<p>Could you provide a source for this information? I’ve found websites that talk about Columbia’s demographics that give conflicting information. Here is one from Columbia in 2002 [Columbia</a> University Statistical Abstract | Enrollment by School, Race/Ethnicity, and Citizenship](<a href=“http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/enrollment_ethnicity_2002.html]Columbia”>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/enrollment_ethnicity_2002.html) . It looks like 63.4% of the undergraduate student body is non-minority. (They include people who don’t bubble in their race on their admissions as non-minority. This is a pretty fair assumption to make) Unless Columbia has changed their admission policies in the last 7 years, it looks like your facts are what’s screwed up. 63% is not so far off of US demographics (wikipedia says that as of 2006, 66% of Americans are white, non-Latino). I bet if you look at the demographics of young people, and not people of all ages, you’ll find an even smaller fraction of whites in the mix.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, your argument against it so far has used questionable information. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, slavery is a good thing to invoke when lamenting Alistair Bromley’s acceptance into 3 out of 5 schools he applied to instead of the 4 out of 5 he would have gotten into had there not been affirmative action policies. Alistair has it so hard, just like the African slaves in America during the 18th-19th century.</p>
<p>^ Collegeboard reported 36% and I trust their info to be the most current. I googled “Columbia Freshman Profile” and clicked on the first result, though the collegeboard page seems to be down right now. </p>
<p>In my Ds class there were two girls tied for val at the beginning of senior year. Girl 1 had higher SATs. Girl 1 took same demanding schedule and stayed in band, orch, bunch of other stuff. Girl 2 decided she wanted to be part of “popular” group, took OK schedule, but not the most rigorous. Girl 1 going to Middlebury (dont know where else she got in). Girl 2 going to state school.</p>
<p>Actually what I have heard is he got 2350, 4.0 GPA, valedictorian, leader of xyz, best ______. I think with that set that person should have a sense of security greater than some other applicants. The likelihood of that person gaining admission is higher. I think of it like counting cards, your percentage of winning (or gaining admission) is greater, but there is still a huge chance that you will lose. However, over a long period of time students (with those stats) will win (get admission) more than they lose. Just look at Penn’s stats at a college visit about SAT scores. The higher your score, the higher acceptance rate. (I knew about Penn ED legacy, but I was trying to make broad generalizations, Penn is one school out of thousands, sorry if my comment was misleading). People with 2300+ were accepted more than those with 2200-2300 and 2100-2200. This is true at most colleges. However, not one category has 100% acceptance, so like I said nothing is ever guaranteed, I know people with those exact stats who have gotten rejected.</p>
<p>silence_kit, you’re absolutely right, and that’s why I don’t even enter the affirmative action threads anymore. When I used to bring it up, I would always get slammed just for correcting people’s misinformation (I had no idea that some people still believed quotas hung around), even if I revealed that I am neither for nor against affirmative action. (No one believed that I was neutral on the issue, because I’m African American and apparently all African Americans are for affirmative action.) Every now and then I would get a PM from someone thanking me for posting, because I taught them something about affirmative action that they never knew.</p>
<p>Anyway, I don’t believe in “displacing spots.” No one has a “spot” to lose at a top college until they actually get accepted to that college. So no one – not underrepresented minorities, or overrepresented minorities, or white students – are “displacing” or “taking” anyone’s spot simply because no one actually has a spot.</p>
<p>Just so you know, ChoklitRain, I am neither for nor against affirmative action. I’d like to know how you came to the conclusion that it “helps me” – I am African American, but I went to a historically black college. I am getting my Ph.D at Columbia now, but my qualifications match up with or exceed everyone else’s in my program.</p>
<p>BTW, I go to Columbia, and there are definitely more than 36% white students here. That number is so skewed it’s not even funny. Of course, that’s just anecdotal, but why would you believe CollegeBoard over Columbia’s actual statistics?</p>
<p>But by far the largest group of “minority” students at Columbia (16% of the undergrads, or 40% of the “minority” total) are Asians who, owing in large part to families and cultures that highly value education and admission to elite universities, are “overrepresented” in elite colleges and universities relative to their proportion of all HS grads. With rare exceptions, Asians are not beneficiaries of affirmative action at places like Columbia; in fact, they’re far more likely to perceive themselves as its “victims,” as race- or ethnicity-based affirmative action for “underrepresented” groups would tend to leave fewer places for “overrepresented” groups like Asians.</p>
<p>According to Columbia’s own stats, its undergraduate student body is 8.5% black and 9.9% Hispanic. These figures do not seem out of line with the proportions of these groups in the national population—indeed, if anything a little on the low side. If the proportion of white students in the Columbia student body is shrinking, it probably has more to do with white kids being outcompeted by Asian kids than with affirmative action for Black and Latino kids.</p>
<p>They aren’t forgetting anything, because over- or under-representation is relative to the number that would have been admitted under a race-blind (or Asian-blind) process. If anything, the lamenters are remembering something: that the result of removing most or all of the race preference in the UC system was a doubling of the Asian enrollment at the elite campuses, indicating that Asians had been underrepresented under the old system although surpassing their share of population. </p>
<p>It’s an interesting question whether Asians, especially Chinese/Korean/Indian, are penalized not only by black/Hispanic race preferences, but relative to whites.</p>
<p>Pretty much anything can give people a false sense of security. Any sense of security is false unless the college has automatic admissions based on something objective.</p>
<p>(1) 800’s on SATs without anything special in the e.c. area.
(2) President of school clubs.
(3) History of V sports unless Captain or recruit.
(4) Involvement in non-unusual or non-awarded e.c.'s.
(5) Simple volume of community service in itself, without context.
(6) # of AP classes</p>
<p>Lol penalized. Guys, ASIAN OVERREPRESENT themselves, just like jews in business.</p>
<p>How many asians are in the US by percent? 4.4% of americans are Asian.</p>
<p>How many rice eaters do we have in HYPSMC +Cal+Penn + hell all the top 20 institutions (brown doesnt count<----- asian parents regard it as a joke school- go to a asian christmas party and you will see)???</p>
<p>15% +.
Penn was like 23.3%. </p>
<p>Can we honestly say they are at a disadvantage? Chances are, the “average” asian applicant will have superior chances due largely infact to his superior grades/test scores. The Average Asian applicant has better numbers than any other ethnicity (jews are up there too).</p>
<p>Percentages dont lie: how many blacks and latinos are in the US? 10-15% each?</p>
<p>How many of them are in HYPSM? Less than 10% each.</p>
<p>In COnclusion: Asian have THE GREATEST chance of making it into Harvard. Numbers dont lie.
If anyone is discriminated against by percentage of population, its the white people. They are 40-60% at top 10 university when they represent 70%'ish of the general population. thats a 6/7 ratio. Asians are 15-20% at top 10. Thats a 18/4.4 ratio.</p>
<p>THE #1 thing: that the “right” SATs and GPAs and ECs will get you into prestigious schools, that a student with 2320 scores deserves the slot over every other kid with 2120s.</p>
<p>Other factors that go into the decision that are NOT those student measures:
colleges are building a cohort, a class, not just accepting individuals
meeting the institution’s imperatives, like beating Williams in lacrosse or needing a viola
schools know that SES affects SATs and GPAs, and make decisions accordingly
most applicants are capable of doing that college’s work
many colleges’ mission includes providing opportunities for upward mobility
for all but the rarified few, using admissions decisions to meet budget targets
the most prestigious colleges reject MOST applicanst with the highest SATs* </p>
<p>Add in the huge number of high school graduates and what you get is this: for the biggest brand colleges (excuse me, “most prestigious”) admissions is more of a lottery than we like to believe. </p>
<p>Kei, parent of a rising senior </p>
<ul>
<li>example: Princeton rejected 72% of applicants with SATs 2300 and above</li>
</ul>
<p>^^^^^^
Princeton reject even more that have lesser scores.</p>
<p>And perhaps you can explain why 2400s were accepted at a 40+ percent at Harvard?</p>
<p>MOST good colleges reject all kids under 1500 SAT(average score). If your under 2100, you do not have a serious shot at Prestigious colleges. You will not be in the middle 50%. Your chances for admission will severely be shot.</p>
<p>look it up. 40%+
Thats 400% more chance of getting into harvard. 400%</p>
<p>. . . and from the blowback of slavery we tend to first see things through a racial lens.</p>
<p>Students at elite schools do NOT represent the population of the US.</p>
<p>If they did they’d be ~ 77% white?</p>
<p>The prestigious schools tend to reflect the elites and economically well off, those that have the means and ability to either live where the schools are better and/or are able to provide educational enrichment.</p>
<p>By that measure Asians are UNDERepresented.</p>
<p>24% of US Households earn > 100k
26% of white only households earn > 100k per year
36% of Asian only households earn > 100k per year.</p>
<p>What you’re seeing is a form of economic bias being played out: as the composition of the well-off in this country changes, their children will show up more in elite schools.</p>
<p>At > 250k the stats are US 3%, white 5%, Asian 3%</p>