You’re assuming feeder schools are equally open to Asian applicants.
It’s not just Andover. There’s a couple dozen or more. They have insanely high acceptance rates at top colleges. Yes, there’s a lot of overlap with other things, like legacy and sports, but lots of “great” public schools have crew teams too–and they don’t send 35% of their class to HYPSM. You are vastly underestimating how corrupt and unfair this system is.
I don’t have a cite. I have the same evidence you do for what “Asians” are saying about these things. You’re involved in that community. This is my community. The relationships between some of the feeder schools and the highly selective colleges are, in some cases, older than this country. It’s like lobbyists and bureaucrats–being an admissions officer is a young person’s game. The goal is to go from there to being a private counselor at one of these schools. Your relationship with the people you leave behind are your dowry.
Also, to be really clear, the Feeder School kids absolutely have the stats, the achievements, the personal qualities it takes to get into the schools they go to. But so do, say, the strongest 10 kids at the top 300 public schools in the country, and the strongest 1 or 2 kids at the top 500 public schools in the country. But take that pool of 3000 kids and compare it to the 3000 graduating in the top half of feeder schools, and there will be no comparison about who gets into the highly selective Universities. Legacy and sports helps–but it’s not just that.
I will tell you that an Upper Middle Class Nice White Kid with wonderful but generic accomplishments is a drag on the market. In my pretty extensive experience, they are exactly as hard to place in the highly selectives as an Asian kid with similar stats. In both cases, it’s nearly impossible. It’s in the range that you could have a 400% difference that was basically meaningless, because 1/10,000 and 4/10,000 pretty much is the same for the individual.
As far as PSAT recruiting, I’m comfortable saying that’s bullshit and racist, but I don’t think it has anything to do with who they want at their school: it’s harvesting applications. It may be they just think Asian kids with a 1350 on the PSAT are savvy enough to know there’s no point in applying to Harvard.
Right, because all the racist bullshit that Harvard is doing doesnt really mean that Harvard is racist.
I went to one of Harvard’s feeder schools and there was an apparent racial tilt among applicants at the feeder school.
And isnt controlling for legacies is not a reasonable proxy for controlling for feeder schools? I mean other than stuyvesant all the feeder schools are chock full of legacies
The American Jewish community has had the right of this for decades: as soon as some racism is okay, all racism is okay. That train is never late. Currently, this primarily manifests in liberal support for the rights of Muslims, but it could be Hispanics or non-Muslim Asians or Inuit or American Indians or anyone. Are Asians a “disadvantaged” minority in the US? As a group, no. But Asians aren’t a group. Chinese and Indian immigrants have done well. Cambodians and Phillippinos haven’t. Either way, Asians pulling support from the Democratic Party is suicide.
Lol, “a ton”, you say. That’s verifiable. Let’s see. . .
You’ve posted some 50 times to this thread. Post #88 has two citations, neither of which address your 400%. That’s about it. You do obliquely reference a study by Espenshade that I already busted you on. So, no, it’s not supported, and no, you haven’t cited a ton of evidence; you’ve hardly cited anything at all despite 50 posts.
I expect what I expected from the Ivy League students I taught – actual arguments (i.e. not ending in question marks) supported by evidence.
You’re welcome to attempt an argument one way or another; I’m certainly not going to do your work for you.
Busted me on? The author said that his study wasn’t a smoking gun. That’s not busting me on it. That’s pettifoggery.
We don’t have a smoking gun that smoking causes cancer (or at least we didn’t when society at large became convinced that smoking caused cancer), all we have is the same sort of statistical evidence that there is anti-Asian discrimination.
The argument in a nutshell is that there is overwhelming statistical evidence that Asians are statistically less likely to be admitted to selective colleges than similar applicants of other races. This is hard to explain unless there is a bias against Asians in the admissions process.
How would you explain the statistical discrepancy?