<p>Yale lists identical factors as being “very important” but does not list volunteer work or work experience as factors that are considered – so right there, in the published data, we see some criteria that set Princeton & Yale apart. Perhaps Li came up short on community service. </p>
<p>But the main point is that the schools list a whole series of subjective criteria as being equally important to their decision as the SATs and GPA/class rank. That makes sense, because their applicant pools consists almost entirely of students who with high end scores and grades, so it would be the subjective considerations that separate them.</p>
<p>I think there are colleges that would accept a ham sandwich if it had 1600 SATs, but not the type of colleges and universities we are discussing in this thread.</p>
<p>Four out of five wouldn’t even acknowledge Mr. Li’s 1600 SAT score with a courtesy waitlist.</p>
<p>Here’s the thing. When top American universities make up their list of what they want to see in an application, high SATs and grades are not #1 and #2 on the list. They are a sub-bullet.</p>
<p>The list, IMO, looks like this:</p>
<h1>1. A kid who will make an impact on the world, either through business success, humanitarian activities, a powerful political career, or intellectual or creative achievement.</h1>
<h1>2. A kid who will help the university meet its economic goals, either by paying full fare, having alumni parents who have already shown willingness to donate, having non-alumni parents who have a great capacity to donate or bring in $$$ some other way, or as an athlete who wins sport contests - making many alumni very happy so that they give yet more $$$.</h1>
<p>Kids who further both goals must look like jackpots:).</p>
<p>Grades and SATS are supposed to be proxies for #1. For future scholars, or scientists maybe, probably a pretty good predictor. For politicians and business people? Not so good.</p>
<p>The premise of his suit does hold merit. Anytime you use racial preference as a factor for admissions, you are reducing the chances of those not in the preference categories. The fact that URMs get a special review in many schools, including Yale and Princeton does impact the number of seats available for those who do not qualify as URM. This has been the bone of contention for affirmative action from the get go. In school like Yale and Princeton, there are many candidates rejected from one such school and accepted at another since a number of the seats left for the number of qualified applicants is woefully inadequate. There is an element of chance in who gets the seats at these schools. </p>
<p>As for Asian kids being affected more than caucasian kids, I am not sure how anyone can come up with any stats regarding that. Most Asians I know do not identify themselves as such on the app as that section is optional. Many caucasians are doing the same. When colleges compile their stats, they have to use the info given by the students, otherwise it gets ludicrous as to coming up with a consistent way of indentifying ethnic types. You really can’t go by name or trying to gleam info from the app. I know in some face books, there is a clear discrepancy in the number of asians reported in the college stats and the asian faces you can identify in the publication. To attempt to see the difference in admission rates between those asians who identified themselves as such on the apps and those who did not would be interesting, but there has not been anyone who has come up with an accurate way to get that info. </p>
<p>I think the Michigan Supreme Court ruling made it clear that the effect of using URM as a positive factor in admissions is permissable even though it does, in the end, mean fewer seats for those not in the URM category. I think that this young man’s suit falls under the umbrella of that decision and that it is a waste of his time pursuing this.</p>
<p>The kid might just as well file a complaint that he is being discriminated against because he attended high school in New Jersey. In fact, that argument might demonstrably have more merit – it is well known that elite colleges strive for geographic diversity – and Princeton probably get a disproportionate number of applicants from NJ – so statistically it probably can easily be shown that Princeton routinely admits kids from South Dakota with weaker stats than kids from the top public high schools in NJ. </p>
<p>The whole complaint is premised on a failure to understand the nature of college admissions. It is a highly competitive process in which the ultimate goal of the university is to admit a class that is as diverse and varied as possible – ethnic or racial diversity is only a small part of the picture. The bigger part is the goal of bringing in students with the range of talents and interests that will support all aspects of academic and student life on campus. In that context, the key to getting in is to be both excellent and different. In that context, any attempt of the student to compare himself to another student fails, because the more one student is like another, the less attractive he is as a candidate.</p>
<p>The Opportunity Cost of Admission Preferences at Elite Universitiesis based previous study by Espenshade, Chung, and Walling Admission Preferences for Minority Students, Athletes, and Legacies at Elite Universities. Social Science Quarterly 85(5):142246, 2004</p>
<p>from the original study:</p>
<p>Objective. ** This study examines how preferences for different types of applicants exercised by admission offices at elite universities influence the number and composition of admitted students. Methods. Logistic regression analysis is used to link information on the admission decision for 124,374 applications to applicants’ SAT scores, race, athletic ability, and legacy status, among other variables. Results. Elite universities give added weight in admission decisions to applicants who have SAT scores above 1500, are African American, or are recruited athletes. ** a smaller, but still important, preference is shown to Hispanic students and to children of alumni. The athlete admission “advantage” has been growing, while the underrepresented minority advantage has declined. </p>
<p>Conclusions.** Elite colleges and universities extend preferences to many types of students, yet affirmative action-the only preference given to underrepresented minority applicants-is the one surrounded by the most controversy.**</p>
<p>Findings:</p>
<p>Model 1 is estimated using only those cases that report race and SAT score. The odds ratios are roughly the same in the two models, apart from the effect of being a non-U.S. citizen. A comparison of the other models in Table 6 with Model 1 shows that each set of interaction terms is significant at the 0.001 level. The penalty for scoring less than 1200 on the SAT is significantly greater for African-American and Hispanic students than the penalty for white students who score less than 1200 2). Similarly, the reward (i.e., increased likelihood of admission) that is produced by scoring more than 1300 is significantly smaller for African-American and especially for Hispanic students than the reward for white students who score more than 1300. </p>
<p>Models 5 and 6 add athlete and legacy status, respectively, to Model 4.*** Being a recruited athlete significantly improves one’s chances of being admitted to an elite university. The odds of acceptance for athletes are four times as large as those for nonathletes. Put differently, the athletic advantage is roughly comparable to having SAT scores in the 1400s instead of the 1200s. Legacy applicants also receive preferential treatment in admissions. Children or other close relatives of alumni have nearly three times the likelihood of being accepted as nonlegacies.*** The SAT effect is somewhat “steeper” when athlete status is controlled, but it changes little when legacy status is added. These results are partly explained by the fact that athletes in the applicant pools have lower average SAT scores than nonathletes (1298 vs. 1335), whereas there is a smaller gap between legacies (1350) and nonlegacies (1332).</p>
<p>**the largest admission preferences are conferred on applicants who have SAT scores above 1400, who are African American or Hispanic, and who are athletes or legacies. **</p>
<p>The athlete advantage is weaker than the preference for African Americans, but stronger than the preference for Hispanic or legacy applicants. The legacy preference, while substantial, is less than that shown to Hispanics. Using the estimated logistic regression coefficients, it is possible to convert the magnitude of these preferences to a common SAT metric. The bonus for African-American applicants is roughly equivalent to an extra 230 SAT points (on a 1600-point scale), to 185 points for Hispanics, 200 points for athletes, and 160 points for children of alumni. The Asian disadvantage is comparable to a loss of 50 SAT points.</p>
<p>[color=blue]The biggest flaw with this study overall is that it speaks to colleges would prefer to have and not what is actually happening in admissions at these schools (and there is a big difference between the 2). [/b</p>
<p>Espenshade, Chung, and Walling conclude their article by stating:</p>
<p>The relative weights assigned to different student abilities are in constant motion, and our data indicate that admission officers at elite universities are placing a declining weight on belonging to an underrepresented minority student group, whereas the admission advantage accruing to athletes has been growing. By 1997, in fact, being a recruited athlete mattered more than any other type of admission preference we have examined. A subsequent article in this journal will consider the opportunity cost of admission preferences (Espenshade and Chung, forthcoming). Who are the winners and losers from current admission practices?</p>
<p>Examining preferences for recruited athletes and children of alumni in the context of admission bonuses for underrepresented minority applicants helps to situate affirmative action in a broader perspective.** Many different student characteristics are valued by admission officers and receive extra weight in highly competitive admissions. It is all part of a process that views academically selective colleges and universities as picking and choosing from many different pools or queues in order to create a first-year class that best advances institutional values and objectives.**</p>
<p>Espenshade and Chungs study basically shows a halo effect and because it is a Princeton study, there could possibly be no problems and every one takes it as gospel when infact there was an article last week that stated Espenshade and Chungs own data was contridictory.</p>
<p>There was an article in Chronicle of Higher Education 6-21-2006 By PAULA WASLEY
that states:</p>
<p>State Bans on Affirmative Action Have Been of Little Benefit to Asian-American Students, Report Says</p>
<p>Contrary to predictions in a widely cited 2005 study that said Asian-American students were the biggest losers in affirmative action, those students made only minor gains at law schools when the practice was banned in three states, according to a new study.</p>
<p>What one should remember that when it comes to elite college admission it never has been a system that was soley based on merit (it started out based on who you were related to and how much money you had and the student population was overwhelmingly rich white men)</p>
<p>Now the shift has been to have a diverse population that realizes that learning happens both inside and out side of the classroom and it takes a variety of multiple intelligences (not simply scores and grades) to make up a community that carries out the school’s institutional mission. </p>
<p>As other’s have mentioned Li was not short when it came down to the quantitative factors to be admitted in to the schools where he was denied admission. However, somthing in his application may have fallen short where it came down to the qualitative factors. It would be one thing is Princeton was alone in stating that Li was not a good fit for their school, but they were not the only as 4 other colleges/universities came to the same conclusion</p>
<p>“My d. got an 800 Verbal at age 13 (would have been 8th grade), one of 7 in the country, and her math wasn’t far behind.” </p>
<p>Merit?</p>
<p>Yes. mini your D must be extraordinary. For a 13 year old to score 800 in Verbal means that she must have been an avid reader. Was able to make connections, (more you read the brain expands and gets a good workout), logically ‘guess’, draw conclusions from incomplete data. etc etc.</p>
<p>The math portion is same. The problems are not hard. Instead of 30 min/section if they gave 60 min/section most can do those problems. The easy ones are single step, and it progressively become multi step and may have combination of different areas e.g. geometry + algebra. Here again, kids who can ‘visualize’ the problems can score well. Those who totally rely on ‘mechanistic’ way of solving the problems run out of time.</p>
<p>(I bet if she took IQ test she would score 3, 4 or 5 sigma above the average)</p>
<p>I think Mr. Li’s case would be stronger if he had been accepted to ALL of his uber-selective colleges EXCEPT for Princeton. Then he could argue that except for Princeton’s discrimination against Asians, he would have been accepted by them also.</p>
<p>However, looking at his goose eggs, his waitlist from Princeton, and his acceptance from Yale–I’d say that it looks like he should count his many blessings and move on with his life.</p>
<p>I applaud the student for filing his “lawsuit” because we will finally be able to put an end to all this non-sense of discrimination. We will finally be able to move past the shoddily researched and misleading books (read Golden) or other sensationalistic pieces that report the mythical tales of quotas and blatant discrimination against Asian students (read Kirsanow and a few other lunatics.) </p>
<p>In a few months, we will again be able to point a dismissive finger to the definitive absence of lawsuits that have successfuly demonstrated discrimination against Asian students in admissions, and this despite the obligation of our government to investigate each and every complaint.</p>
<p>In the end, we’ll go back to the sad conclusion that a subset of our population is indeed angry and disappointed … because the system that worked so well by rewarding a combination of hard work and the pursuit of solitary awards … has stopped yielding the same highly predictable results. </p>
<p>All the low hanging fruits have been picked; time has come for the Asian students to realize that the old well is running dry, and that it is best to shed the Stepford children image, as well as their illusory notions of entitlement and erroneous ideas of meritocracry. </p>
<p>Yes, let’s hope there will be a few more similar cases brought up … and swiftly dismissed. That might free the time to combat the real roots of the problems that forces our society to still HAVE to rely on AA to correct social and educational imbalances. Unfortunately, the day when we will be able to abolish AA is not in a too distant future.</p>
<p>Please get the fact right before you make any insulting comments towards Mr.Li.</p>
<p>Here is what WSJ said about Mr.Li:</p>
<hr>
<p>Along with Yale, he won admission to the California Institute of Technology, Rutgers University and the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art. He said four schools – Princeton, Harvard, Stanford and the University of Pennsylvania – placed him on their waiting lists before rejecting him. “I was very close to being accepted at these schools,” he said. “I was thinking, had my ethnicity been different, it would have put me over the top. Even if race had just a marginal effect, it may have disadvantaged me.”</p>
<p>To belittle others by twisting the fact doesn’t make your argument any stronger.</p>
<p>Mr. Li was accepted by Yale and Caltech, instead of just being happy and going on with life like you suggested, he did otherwise, he came out to fight for what he believes is not right. Asian is overrepresented in the elite campus is a fact, yet the elite college admission bar for Asian is a lot higher then other ethnic is also a well known fact. IT is a problem and Mr.Li just wanted to bring the attention to this issue. What makes you think he deserve a title like ‘Jerk’ that you so insist to give him? </p>
<p>Based on you logical, when Mr.Martin R. King came out to fight for civil right, he was a lot better-off then other Affam, he should be just quite and live a happy life, but he didn’t, are you going to give him that ‘J***’ word?</p>
<p>You just want YOUR right, but let others shut up, that’s what behind all those hatred words.</p>
<p>“Yes. mini your D must be extraordinary. For a 13 year old to score 800 in Verbal means that she must have been an avid reader. Was able to make connections, (more you read the brain expands and gets a good workout), logically ‘guess’, draw conclusions from incomplete data. etc etc.”</p>
<p>Yes. But there was no “merit” involved whatsover (other than answering questions for three hours.) She did nothing to “deserve” what she was given as a result. </p>
<p>Espenshade and Chung’s study is faulty on its face because they took as their sole measure of academic “merit” a measure that is not intended to measure merit at all. (They could have asked the people who designed the test.)</p>
<p>Huh? What does that mean? Did something get lost in translation from “Asian”?</p>
<p>I fundamentally agree with mini and marite’s suggestion that the evidence would likely show that Asians do proprotionately (or disproportionately) well in the general-purpose admissions pool, after athletes, legacies, URMs, etc. are set aside. But I am disturbed at some of the anger at Asian kids and the stereotypes that permeate this discussion, like xiggi’s reference to “the Stepford children image”. Honestly, that tells me it is not altogether impossible that Asian kids do face subtle discrimination in the admissions process.</p>
<p>The fact that ethnic Asians are under 5% of the general population and 13% of the students at Princeton tells me nothing at all, except that people are saying the same thing about Asians that they used to say about Jews. When I was applying to college, Jews were far less than 5% of the general population, but they were about 30% of the student body at Harvard and Yale, and 20% at Princeton (15% of men there). I believed, as did many others, that Princeton had an informal quota for Jews. The fact that Jews were still overrepresented at Princeton versus their numbers in the general population did not make that more palatable.</p>
<p>One more thing – A lot of people have been talking about the different status of private vs. public colleges. It is true that the 14th Amendment does not apply directly to private colleges. But except for schools that refuse federal dollars (like Bob Jones U.), Title VI (the race equivalent of Title IX) pretty much eliminates the distinction. There are some technical doctrinal differences, but certainly no free pass for discrimation.</p>
<p>99% of asians have a last name that can be easily identified as asian , same as caucasian. Mr. Li and majority of the asian don’t have to put on ‘asian’ in their application form to reveal their ethnic, their names tell everything.</p>
<p>I’m struck by how many people on this board resort to the stereotype that Asian students devote more time to academics than extracurricular involvement, and consider that reason enough for (a) Asians’ higher SAT scores and (b) Asians’ disproportionate rejection rates (disproportionate to demonstrable merit; not only in terms of grades and SAT scores, but also in terms of those extracurriculars you deny they participate in). You seem very comfortable with spouting this stereoype. </p>
<p>What about blacks? What stereotype do you have about black people that explains away their lower SAT scores?</p>
<p>Oh, no, that’s racist–but calling Asian students “textureless math grinds,” as an MIT admissions officer did, with no repurcussions, is just stating a fact? Since when was stereotyping only racism as such when perpetrated against blacks?</p>
<p>Also, I don’t know why this board is so caught up about Jian’s particular merits for university admission. This case, as he’s said in a number of articles, wasn’t about his revenge, or his desire to transfer to Princeton. (A number of statistical studies by economists have actually shown that the cross-yield between Yale and Princeton, the percentage of kids who, if admitted to both would choose either, is precipitously in Yale’s favor. I know Harvard’s stat is 75% would choose Havard; 25% would choose Princeton, but I forgot the exact numbers for Yale. In any case, it’s pretty clear that transferring is not his motivation.) It was simply to bring light to a serious issue that most people ignore! We should be talking about college admissions policy’s transparency, the affects of Affirmative Action, legacy admission, and athlete recruitment, and, yes, the possibility/likelihood that the process, though random and unfair in general, is significantly more unfair to a nonrandom race.</p>
<p>“But I am disturbed at some of the anger at Asian kids and the stereotypes that permeate this discussion, like … Honestly, that tells me it is not altogether impossible that Asian kids do face subtle discrimination in the admissions process.”</p>
<p>That certainly appears to be very true…just look at the hate mail Kavya had received on these threads.</p>
<p>“Yes. But there was no “merit” involved whatsover (other than answering questions for three hours.) She did nothing to “deserve” what she was given as a result”</p>
<p>Yes…but she wouldn’t have scored perfect 800 unless she was smart, much above average kid with ‘merit’</p>
<p>Three hours are just like a final test - a proof…like Olympic runner who just runs for few mins, but gets a gold medal.</p>
<p>“yet the elite college admission bar for Asian is a lot higher then other ethnic is also a well known fact.”</p>
<p>A fact? A LOT higher? </p>
<p>Repeating the same trite and unproven argument over and over does not magically make it … a fact. Had the bar be placed a LOT higher for the past generations, would we be able to compile today’s statistics? How does a discriminated group becomes over-represented? </p>
<p>A lot of this discussion hinges on the “superior” SAT scores of Asians, but fails to recognize that it is only a recent and hardly universal phenomenon. For instance, the fact that the absolute population of asians who have earned scores of 700 or 750 on the SAT is MUCH smaller than one would think --and much smaller than the number of white students-- remains buried deeply and conveniently.</p>