Some facts about Holistic Admissions Criteria from Stanford Daily
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Well, the point of military is to serve their country, which is contrary to Asians' focus on winning the prize. |
I am curious among the elite schools how the military academies rank in terms of Asian admissions? Maybe our Asian friends should be pushing their students in that direction too. After all, you get a free education at among the top schools in America and guaranteed employment afterward and an alumni network that will tie you into the top ranks in politics and business in America.
Anonymous
| Westpoint is only 5.5% Asian; Airforce academy 4.5% Asian; |
Anonymous
|
Standards are indeed lowered
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=693 |
Anonymous
I'm asian. In our family it was a food issue - both of us did the summer leadership seminars at west point and annapolis and admissions officials at both places were very interested in us applying. However we struggled with the food and didn't go through with it. For asian people without particular dietary challeneges I agree with you though - asians should look to the military academies because there is a push there to attract more minorities. |
Anonymous
| Oh and the overly religious christian atmosphere is a huge turnoff as well to asians when it comes to the academies (real and perceived). |
Anonymous
Well I've met a lot of indian americans in government service - state, cia, treasury so it isn't an issue of 'service to country'. Or do you view military service has a higher calling than civil service? |
Anonymous
Total Asian population in US is only About 5%. What is your point? |
Anonymous
And he was rejected by all the others. |
Anonymous
an interesting data point that I would like to see is now that ROTC has been allowed back on Ivy League campuses since 2011, what % of ROTC ivy students are asian. |
Anonymous
Neither are the police and fire departments of much interest to the Asian community overall. We tried to do recruiting in the Asian community for a fire department with dismal results. We were told point blank, not for my child. |
Anonymous
|
A GREAT article from the National Association of Scholars on the concept of holistic admissions and diversity, and why the practice is both racist and discriminatory.
From the article: Not only is “diversity” itself discrimination; worse, it actually devalues the very concept of discrimination. When defenders argue, as they always do, that critics are hypocrites (or even racists) for tolerating preferential treatment based on legacy status or athletic or musical ability but not race, what they are really saying is that if you can discriminate for any reason you can discriminate for every reason, that all discrimination is the same. “Diversity,” in short, drains the evil out of discrimination based on race. " https://www.nas.org/articles/against_diversity |
Anonymous
|
More from the article. This specifically points to research that shows diversity can do actual harm. To those of us with common sense, this is a huge "of course" moment:
Diversity” Does Actual Harm 7. Mismatch And it’s not just that the evidence is accumulating that the benefits of “diversity” are few and far between. Thanks to UCLA law professor Richard Sander and the “mismatch” research he pioneered and inspired, it has become clear that its costs are quite high.[22] The amicus brief that Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., filed with the Supreme Court in Fisher summarizes much of this work.[23] (Pointers to other Sander work were recently offered by KC Johnson.)[24] Likewise, an amicus brief by U.S. Civil Rights Commissioners Gail Heriot, Peter Kirsanow, and Todd Gaziano argued that “if anything should cause thoughtful supporters of race-preferential admissions policies to reverse course—or at least refrain from proceeding further—it is the mounting empirical evidence showing these policies are doing more harm than good for their intended beneficiaries.”[25] The new “mismatch” scholarship demonstrates that minorities who receive preferential treatment in admissions cluster in the bottom 10 percent of their classes and have much lower grades, graduation rates, and bar passage rates than their non-preferred peers. In fact, Sander et al. conclude, there are actually fewer black lawyers, engineers, and other STEM professionals than there would have been absent the preferences. |
Anonymous
|
From Bloomberg:
Lowell initially tried to institute a crude quota system for Jewish enrollment. When his plan was condemned in the press, a committee stacked with his sympathizers produced an alternative that seemed remarkably enlightened. Its real purpose, historians have argued, was to implement a kinder, gentler form of discrimination against Jews. It also gave us the admissions process that remains in effect at top universities today. The plan consisted of two parts. The first was to require that students come from the top 1/7th of their graduating class. More significant, however, was the resolution that Harvard would no longer consider admissions from the "standpoint of race." Rather, it would create an undergraduate population that "will be properly representative of all groups in our national life." This meant actively recruiting applicants from around the country, particularly areas "situated outside the regular Harvard recruiting ground." Historian Oliver Pollak has observed that "by focusing on geographic representation, while ignoring blatant racial and religious characteristics, the plan obliquely discriminated against Jews." In other words, Harvard could recruit high-achieving students from an applicant pool in which Jews were just one of many groups. The result was dramatic: Jewish enrollment in Harvard quickly plummeted back to 10 percent. Similar declines occurred at other schools that made a fetish of a highly selective, national admission process designed to bring geographic diversity. Increasingly, admission officials recruited students who would have never considered applying to an Ivy League school thousands of miles from home. An unintended consequence of expanding the applicant pool was that elite colleges ensured they would receive far more applications than they had slots to fill. Admissions became increasingly selective, particularly after Lowell's successors embraced the idea of recruiting students from an even wider variety of backgrounds: geographic, religious, urban, rural, and so on. The number of categories has continued to proliferate in recent years, but the number of slots available at the nation's top colleges and universities has not increased at a corresponding rate. It's no surprise, then, that most of this year's applicants to elite schools ended up with rejection letters. High-achieving students probably will find little consolation in the knowledge that their failure to get into the college of the dreams may have less to do with a lack of merit than admissions procedures adopted by anti-Semitic college administrators almost a century ago. |
Anonymous
What exactly was the "food" issue? |
Anonymous
| ^^maybe lactose intolerance? You can't have health related dietary restrictions while active duty. |