<p>I didn’t comment because it’s not surprising.</p>
<p>[In</a> 2007](<a href=“QuestBridge”>http://questbridge.org/cmp/finalist_profiles/2007_finalists.pdf), there were 1,794 finalists. Twenty-seven percent self-identified as Asian, one percentage point less than in 2008. Of the finalists, 204 became CM scholars. 16% of them were Asian. Through multiplication, we see that there were 485 Asian finalists and 33 Asian CM scholars. Through subtraction, we see that were 452 Asian finalists who did not receive CM scholarships.</p>
<p>According to your link, in 2007, more than 900 applicants gained admission and financial aid through the Regular Admissions process. Of these applicants, 32% were Asian. That translates into at least 288 Asian regular admissions admits.</p>
<p>As long as at least 288 Asian finalists out of 452 stuck with the program, why is 32% surprising? Answer: it is not.</p>
<p>Let’s take a look at post #952 again: “* Is it possible, that perhaps their decision to choose my son from the hundreds of highly qualified low income URM finalists sitting on their conference table might, just might, have had something to do with factors other than his stats or the color of his skin? Some spark, some quality that made them say, you know, I really want to meet that kid, Matt.*”</p>
<p>To me, it’s clear that MMFL resented any suggestion that her son benefited from “the color of his skin” and hinted none-too-subtly that a far more likely explanation for her son’s success was his achievement and character.</p>
<p>That’s why I wrote, “In other words, you wanted your son to be evaluated without regard to his race. You wanted him to be judged on the content of his character, not the color of his skin. I share your wants, and I see opposition to racial preferences as a logical conclusion to these wants.”</p>
<p>Thus, I never said “whether or not a school practices affirmative action determines whether or not they are judging based on the “content of character” versus the color of skin.” That is your misunderstanding.</p>
<p>^^ Why wouldn’t “AA” have worked against Asians in the RD round if it existed? Instead Asians who comprised less than the same number of White finalists actually represented 32% of the final pool while whites were only were 22% of that same pool. Do you believe Whites received some kind of discrimination that Asians did not receive (Asians went from 28 to 32%, while whites dropped from 32% to 22%)? I can’t locate the 07 finalist chart so am using 08’s as comparison figuring they’re roughly the same and we don’t have 08’s RD numbers yet for obvious reasons, so this is all pretty flimsy, but you get the idea.</p>
<p>All such comparisons have to be on the basis of “other things being equal.” Even within the QuestBridge applicant pool, some applicants make finalist, and some do not, and so far I’ve not heard of QuestBridge giving independent access to their files to scholars of this issue, to see which way (if any) there may be a preference for students of different ethnic groups. When independent scholars study the college admission process (usually with a promise of anonymity to the colleges studied), they sometimes find systematic preference for some ethnic group, other things being equal, while one study has found a DISadvantage for Asian applicants, as no one seems seriously to deny.</p>
<p>Must have ranked? Do you know that for sure?</p>
<p>And even if “lots of Hispanic[s]…ranked Pomona,” you don’t know if Pomona was their top choice. Suppose Miguel is a Hispanic Questbridge finalist who ranks Stanford ahead of Pomona. If both schools admit him, then Stanford gets him, not Pomona. Thus, even if many ranked Pomona, if they were admitted by a school ranked higher on their list, then Pomona didn’t get those students.</p>
<p>Look, Pomona College is one of the best liberal arts colleges in this country. All congratulations to your son for earning a College Match scholarship to Pomona. But, I think you should keep in mind that Pomona is but one of many excellent institutions that are Questbridge partner schools. I wouldn’t be surprised if many students ranked other schools ahead of Pomona, and considering the caliber of these students, I wouldn’t be surprised if “other schools” admitted these students.</p>
<p>No, you are wrong on this one as well. I never said blacks weren’t discriminated against. I simply asked whether or not it is truly the case that facing socioeconomic disadvantages and overcoming obstacles “exists to a much higher degree in the black community than it does in the Asian or white community.”</p>
<p>Re #979</p>
<p>In 2007, there were 556 white finalists, 41 of whom became CM scholars. Thus, there were 515 white finalists who did not become CM scholars. Of the over 900 regular admissions admits, at least 198 were white.</p>
<p>Just like with Asians, as long as 198 out of 515 finalists stuck with the program, 20% isn’t suspicious.</p>
<p>^^^ I don’t know, Claremont McKenna (2007 matches - they had no 2008 matches) seemed to do well with the URMs. Between the two, Pomona is the more highly ranked. I really don’t believe Pomona selected based on URM.</p>
<p>You don’t agree with my statement? Do you believe all groups face equal number of socioeconomic disadvantages and obstacles to the same proportionate degree?</p>
<p>Hope Full --You can’t really believe that there was never a time when white men with lower test scores were admitted over minorities and women??? Although Harvard and a few elites had one or two black males intermittently from 1900 forward–they were exceedingly rare and virtually all other mainstream schools barred non whites entirely. Women were not admitted to most of the ivies until the 1970s… The reason that black colleges like Howard or women’s schools like Smith exist is that these groups were barred from not only the “elite” schools, but from virtually ALL schools.</p>
<p>On the broader subject, it has been my observation that what one views as “fair” and “objective” criteria for admission is closely related to one’s own skill set. Great test takers seem to think that SATs are the fairest measure, grade grubbers think GPA is a more objective standard, while athletes point out the value of sports in generating excitement/revenue at the college. Those with outstanding ec’s think community impact is the most objective standard. </p>
<p>In the end, there is no perfectly objective criteria, each criteria arbitrarily favors some and punishes others. The main issue with AA, is that it can’t be gamed by upper class white parents who are mostly accustomed to gaming the system to favor their own offspring.</p>
<p>Yes, I do believe that Asians are discriminated against in the college admission process. As I’ve written before, Espenshade and Chung found in 2005 that all else equal, being Asian is worth the equivalent of fifty fewer SAT points. In 2006, Kidder responded to Espenshade and Chung’s paper by faulting them for conflating negative action with affirmative action. Notably, Kidder did not dispute Espenshade and Chung’s finding of a fifty point disadvantage.</p>
<p>Needless to say, Espenshade and Chung’s 2005 paper was rather controversial. Many status quo defenders claimed the authors had an agenda, derided their status as researchers, or dismissed the paper as garbage. None of these is valid. First, both authors have publicly supported affirmative action. Second, Dr. Espenshade is a very productive scholar who has published numerous papers. He was a department chair at Princeton for four years! Third, it is difficult and impractical to attempt a model that would more accurately reflect the true nature of college admissions. Even Kidder’s model does not try to do so; like Espenshade and Chung, he essentially used a test-score-only model.</p>
<p>Despite being vilified by the defenders of the status quo, to date, there has only been one published critique of that Espenshade and Chung (2005). What’s more, the response didn’t even contest the much-hated negative fifty result!</p>
<p>No, I don’t agree with your statement. I’d like to see some supporting evidence.</p>
<p>I never said that I believe “all groups face equal number of socioeconomic disadvantages and obstacles to the same proportionate degree.” I simply raised my doubts about your claim.</p>
<p>I don’t know. All I know is that blacks and Hispanics are “overrepresented” in the final cut whereas Asians are “underrepresented.” That doesn’t imply discrimination, though (cf. UC system).</p>
<p>It is hard to quantify any other aspect of why a student is admitted other than the SAT, so unless SAT is the strict measure, and you have already agreed it shouldn’t be, than we’ll have to chalk this up to some holistic quality that Asians lack - maybe they play less sports, do less volunteer work, write less introspective essays, or there’s only so many spots available at the top schools in pre-med/engineering/(insert random major here). Maybe it’s because they’re not spread out across the US. It’s hard to know, and will be impossible to ever know, but it does not prove that there is an anti-Asian bias.</p>
<p>I do, but it’s not relevant to the discussion. The following, however, is relevant:</p>
<ol>
<li>Why didn’t Pomona get more than two “under-represented” minority QB CM scholars?</li>
</ol>
<p>There are several possible answers. First, it’s possible that Pomona wasn’t listed as a choice for many of the “URM” applicants. After all, there are over twenty-five partner schools, and Pomona is but one. Second, even if many did list Pomona, it’s possible that they ranked other schools higher. If a finalist was accepted by all eight schools on his list, only his top ranked school gets him.</p>
<ol>
<li>Race isn’t the foundation on which holistic admissions is built. Removing it does not instantly turn holistic admissions into numbers-only admissions.</li>
</ol>
<p>^^^ Sorry if I came across as caustic - lack was a poorly chosen word, and I at least should have put it in quotes…judgment was not my intention at ALL…I actually thought I was throwing random things out there, but I can see on re-reading how you may have thought I was stating prejudicial beliefs…I apologize for that.</p>
<p>I came up with a 6th too - wealthier (less socio-economic diversity). The direction I was going with all those reasons is in trying to get across that there are a number of possibilities other than anti-Asian bias that may have accounted for the “negative 50.”</p>