Only someone who does not understand data would dichotomize the situation like this. Only someone who believes this is a simple black-and-white issue would boil it down to a stupid either/or.
How about this?
Asian students are more likely to be the children of immigrants. Immigrants, in general, try hard to assimilate. Which often means pushing their children into areas seen as “high class”. Such as classicial music (rather than sports). Or academic excellence (rather than dance club).
Paradoxically, immigrants tend to be insular. They don’t take their cues from native-born Americans, who they may view disparagingly, but rather from other immigrants that have enjoyed financial and social success. So if the Lee’s and the Cho’s down the street have sent all their kids to Princeton and Duke, you may consider it wise to follow in their footsteps. Maybe you make sure your kids take violin and piano lessons, just like they did. Maybe you make them enter the science fair in the second grade and spend several weeks designing a project, just like their kids did. Instead of doing the Boy Scout or Girl Scout thing like your white neighbors, you enroll your kids in academic team, just like the Lee and the Cho’s did. You do these things because you trust the Lee and the Cho’s. You don’t really trust those white people, who you think can get away with being lazy and still come out golden.
Additionally, you raise your children to be a certain way. They are not to question your authority or ask “why” when you tell them to do something. Because this wasn’t how you were raised–you were raised to respect elders and be quiet when in their presence. The idea of being an individual is foreign to you, so you don’t raise your kids with a sense of individualism. So you discourage them when they want to depart from the path you have set for them. Any signs of “errant” personality, you squash immediately. The result is that you raise a very kind, respectful bunch of kids, but they do not make waves, good or bad, at school. Their teachers like them, but they don’t feel that there is much substance to them. Unlike that Harrison boy, who’s always charming the socks out of everyone. Or Temika, who everyone knows has an “attitude” but is still smart and has a heart of gold.
So from this little story, I can pull out a number of things that may disadvantage Asian kids, as a group:
They may not raised to be as individualistic as other students. They are raised to be excellent, but not to stand out and be noticed. They may unwittingly perpetuate a stereotype of “geekiness” by following in the steps of other “geeks”. It’s kind of hard to say, “Hey, I’m unique and should be treated like an individual!” when your resume screams, “I’m no different than any other geek!”
They are raised to be differential to adults. This may work in their favor by making them well-behaved and easy-going. But adults in higher education like working with students who are bold and confident enough to question authority. Being respectful may make them go unnoticed.
Because they are so driven towards excellence, they may unwittingly perpetuate the stereotype that they care about nothing else. Americans, rightly or wrongly, do not care for the “best”. Our voting habits do not indicate this, nor do our consumer purchases. We do place an emphasis on intangibles like warmth and friendliness, though. We are more likely to want to be around people who make us feel at ease than those who make us feel inferior. It is not an innocent perception, don’t get me wrong. But it is an explanation that goes a bit deeper than “You hate Asians!”
Lastly, because Asian students are more likely to have parents who are immigrants, they may not be prepared in how to handle an interview. Many immigrants come here and start their own businesses–particularly Asians. So they may never have had to do an American-style interview. If you don’t have someone at home to tell you, “Remember to smile and look at the interviewer in the eye when speaking, and try to give an answer even if it’s not exactly the answer they were originally looking for”, you will probably not do well. It’s easy to take for granted how “easy” it is to do an interview, but if millions of grown-ass adults are flailing in interviews in the current job market, imagine how difficult it is for a kid doing it for the first time, with no assistance at home.
You can keep believing that I’m just saying Asians are boring people, but you would be misconstruing everything I’ve said. I’m just actively trying not to simplify a complex problem by assuming that Asians are excellent at everything, and so disproportionate rejection rates must be a cause for the injustice alarm. I am perfectly willing to admit that both racial discrimination AND cultural handicappers are at play. And what’s worse, they may be interacting with each other in a way that is hard to tease a part.
Well now that it is clear that you agree that these schools are in fact using race as a factor in denying admissions to Asians (if not that particular Asian), it seems to me that you are also saying that Universities do this because they believe that Asianness is a proxy for some other characteristics that they want to filter out. What do you believe those characteristics are? And just to be clear, you are defending the University’s decision to filter out Asians based on some perceived correlation between Asianness and some characteristic.
What special tax breaks, subsidies and monopolies do we give utilities? We permit utility monopolies to persist and regulate them in exchange for permitting them to persist but I don’t think we give them much of anything. Anyways we certainly don’t make them tax exempt. Tax exempt entities are not supposed to be profit seeking, they are supposed to be driven by things other than money. Sure these entities need money to survive but every last one of the schools we are talking about have enough of an endowment to last them decades even if they didn’t charge another dollar in tuition to its non-professional programs.
None of the Ivy’s were built on academic selectivity but that is how they persist. My interaction with Harvard is limited to hiring their graduates and it wouldn’t take too many years of accepting 1850 students before it would affect how many Harvard graduates we hire. I’m pretty sure this would drive the best students away from Harvard and before long, Harvard will be NYU. Certainly they can fiddle around the edges with legacies and affirmative action for underrepresented minorities (and against overrepresented minorities) but if they dropped their standards as much as that, it would significantly impact them.
I thought we had advanced beyond discussion of the individual (who is currently attending Harvard (transferred form Yale)) to a discussion of the macro phenomenon of Asians being discriminated against in the admissions process or do you think that general whining by Asians about this discrimination mean that the discrimination is probably justified?
Well, I’m glad that you are OK with sacrificing the Asian student in the interests of society as a whole and now that I you have made clear that you recognize that there is race based discrimination and that you are OK with this because you think being Asian is a good proxy for some trait that colleges want to filter out, I don’t know that we have much more to talk about. I have yet to convince a racist that racism is wrong.
I’m sorry, I thought we were talking about the world as it exists today.
EXACTLY! An ivy league degree is one of the most reliable avenues for social mobility in this country. All other things being equal, I will hire the Columbia grad son of a ditch digger over the NYU grad of a doctor or lawyer and we are pushing a lot of Asian students into less selective schools and while they tend to do well there, there is an advantage to being middle of the pack at Columbia over doing well at NYU. Just like you think being Asian is a proxy for other characteristics, I think that graduating form Columbia says something about you. Its not always true but over a large population it tends to be true. What characteristics do you think tend to be true about Asians over a large population that makes race a useful proxy in the admissions process?
For someone who doesn’t even answer questions never mind provide cites, you certainly ask for a lot of cites. Terr already provided a cite about the correlation between SAT scores and college GPAs.
Again with the “provide a cite” while never providing any cites of your own. I can’t find a cite but this is my memory of the facts surrounding Berekley. I did however provide a cite that white students were THREE times more likely to be accepted to a college than an Asian student with the same scores. Is that not enough?
2350 is not achieved without native ability. Before law school, I probably taught hundreds of students at Kaplan and tutored dozens of kids and you don’t teach a kid to 2350, they teach themselves after you explain how the test works.
“My point was that one GPA is not necessarily comparable to another given that the individual took difference classes, and had different teachers at a different schools.”
So in the context of this conversation where we are arguing about why Asians with similar scores and grades do not get accepted at the same rate as white kids you say this and then deny that you are diminishing Asian GPAs because their classes might not have been as difficult or something?
And what exactly do you think being Asian is a proxy for in the admissions process (other than being Asian and we already have too many of those)?
Now go through the thread and try to pick up the posts that say that racism ISN’T the reason for the disparity, that its some subjective intangible virtue that white kids have a lot of an Asian kids don’t. And when pressed on this the Even Svens of the world evaporate. I am guessing because she realized that she is being a little bit racist.
He went to Yale then Harvard. I cited his wiki page, he had plenty of extracurriculars. He didn’t do this because of sour grapes, he did this because of a report (published by Princeton professors) that showed bias in the admissions process. The point is that there is bias. I am not focused on the plight of a kid who will graduate with a Harvard degree instead of a Princeton degree. I am a bit more concerned with the plight of kid who is going to attend NYU instead of Cornell because Cornell feels it has too many Asians. The discrimination doesn’t only exist at the top schools. It trickles down as Asian students who would have otherwise gone to Princeton end up going to Cornell which crowds out Asians that end up going to NYU. You seem to be OK with that. Would you also be OK with a system that makes your left handed kids 3 times less likely to be accepted than a right handed kid because left handed kids are an over-represented minority at top universities?
Other than keeping the Asian population down to acceptable levels, why do you think they operate this way?
So because they feel more comfortable with whites than Asians we should allow them to discriminate against Asians? I mean, other than race, what distinguishes the white applicant pool from the Asian applicant pool with scores?
Well, we are talking about Asians in this thread and not affirmative action generally (I think the argument for blacks and underrepresented minorities or socioeconomically disadvantaged students is somewhat different) but lets say we are. What rationale can you provide for favoring white students over Asian students? For what factors (that you want to filter out) is being Asian a proxy.
The tests might be more difficult but the scores are still on a curve. Do you honestly believe that if you took the kids from my generation and made them take the tests today with the same preparation that they would do any worse than today’s kids? Kids haven’t gotten smarter, the test may have gotten harder and the curve looks a bit different but its easier to get a perfect score these days than it used to be.
It sounds like you agree with me and I have provided cites that perfect scores used to be harder to achieve. I would have thought that this would help your side of the argument.
Only if you retract all the claims that you cannot provide a cite for because I might be misremembering this fact but you are making all sorts of claims that have nothing but your posts as cites. I have provided a cite taht says taht white kids are three times more likely to be accepted than Asian kids with the same scores.
They all deny that they discriminate against Asians. They are not as sanguine about their discrimination as you are.
So yeah, they are hiding this fact. But at least we both agree that it is a fact. You merely seem to think its OK because there is something about being Asian that correlates with something that they can reasonably filter out. You haven’t been able to say that this ting is but we know Asians have it three times more frequently than whites.
I’ve been following this thread, but haven’t commented yet. I went to a large state university myself, and my son is about to attend another large state university. (note on my perspective: I am not Asian.)
I visited Harvard during a visit to Boston a couple of years ago, and there is certainly no shortage of Asian students there, judging by the kids hanging out on the quad. I note in passing that this does not match the racial makeup of the nearby Fair City of Boston, or of New England in general. It’s more like northern California. Also, the campus was a lot smaller than I expected.
In case anybody was crying real tears for the litigant because he had difficulty getting into one of the most prestigious universities on the continent, I offer this quote from the Wikipedia page referenced above:
So, okay, he didn’t get into Princeton, but he got into Yale, and later transferred to Harvard anyway.
And yes, I understand that race is sometimes a factor in student admissions, presumably on the grounds that an entire student body with the same cultural background is not necessarily what the university wants or what they feel their students need. I get it. But this is not at all about getting into a good college or getting a fine education. It’s about the few available slots that offer absolute maximum prestige. I doubt those perfect scorers who are denied entry into their first choice university have the slightest problem gaining admission to excellent, top-notch universities anywhere in the U.S.
What I am arguing is that top universities don’t compare 2400-scoring students against each other. It doesn’t work like that, and the more you keep arguing it, the more you’re going to confuse yourself, here.
Grades and scores are simply tools to show whether or not you’re capable of handling the work if you were admitted. Universities want to admit people who can hit the ground running, take advantage of the school’s resources, and contribute a return in some form. A 2250 student isn’t going to be hugely different than a 2400 student even if you’re looking at two students of the same race. 2250’s can excel at Harvard just fine. The confusing part is that sometimes high-scorers tend to have everything else strong in their application, too, but people only focus on the 2400 as if that’s what got them admitted.
Past a certain point, academics don’t help you as much as other factors do (recs, essays, activities, passions, etc). People just like to sensationalize scores because higher-end scores are rarer to achieve, but it doesn’t mean that colleges necessarily care about your scores as much as you might.
So once students can show they do the work, other factors are compared. If there’s an over-representation of a particular type of student, then sure, they’ll try to look for other types of students.
Is it fair? No. Admission into elite institutions isn’t meant to be. Like I said before, you could fill Harvard’s entering freshman class multiple times over with qualified applicants from the rejected-pool. There just aren’t enough spots, so sometimes who gets in and who doesn’t comes down to a crapshoot. Perfectly viable students are going to get snubbed regardless of race. They focus on keeping classes well-balanced and diversified with interesting people, and sometimes this means you’re going to wind up with a lot of one given race being rejected compared to others.
I’m not implying that all Asians, for instance, do nothing but study all day. But out of all the races you could point to, Asians have the greatest proportion of these types of students. To the point, it’s not like Asians are under-represented at the Ivy level at all.
Furthermore, top students who don’t get into Ivies still get into other top-notch schools anyway.
“I’m not implying that all Blacks, for instance, play basketball and blast hip-hop at top volume all day. But out of all the races you could point to, Blacks have the greatest proportion of these students.”
Should the above lead to discrimination against Blacks in admissions to ivy league universities?
Having gone through the rigamarole of elite college admissions, I can say that SAT scores matter probably the least of any one factor. Once you’re above a certain threshold they treat everyone about the same. Same with grades.
What’s really, really important is to be able to stand out from all the other students through essays and extra-curriculars. Havard and Princeton don’t want well-rounded students. They want a well-rounded student body. They want the extremely talented artist, the passionate activist, the guy who saved someone’s life training to be an EMT. The girl who started the recycling program at her school and in her neighborhood. The youngest ___ to ever ___. If you can’t stand out against the other applicants by doing something really phenomenal and unique, you won’t get accepted.
And even then it’s a bit of a crapshoot. Nobody from my class got in to Princeton. One went to Harvard, one Yale (they both got turned down by Princeton and the other of Yale/Harvard they didn’t get in to). I got turned down from MIT, Princeton, Duke, and Brown.
No, because you’re twisting the argument to suit some narrative I’m not supporting, here.
I’m saying that they’re after diversity. Diversity means diversity along every metric you care to invoke. If you have too many of one type of student applying for admission, it’s going to be harder to gain a spot because you aren’t standing out against the baseline.
So the impression I’m getting is : Affirmative Action when it helps blacks and Latinos = good, and when it hurts Asians = Who cares?
I have two female students. One black, one Mexican -American. The latter has a lot of negative stereotypes attached to her for being first generation American. I want them both to go to CU Boulder. I understand that diversity programs help them. They have interesting home lives, lots of potential, and GPAs of about 2.3. They may not be as academically qualified and may need help, but I want them to go and succeed.
No one has provided evidence that Asians are ALWAYS harmed. There have been virtual crickets–crickets, I say!–to my hypothesis that many schools would love for an Asian student, regardless of their SAT percentile, to just wave at them. Because if we’re going to talk about the harm of the model minority myth, the upside can’t be pushed to the side for convenience’s sake. Do the two balance each other out? Probably not. Actually no, I don’t think they do. But it does make all the weeping about injustice seem a little overwrought.
In some areas, blacks are underrepresented enough such that they benefit from preferential policies. In some areas, however, this is not the case and their race is not used in their evaluation. I’m willing to bet my next pay check that the same inconsistency applies to Asian students to some extent. That is to say, Asians are not given preferential treatment as a minority group when it comes to hard sciences and engineering, but their “Asianness” is an asset in other contexts, such as law enforcement, education, or political science. So all this talk about “AA doesn’t benefit Asians”…I ain’t buying it. It may not benefit them in contexts that we associate Asians doing well in, but that doesn’t mean that programs NEVER recruit Asians. They can do this with or without calling it Affirmative Action.
Are you guys ignoring the cites? A white kid is THREE TIMES MORE LIKELY to get accepted than an Asian kid with the same scores.
You are pitting your hypotheticals, theories and assumptions against my cite? At least Brickbacon is honest enough to recognize that there is discrimination going on (although he doesn’t think anyone is denying this discrimination :smack:)
Are you trying to deny that this phenomenon exists?
That’s your argument? Hey you aren’t actually living on the street so we can discriminate against you. Sure you could have gotten into MIT if you were white but they have enough Asians so you can go to Virginia Tech, its not the end of the world.
And frankly the standard fort Asians getting into Virginia Tech are higher than the standards for white kids getting into Virginia Tech.
Do I agree that there are schools that don’t have high Asian populations? Sure.
Do you agree that Asians are at a disadvantage at any of the top 25 schools or so simply because they are Asian? Do you think that the fact that there is a slot for them at Radford College makes up for the fact that race is keeping them out of Cornell?
So are you saying that you agree that there is discrimination now or not? I am not especially bothered by unrealistic hypotheticals because they are not selecting Asians over better qualified whites. I remember getting pre-acceptance letters from places like Rice back in the late 1980’s, it came with an offer of full ride (based on need) and and offer to fly me out to Houston for a visit. Sure they were recruiting and Asian but they were not recruiting me because I was Asian, they were recruiting an SAT score and that resulted in them recruiting a lot of Asians.
So short of a confession by the admission committees, what would convince you that there is discrimination going on? I mean I’ve cited where a white student is three times more likely to be accepted by a university than an Asian with the same score. We’ve seen what happened to Berkeley’s Asian population after it became race neutral.
How much more evidence do you need before its not “premature” to conclude discrimination is occurring?
Its hard to be discriminated against at places you don’t want to go. You can make an argument that the Asian community needs to expand their horizons but I don’t think you can make an argument that they are not being discriminated against when you see three to one odds in favor of whites over Asians in the admissions process. Hell, its a lot better than it used to be, when I was applying to colleges, it was Ivy, Cal Tech and Stanford. Now the list of target colleges has expanded to include Chicago, Northwestern (Johns Hopkins maybe) and a bunch of state schools including Virginia, Michigan, Texas, Berkeley, and UCLA and there is more recognition of other schools that might be objectively better than some of the schools on the list. But this myopia hardly seems like a reason to put these kids at a 3 to 1 disadvantage compared to white kids.
The thing is these kids are cut out for it, they are being denied the opportunity based on race.
And you have some evidence that white kids "contribute at 3 times the rate of Asian kids? Noone is denying that scores are not the only factors but what other factors are you considering that results ins a 3 to 1 advantage for white kids over Asian kids?
Once again. Do you have any evidence that indicates that Asian students are less engaged or interesting or are Asian nerds more introverted than white nerds for some other reason?
Its like people think that Asians are the only people that push their kids to study.
And which factors do you think would account for the three to one advantage white students have over Asian students? You really think the top scoring white kid is that much more charismatic than the top scoring Asian kid?
That’s pretty much it. That is what people keep hinting at without being able to identify what that X factor is. Apparently its concrete enough that you know that white kids have more of it than Asian kids but not concrete enough to articulate or measure.
And if this is the case then perhaps tax exempt status is not appropriate for the institution any more than tax exempt status for a religion that charges its adherents for services.
The discrepancy between Asian and white admissions is not random. It is consistent across top colleges. So it sounds like you are saying that Asians as a whole are three times less dynamic, passionate, interesting people… or is there another way to read what you just said?
How do you reconcile this “oh its not race, its because Asians are boring” stance against the changes in student population at Berkeley and other UC colleges when they became race blind (more or less)?
You keeping saying this like you expect people to go “:smack: Of course you’re right! They are being racially discriminated against!” But it is not prima facie evidence of racial discrimination. It is evidence that they are being disproportionately screened out, yes. But since SAT scores are just ONE metric used by colleges to evaluate students, it is unwise to use SAT scores as the basis of your argument for why this is absolute evidence of racial discrimination.
You know, you really need to read with comprehension instead of knee-jerk. Because I have repeatedly said that racial discrimination is not only a possibility, but a strong possibility. But I’m also saying that THERE IS NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION to rule out other explanations. Perhaps it is the scientist in me, but I like exploring all possibilities before jumping to a conclusion. Nothing is ever black and white. NOTHING.
No, I’m simply saying that it’s hard to get worked up about “systemic” anything if the plaintiffs are complaining they got rejected from Harvard and Princeton, but their asses got accepted to MIT, Rice, Ohio State, University of Chicago, and Yale. If you want to make an argument that Ivy Leagues don’t want Asians, go right on ahead. Just make sure your ass isn’t attending one and that you didn’t toss a stack of acceptance letters from Ivy Leagues into the trash before you file suit.
Now it’s my turn. Cite?
Can I imagine that they are an disadvantage? Yes, I can. As I have said before, knowing how institutions work and how “diversity” is defined, I definitely believe it is likely that racial discrimination is occurring. I don’t know how many times I have to say this.
Now do I think that disproportionate rejection rates of Asian applicants at Cornell is prima facie evidence that Cornell is anti-Asian? Hell no, as I’ve ALSO explained at length. Do you think it’s prima facie evidence? Do you think someone who thinks both could be at play is thinking less clearly than someone who thinks it’s an either/or situation?
You have no idea if this is the case. You don’t know if your high SAT and your being Asian made you more desirable than a white person with a high SAT.
Well the Berkely case is certainly evidence that is persuasive. What isn’t compelling is a lawsuit brought by an individual who was rejected from his top picks, but accepted everywhere else, including Ivy Leagues.
Another line of compelling evidence would be if we could get our hands on college application essays, letters of recommendation, and recorded interviews. When the name of the applicant is hidden and no indications of the individual’s race are provided, are those softer criteria judged the same as when they everything is out in the open? This is not rocket science, scrounging up the type of evidence we would need to evaluate this objectively. Researchers could do this without much trouble at all. And a person like me, who is already suspicious of the system, would have no problem accepting their findings either way. Why would I? I have no dog in this fight.
Yeah, the more you keep saying this, the more I doubt that you really understand what the hell you’re talking about. But keep beating this tired drum. I’m sure you’ll persuade others to join your side eventually.
Oh yes, and to make this about me again, I applied to Ohio State for graduate school, with GRE’s that were in the 90th percentile and honors from a top-tier public university on my resume. As a black woman with a name on a research paper and another in press, I should have a been shoe-in for admittance, right?
Survey says…X!
(Just providing a data point that belies the notion that black people only have to be able to add 2+2 and they can write their meal ticket. No one can write their own meal ticket in this world. That is why it sucks. )
Maybe most colleges are just a joke, then, since test scores seem to be a decent predictor of college success. And while I can’t tell you that lower SAT scores among black applicants is directly responsible for the lower grad rates, I can say that stereotypes hurt everyone. Even Asian American students. Black students are a lot less likely to graduate than white ones. Do we stop with diversity programs? No. But can we really start looking other things here?
Again, back to Asians failing the ‘soft criteria’. Maybe the Asian immigrants aren’t “American” enough for American universities, but the Latino ones apparently really really are, even though the former group outperforms the latter.
I understand that college admissions aren’t fair. I think most of us want transparency…that way the public can figure out which schools it wants to support and which ones it shouldn’t.
Damuri, you keep ignoring the counterpoints to the extent that you’re at risk of labeling yourself a crackpot, here.
It’s not just about scores. Asians, statistically, have higher SAT scores on average, yes. But as has been argued countless times in this thread, it’s NOT JUST ABOUT SAT SCORES. Once you’re past a certain threshold, scores stop mattering as much. Concede the point, already.
What would be considered fair to you? If you go by SAT scores alone, your top universities will be keeping out practically everyone other than Asians and Jews. Is that fair to you?
Trying to diversity the demographics is the school’s way of trying to make it more fair. That’s also why financial aid is structured the way it is. The top schools want to bring in the best and the brightest and the most interesting, regardless of background. Otherwise your schools will be full of rich prep kids who have the resources to game the system and get coached every step of the way.
You can have a kid from a top prep in NYC get rejected in favor of a kid from rural WY because that kid showed he was able to take advantage of the resources he had more effectively. Everything’s evaluated in context. Buying your way to prestige doesn’t hold as much weight when you’ve got kids working their asses off to make the most of themselves given their limitations, and that’s the kind of fighting, thirsty spirit colleges want to admit. That’s how you portray passion. It’s almost indistinguishable from obsession.
And please stop with the strawmen arguments. People who apply for Ivy Leagues usually also apply to other great schools like Georgetown, UCLA, Berkeley, Tufts, UVA, Emory, Amherst, Williams, Duke, MIT, Stanford, UChicago, Rice, etc – the list goes on – and they usually do just fine for themselves even if they didn’t hit Harvard or Princeton. It’s really rare for a stellar student to get universally panned for no real reason. It’s not like getting rejected from Ivies means you’re doomed to fail. What WILL doom you to failure, on average, is only applying to Ivies when they’re such notorious crapshoots. You need to apply to a mix of safeties, matches, and reaches to best diversify your options. I actually know kids who ONLY applied to Ivies and were left empty-handed after the letters came in. It’s not smart to do.
The problem is that at the end of the day, there are more qualified students than there are spots. Therefore, finding a completely fair method of admission is not really feasible, especially when you’re also juggling so many factors.
I have zero familiarity with the US college application process. Do you have to state your race on forms? Can you leave that section blank? I know this wouldn’t mitigate potential discrimination as your name can often be a marker of your “race”.