Yale sees DECREASE in Asian strudents from 30% to 24%; White students icnrease from 42% to 46%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To those who think there is still a bias against asian students, what percentage of asian students do you think they should make at top schools.

If you don't take race, legacy, athletics, donor, faculty into account and you give zero sh*tz about racial diversity?

Probably 40-45%. But it really depends on the school. At Caltech, I would expect a higher percentage and at a SLAC I would expect a lower percentage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imo "holistic" admissions favors white students because it's based on white standards for what makes for a desirable student. There's an over emphasis on being "well-rounded" as defined by white culture: sports including niche white sports, community service, eagle scouts, etc.

And that is 100% OK.

Right. It's by American standards. If you want a school that judges based only on test scores, there are plenty in Asia.

It's pretty much the rest of the world except America, bro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imo "holistic" admissions favors white students because it's based on white standards for what makes for a desirable student. There's an over emphasis on being "well-rounded" as defined by white culture: sports including niche white sports, community service, eagle scouts, etc.

And that is 100% OK.

Right. It's by American standards. If you want a school that judges based only on test scores, there are plenty in Asia.

It's pretty much the rest of the world except America, bro.

Then go to one of those schools. Not sure what to tell you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imo "holistic" admissions favors white students because it's based on white standards for what makes for a desirable student. There's an over emphasis on being "well-rounded" as defined by white culture: sports including niche white sports, community service, eagle scouts, etc.

And that is 100% OK.

Right. It's by American standards. If you want a school that judges based only on test scores, there are plenty in Asia.

It's pretty much the rest of the world except America, bro.

And clearly that must contribute to America's desirability and success as a country. I've met so many people that were extremely intelligent that lacked other very crucial skills a holistic admissions model favors. Also "bro"? You sound like a child lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who think there is still a bias against asian students, what percentage of asian students do you think they should make at top schools.

If you don't take race, legacy, athletics, donor, faculty into account and you give zero sh*tz about racial diversity?

Probably 40-45%. But it really depends on the school. At Caltech, I would expect a higher percentage and at a SLAC I would expect a lower percentage.

Most Asian Americans live in California.

Obviously the UCs will have high percentages.

The rest including T25 and such? 4X its U.S. population is more than sufficient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imo "holistic" admissions favors white students because it's based on white standards for what makes for a desirable student. There's an over emphasis on being "well-rounded" as defined by white culture: sports including niche white sports, community service, eagle scouts, etc.

And that is 100% OK.

Right. It's by American standards. If you want a school that judges based only on test scores, there are plenty in Asia.

It's pretty much the rest of the world except America, bro.

Then go to one of those schools. Not sure what to tell you.

No need to tell me anything. But it's not a given that the uniquely american way of using race, legacy, donations, country club sports and fancy extracurriculars is better than the way that almost the entire rest of the world does it. It may never change, I mean we still use the imperial system and even the brits use metric.

But we can't use race and we can't let anyone use any of the other holistic factors as an artifice to select by race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imo "holistic" admissions favors white students because it's based on white standards for what makes for a desirable student. There's an over emphasis on being "well-rounded" as defined by white culture: sports including niche white sports, community service, eagle scouts, etc.

And that is 100% OK.

Right. It's by American standards. If you want a school that judges based only on test scores, there are plenty in Asia.

It's pretty much the rest of the world except America, bro.

And clearly that must contribute to America's desirability and success as a country. I've met so many people that were extremely intelligent that lacked other very crucial skills a holistic admissions model favors. Also "bro"? You sound like a child lol

America was a world power and had widespread segregation. Couldn't a segregationist have attributed America's standing as a world power to jim crow just as easily as you have attributed it to holistic admissions? C'mon dudemeister, you know it's true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imo "holistic" admissions favors white students because it's based on white standards for what makes for a desirable student. There's an over emphasis on being "well-rounded" as defined by white culture: sports including niche white sports, community service, eagle scouts, etc.

And that is 100% OK.

Right. It's by American standards. If you want a school that judges based only on test scores, there are plenty in Asia.

+100

+200

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imo "holistic" admissions favors white students because it's based on white standards for what makes for a desirable student. There's an over emphasis on being "well-rounded" as defined by white culture: sports including niche white sports, community service, eagle scouts, etc.

And that is 100% OK.

Right. It's by American standards. If you want a school that judges based only on test scores, there are plenty in Asia.

It's pretty much the rest of the world except America, bro.

And clearly that must contribute to America's desirability and success as a country. I've met so many people that were extremely intelligent that lacked other very crucial skills a holistic admissions model favors. Also "bro"? You sound like a child lol

America was a world power and had widespread segregation. Couldn't a segregationist have attributed America's standing as a world power to jim crow just as easily as you have attributed it to holistic admissions? C'mon dudemeister, you know it's true.

Huh?

You must have been a Philosophy major.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who think there is still a bias against asian students, what percentage of asian students do you think they should make at top schools.

If you don't take race, legacy, athletics, donor, faculty into account and you give zero sh*tz about racial diversity?

Probably 40-45%. But it really depends on the school. At Caltech, I would expect a higher percentage and at a SLAC I would expect a lower percentage.

Most Asian Americans live in California.

Obviously the UCs will have high percentages.

The rest including T25 and such? 4X its U.S. population is more than sufficient.

Why 4x? Why not 3x or 5x?

I am guessing what the percentage would be if we only used merit. W#e shouldn't earmakr seats for people of specific skin colors. If the next wave of immigrants comes in hungrier and hard working, then the new crop of immigrants should get those spots. And that is what a lot of east asians have seen with respect to south asians. And we have seen the racism and accusations of cheating shift from easdt asians to south asians. Liberals will never love the south asians until they start getting their butts whipped by the next wave coming after them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imo "holistic" admissions favors white students because it's based on white standards for what makes for a desirable student. There's an over emphasis on being "well-rounded" as defined by white culture: sports including niche white sports, community service, eagle scouts, etc.

And that is 100% OK.

Right. It's by American standards. If you want a school that judges based only on test scores, there are plenty in Asia.

It's pretty much the rest of the world except America, bro.

And clearly that must contribute to America's desirability and success as a country. I've met so many people that were extremely intelligent that lacked other very crucial skills a holistic admissions model favors. Also "bro"? You sound like a child lol

America was a world power and had widespread segregation. Couldn't a segregationist have attributed America's standing as a world power to jim crow just as easily as you have attributed it to holistic admissions? C'mon dudemeister, you know it's true.

Huh?

You must have been a Philosophy major.

Math and economics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand what the problem is. I get that elite universities don't have to look like the racial makeup of the US. But 24 percent is still more than 300 percent the 7 percent of the US that is Asian. MIT has issues going the other way, where only 5 percent of their class is black, even though blacks make up close to 13 percent of the US population. And every selective school is way underrepresented by Hispanics, who are presently 19 percent of the population.

People can yammer about test scores, which are important, but private universities remain free to construct classes as they see fit provided there is no overt discrimination against protected classes. And every elite private school wants a broad array of students that can handle the coursework and contribute to the community. It's only been one year since the SC decision so things are going to feel a little chaotic. But no group is owed anything and the universities are doing their best to make sense of the new realities. I'm sure no one is more surprised by the decrease in Asian students to Yale than the Yale administrators themselves.

Because people want to boost their chances at an elite college. It’s really that simple, and black students are the easiest target.

Nobody is targetting black students. Asians are not asking for any favors or handouts or pity. They just don't want to be discriminated against.

They went after Affirmative Action instead of legacy admits with a racist lawyer handling the case. Pretty appalling.

That's mostly because racial discrimination is illegal but preferences for the wealthy is not.

I'll tell you what, if you pass a constitutional amendment making it unconstitutional to favor wealthy kids, we will sue to get rid of legacy.

Completely ignore the entire reason we had affirmative action. It’s wrong to assume a URM took a spot you assumed was for an Asian kid. It isn’t a good look for the Asian community to trample over URM. They’re quite happy to support the discrimination of URMs.

To be fair, it's white folks bringing these lawsuits, and white folks freaking out over this year's numbers, some of which might be statistical chatter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imo "holistic" admissions favors white students because it's based on white standards for what makes for a desirable student. There's an over emphasis on being "well-rounded" as defined by white culture: sports including niche white sports, community service, eagle scouts, etc.

And that is 100% OK.

Right. It's by American standards. If you want a school that judges based only on test scores, there are plenty in Asia.

Not the PP, but there's a difference between "white" and "American." PP is correct that elite admissions favor a certain brand of white culture, which leads to systemic discrimination in processes such as alumni interviews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who think there is still a bias against asian students, what percentage of asian students do you think they should make at top schools.

If you don't take race, legacy, athletics, donor, faculty into account and you give zero sh*tz about racial diversity?

Probably 40-45%. But it really depends on the school. At Caltech, I would expect a higher percentage and at a SLAC I would expect a lower percentage.

Most Asian Americans live in California.

Obviously the UCs will have high percentages.

The rest including T25 and such? 4X its U.S. population is more than sufficient.

Why 4x? Why not 3x or 5x?

I am guessing what the percentage would be if we only used merit. W#e shouldn't earmakr seats for people of specific skin colors. If the next wave of immigrants comes in hungrier and hard working, then the new crop of immigrants should get those spots. And that is what a lot of east asians have seen with respect to south asians. And we have seen the racism and accusations of cheating shift from easdt asians to south asians. Liberals will never love the south asians until they start getting their butts whipped by the next wave coming after them.

For the Ivies and other highly selective colleges, for every qualified Asian American student applying there is an equally qualified white, black, Hispanic student. It's a number's game. California is different since most Asian Americans live in that state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who think there is still a bias against asian students, what percentage of asian students do you think they should make at top schools.

If you don't take race, legacy, athletics, donor, faculty into account and you give zero sh*tz about racial diversity?

Probably 40-45%. But it really depends on the school. At Caltech, I would expect a higher percentage and at a SLAC I would expect a lower percentage.

Most Asian Americans live in California.

Obviously the UCs will have high percentages.

The rest including T25 and such? 4X its U.S. population is more than sufficient.

Why 4x? Why not 3x or 5x?

I am guessing what the percentage would be if we only used merit. W#e shouldn't earmakr seats for people of specific skin colors. If the next wave of immigrants comes in hungrier and hard working, then the new crop of immigrants should get those spots. And that is what a lot of east asians have seen with respect to south asians. And we have seen the racism and accusations of cheating shift from easdt asians to south asians. Liberals will never love the south asians until they start getting their butts whipped by the next wave coming after them.

For the Ivies and other highly selective colleges, for every qualified Asian American student applying there is an equally qualified white, black, Hispanic student. It's a number's game. California is different since most Asian Americans live in that state.

There may be as many equally qualified white kid but there is not likely to be as many equally qualified hispanic or black kids.

See chart below:
https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf

9% of asian kids get a 1500+ on the SAT
2% of white kids get a 1500+
<1% of hispanic kids get a 1500+
<1% of black kids get a 1500+

It's not really that close.