian and indicated no decline in well to do students.</p>
<p>The article also cited that “U.C.L.A. administrators say they don’t fully understand why” Hopefully UCLA will make an effort to figure out what lies underneath the fall of low-income Asian students and will make corrective measures in the future.</p>
<p>I’ve read the first twenty pages or so of this thread and I can’t believe some of the faulty logic I’m seeing – from adults!</p>
<p>To interestingdad (perhaps long gone, I don’t know), who posted that Swarthmore may give Asian Americans an admissions advantage because Swarthmore admits a much higher % of Asians than other ethnic groups: You’re assuming that each ethnic group deserves the same acceptance %, and that any positive fluctuations indicate a so-called boost. If 50% of Asian Americans are well rounded students who would make a good addition to Swarthmore, and 25% of Caucasians are well rounded students who would make a good addition to Swarthmore, then if 36% of Asians are accepted and 25% of Caucasians are accepted, then even though MORE asians are being accepted, they are being discriminated AGAINST, not FOR. </p>
<p>It is a VERY common technique for proponents of AA type policies to cite statistics (whose veracity I do not question) indicating that Asians are being admitted at high rates to colleges than other ethnic groups. These facts are NOT an indication of any kind of bias in favor or against Asians.</p>
<p>On this thread and many others, I have seen a blatant stereotyping of Asian Americans, and public tolerance thereof, that I find highly disconcerting. Even colleges have no problem making statements that imply the typical Asian kid is the “academic nerd/grinder”! When criticized for stereotyping, people argue that the stereotype is usually true. But let’s make a little comparison. It’s no longer politically correct to stereotype African Americans as “cocaine-snorting, do-rag wearing thugs”, but there is no question that the majority of underperforming urban high schoolers are African Americans and Latinos. (Go to any of the regular -level classes in my overcrowded, urban public high school and I guarantee that you will see 75% African Americans/Latinos). So why is it practically a hate crime to espouse stereotypes of African Americans which are equally true or false as stereotypes of Asian Americans? The fact is that both, in a general sense, are more often true than not, but because of inherent flaws with the very idea of a “stereotype”, African Americans can no longer be stereotyped in public. I argue that to characterize a typical Asian American as a pencil pushing, glasses wearing dorkus is equally criminal.</p>
<p>And another example of faulty reasoning I’ve seen trumpeted quite a few times on this thread: just because Li got into Yale, he doesn’t have a right to question “The System”? As an intellectual and passionate young adult, I think he has every right to challenge the admissions process if he feels that he has been wronged, his Yale acceptance aside. I read on some article that over the summer, Li collected standardized test scores and other quantitative measures of high school performance from his colleagues. While his friends were playing Playstation and watching American Idol, he had found something that troubled him, and that motivated himself enough to compile his own data and try to make something of it. However, people on this thread are insulting him for being “Just Another Asian Grade Whore”… disgusting.</p>
<p>Cheers, A holistic approach with EC’s will not work well unless it takes into account of social economic differences among applicant groups. Low-income students may not be able to participate in EC’s.</p>
<p>amb3r, Well, many of us here are more than just young-at-heart. Unfortunately, it is fairly reflective of the general public.</p>
<p>I see your point, pa. I have learned (from mini) that the mission of attending to lower income students is losing ground and I agree that is unfortunate–across all ethnic groups.</p>
<p>Asian students tend to be good students because their families value education. It is a widespread cultural value. </p>
<p>That I believe that statement doesn’t necessarily mean that I believe that all Asian students are ‘grade-grubbing’. Far from it. Two of the best students that I’ve ever met were Asians with phenomenal ECs. One was the HK Chinese American child of middle class academics and benefitted from the opportunities presented by her academic parents rather than expensive ECs. The other was a Korean boy from an immigrant family with limited means. As a seven year old, he fell in love with a certain kind of plant. He nurtured that passion in the libraries and in his mother’s kitchen window. He then fell in love with fish and developed a quite radical theory about fish. Neither of these passions were expensive ECs. None of these ECs had anything to do with grades. In the last instance, high stats were not a determining factor for university admission.</p>
<p>Both of these children were superb students from a very early age and both are stellar, creative university students.</p>
<p>Cheers, one of the changes they made at UCLA admissions was have the same person evaluate both the essay/EC portion of the application and the academic portion. The writer also mentioned that more essays this year mentioned race. The implication was that readers who knew the ethnicity of the applicant perhaps ended up rating the academics somewhat differently. It doesn’t really explain why readers feel sorrier for disadvantaged African Americans than disadvantaged Asians, but it appears that the results are because the process is less numbers driven this year, combined with readers getting a more complete picture of the applicant.</p>
<p>Amb3r, here’s the problem with your analysis: first, you exalt Li’s efforts to analyze “standardized test scores and other quantitative measures” to prove he was wronged because he was accepted at some, but not all, colleges he applied to - then you complain that Asians are stereotyped for a tunnel-vision pursuit of grades and tests scores as the be-all and end-all in college admissions.</p>
<p>Do you see the contradiction in your own argument? You want Asians to be perceived individually, and not as stereotypes, for purposes of argument, but then you use the same crude generalizations about the overarching value of the stereotypical accomplishments of the discriminated-against Asians to prove your point. We all know Asian kids who don’t fit the stereotype (few who are Harvard candidates, of course, the same as with the kids we know of other ethnicities.) But the argument we keep hearing is:
students with higher “stats” should all be given preference in admissions,
Asians have higher stats,
therefore any Asian with high stats who isn’t accepted by every college he applies to is a victim of discrimination.</p>
<p>I’m the Dad of a kid who averaged well over 700 in every one of the 5 SAT sections required for UC admissions - and who was rejected from Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD, despite having cumulative test scores way above the 75th percentile at each. Make no mistake: hundreds of Asian kids were admitted to those schools with lower SAT scores than my son. And I don’t disagree with those decisions, I don’t think he was discriminated against, and as a lifelong California resident and taxpayer, I don’t disapprove of UC’s standards (even though they will probably work to my daughter’s disadvantage as well.)</p>
<p>It’s gratifying to wallow in self-pity. It’s more productive to investigate why what you perceive as a personal injustice may actually be the fairest resolution for all concerned, even if it doesn’t work in your favor.</p>
<p>
I disagree with this premise. Mini is always using Pell Grant recipients as the definition of low income. That is an arbitary income level. $500 more per annual family income will bump a kid out of Pell Grant range. He’s still low income though! Many colleges are trying to get the word out that they DO in fact, accept & give aid to low income kids. But large numbers of them are just slightly over the Pell Grant cut-off. I think it would be much more useful to see number of kids listed by income ranges, rather than the knee jerk, and arbitrary, Pell Grant designation.</p>
<p>As to Li’s data collection — Don’t know how accurate it was, as many kids in Livingston refused to give him their stats. Of those that did, how accurate is self-reported data anyway?</p>
<p>I think that there’s a big gray area between stereotypes and accurate statements of cultural differences. I certainly think it fair to say that in many Asian families cultural pressures lead to decisions that tend to increase children’s grades and test scores while deemphasizing other activities. This cultural difference contributes to the stereotype of Asian students as “grade-grubbers.” It’s not fair to the individual student to be pigeonholed in this way, but I don’t think it make sense to fight stereotyping by dening the existence of cultural differences.</p>
<p>There surely are obvious cultural differences. That’s fine. But when applying to colleges, holistic is the buzzword. Whether one agrees with holistic adimissions or not, it’s not wise to pretend that high stats mean one is a shoo-in. </p>
<p>I can only speak about my town. The Asian kids don’t take part in summer sports programs much or go out for summer musical theater programs. They are taking SAT prep courses. Our tennis team is virtually all Asian, and when walking by the bleachers where the kids keep their bags & gear, I see several copies of the SAT Blue Book left out. Improving stats is definitely the priority. I can imagine that it is disapointing to put so much effort into SATs, even forgoing normal teen activities, and then be denied admission when the jock or actress gets a spot with lower stats. But colleges are not pulling a fast one here. They clearly state that stats are not the only driving force in admissions. They ask for passions to be demonstrated & unique personalities to be revealed in essays. If you don’t want to believe the clear message the colleges are sending, you are likely to be disappointed. The jock & the actress were listening & were rewarded for giving the college what it asked for.</p>
<p>Stanford, which now has one of the highest percentage of Asian students among the elite privates had openly admitted that there was in fact bias against Asian applicants prior to their corrective measures. </p>
<p>Aren’t tennis players jocks? For every anecdote on Asian student taking test prep, one invariably can come up with counter examples. I fail to see your point. Furthermore, given that the percentage of Asian students at elite colleges far exceeds their percentage in the general population, your logics could only lead to the conclusion that in general, the Asians students have better EC’s than any other subgroups, and as a result are more successful in gaining admission into these elite colleges.</p>
<p>What is the percentage at Stanford? Do you think it would benefit American society to have all the elites at that percentage, pa? Why?</p>
<p>There are anecdotes to refute most stereotypes, but among my Asian friends, the discussion of over-emphasis on education is a common refrain. It is something they consider with great care. However, they also laugh about being scolded by western kindergarten teachers when they asked about the homework (which would have been given in Asian kindergartens). They laugh at their visiting parents who continually ask why their children don’t have more homework. They shake their heads as they describe their shallow BILs who care ‘too much’ about money and higher education and nothing else. When higher education is so central to cultural values, these topics are discussed every day. Even on CC, the funniest thread ever written described what it was like to be the child of Asian parents–and most of the comments reaffirmed the stereotypes. </p>
<p>Is it so distasteful when other races join in the discussion–or the laughter?</p>
<p>“Do you think it would benefit American society to have all the elites at that percentage, pa? Why?”</p>
<p>why not?</p>