Asians are suing Harvard and UNC - Chapel Hill for use of quotas

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:College admissions in the US is not the gaokao and it shouldn't be. Testing is not everything and even the Chinese and Koreans and Japanese are debating how to reduce their reliance on college admissions testing because it stifles creativity and ignores the multiple sources of excellence.

As a first generation Chinese-American with two Ivy degrees, I am just fed up with the whining about admissions to the Ivies. There are simply no race based quotas. Since only 1 percent of college students can go to an Ivy, the debate is largely inconsequential to improving the life options of Asian Americans. Fight the discrimination that affects the other 99%.

After interviewing scores of applicants, it is pretty obvious that there are lots of students with good grades who test well, but have almost nothing else. The profiles are often remarkably similar: math/science excellence, limited intellectual depth in literature and the arts, few ECs besides classical music training and occasionally individual sports like golf or tennis. Worse, they present themselves as pretty ho-hum with no passion or excitement for learning. It is as if their parents are all reading from the same book on how to raise a child who gets in to Harvard.

Another thing to remember is that the Ivies are all liberal arts colleges! A hugely disproportionate share of Asian-American applicants are in the STEM fields. Since Harvard is choosing students to fill all its majors, Asians are largely competing against other math and science students applying to Harvard, not the historians, lit majors, artists, or football players. Which also means they are largely competing against themselves. That is why the test scores look skewed and why the admission rates are lower. Caltech does not need to find students to fill its philosophy department, while Harvard does.

What an excellent and realistic perspective for every applicant to consider. And I'm glad it came from a Chinese-American.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arab-Americans are discriminated against, but there are no preferences for them in college. So are Jewish-Americans in many instances. I would imagine that it's difficult to achieve as a Muslim-American woman in the US. I think that's why it's problematic to only identify certain groups as worthy of a second look, different standard and not others. Any kid who has ever had a teacher unable to pronounce his name, been compared to Osama Bin laden, laughed at because she had an accent, etc. should perhaps get that look.

Are they underrepresented in higher education? If yes, then they should get a second look. If no, then they shouldn't. Of course there are particular instances, but if you're looking for a bright-line rule, then that's the only one that seems coherent.
If there's some "I was discriminated against as an Arab-American woman, and my mom couldn't go to school in her home country" background, then that should definitely go in an essay.
I wonder what people make of the "discrimination" against girl applicants. After all, it's harder to get in as a girl than a boy, all other factors being equal. So is that a lawsuit we need to start?

Women are given preferential treatment in admission to the MIT, CalTech, etc schools.

Great. How about all the other non-tech schools.

which is why on page one i said white girls should be on the side of asian-americans on this.

Nah. I'm a white girl, but I still think racism matters and URMs should get a bump.

If racism matters, then racism against Asian Americans matter as well both racism in general and the racism in college admissions.

Yes but since Asians are not underrepresented, you're not showing racism that impacts educational attainment.

If we are going to go back to the proportional representation, we have to be consistent and talk about proportional representation in other areas as well.

For example, Asian Americans should make up 6% of the Judges in this country. Asian Americans should make up 6% of the politicians in this country. Asian Americans should make up 6% of the CEOs of fortune 500 companies. Asian Americans should make up 6% of the actors in movies and TVs. Asian Americans should make up 6% of the professional athletes in this country etc. The list is almost endless.

The point is, why is it that one area (academics) where Asians apparently are "over-represented" a major problem but the fact that Asian Americans are severely "under-represented" in virtually all other areas never a problem?

The proportional argument should be applied consistently for all areas not just one or two.

Because we value education differently. And because we are talking about education here. If Asians are underrepresented as ceo's or judges that's an issue, but not related to college admissions.

Education is certainty valued by Asian Americans as well. The other areas are mentioned only in response to the usual proportional representation argument. We do not live in a vacuum. Education and eventual accomplishments and success are all connected. In fact, extreme under-representation of Asian Americans in all areas except college student populations demonstrates extreme discrimination and obstacles.

Can we also say that it's ok to have under-representation of blacks in education since blacks are over-represented in sports, music industry etc.? We are still talking about education.

If blacks made up 36% of the NFL players, we could say they are certainly still over-represented compared to the general population of about 12%. In reality, blacks make up about 70% of the NFL players. That is what Asian Americans are saying: Yes, 18% of the top colleges is greater than 6% but it would be closer to 36% without the discrimination and quotas.

+1000

You misunderstood. When I said we value education differently I meant we, as a society, value education differently than we value things like sports. We care more about education because it is the key to nearly everything. So having some groups be underrepresented in education is a major social issue, whereas having certain groups be underrepresented in hockey isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:College admissions in the US is not the gaokao and it shouldn't be. Testing is not everything and even the Chinese and Koreans and Japanese are debating how to reduce their reliance on college admissions testing because it stifles creativity and ignores the multiple sources of excellence.

As a first generation Chinese-American with two Ivy degrees, I am just fed up with the whining about admissions to the Ivies. There are simply no race based quotas. Since only 1 percent of college students can go to an Ivy, the debate is largely inconsequential to improving the life options of Asian Americans. Fight the discrimination that affects the other 99%.

After interviewing scores of applicants, it is pretty obvious that there are lots of students with good grades who test well, but have almost nothing else. The profiles are often remarkably similar: math/science excellence, limited intellectual depth in literature and the arts, few ECs besides classical music training and occasionally individual sports like golf or tennis. Worse, they present themselves as pretty ho-hum with no passion or excitement for learning. It is as if their parents are all reading from the same book on how to raise a child who gets in to Harvard.

Another thing to remember is that the Ivies are all liberal arts colleges! A hugely disproportionate share of Asian-American applicants are in the STEM fields. Since Harvard is choosing students to fill all its majors, Asians are largely competing against other math and science students applying to Harvard, not the historians, lit majors, artists, or football players. Which also means they are largely competing against themselves. That is why the test scores look skewed and why the admission rates are lower. Caltech does not need to find students to fill its philosophy department, while Harvard does.

First, no one is saying (certainly not most Asian Americans) U.S. college admissions is or should be equivalent to "gaokao". This is your first confusion. Most Asian Americans are perfectly willing and able to comply with the rules and requirements of the U.S. college admissions system. Asian Americans are not saying "testing is everything". That is often alleged by non-Asian Americans who want to perpetuate the stereotype of Asian Americans and portray Asian Americans as one-dimensional. This is offensive as saying blacks are not intelligent or Hispanics are lazy. Any stereotyping of races should not be tolerated. Your entire argument assumes Asian Americans only regard testing as important and that they only excel with tests and that is simply not true and also offensive as noted earlier.

I am fed up with those claiming to be Asian Americans who display the attitude that since I already attended Ivy League school and have "Ivy degrees" hell with all the other Asian Americans and that any allegation of discrimination is whining. You simply cannot say there is no race based quotas just because you have two Ivy degrees. All the historical evidence points to a cap on Asian acceptances. Obviously, a college will not circulate a written memo stating they have a "quota" on Asian acceptances but they can certainly have an understanding what the rough percentage would be for Asian acceptances. In addition, Asian Americans should fight discrimination in all major areas and college admissions is a prominent area where discrimination should not be tolerated. Good education plays a major role in eventual success and accomplishment in general and many key/leadership positions in society appear to be closely connected to good/great education. In addition, precisely since there is a pervasive racial discrimination against Asian Americans in general, obtaining the best possible educational credentials is even more important compared to other races.

You are making blanket statements regarding Asians and Asian Americans when you say "it is pretty obvious that there are lots of students with good grades who test well, but have almost nothing else." "The profiles are often remarkably similar: math/science excellence, limited intellectual depth in literature and the arts,---" Maybe you have forgotten how it was before you earned your two "Ivy degrees". Maybe your two "Ivy degrees" have opened doors for you and you have done relatively well in your chosen field but try to imagine what could have happened if you were denied admissions to Ivy League schools and attended some typical state universities. Would you still say that Asian Americans are "whining" when you hear of racial dissemination against Asian Americans in college admissions? If you are really a "Chinese American" and not someone masquerading as Asian, can you honestly say that your kids will be treated equally with blacks, Hispanics and white applicants when they apply to Ivy League schools?

Let me point out few things that you may have forgotten thanks to your two "Ivy degrees". Asians tend to gravitate towards STEM fields because that is about the only area where there appears to be less discrimination against Asians in general. Whites tend to view Asians as "competent" engineers, computer programmer, scientists etc. but generally, that is not the case in non-STEM areas such as business management, law, media, entertainment, music, politics, national security, military etc. Another possible reason for choosing STEM field may be that if Asian is not very fluent with the English language, STEM field may be more attractive as well. I have seen plenty of Asian students active in all kinds of activities at my son's high school including debate, MUN, yearbook, school newspaper, volunteer activities, various team sports etc. You just cannot make blanket statements and promote stereotyping of Asian Americans. Shame on you for having the attitude that I got my Ivy degrees so hell with other Asians. College Admissions should be non-discriminatory, fair and transparent. There should not be racial balancing with something so fundamental and important as college educational opportunities.

Ivies are generally comprehensive research oriented national universities with the possible exception of 1 or 2 schools. In fact, Cornell, Princeton and Columbia have a major STEM presence and Harvard also has strong science programs, "School of Applied Science and Engineering" as well as premier Medical School and bioengineering program. It would be inaccurate to portray Ivy league schools as Liberal Arts Colleges.

Finally, Caltech may be primarily a STEM school but UC, Berkeley and UCLA certainly are not primarily tech schools and they seem to be doing fine not practicing racial preference or racial discrimination in college admissions. In fact, they also have good athletic programs as well as good philosophy, English etc. in addition to good science and tech programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arab-Americans are discriminated against, but there are no preferences for them in college. So are Jewish-Americans in many instances. I would imagine that it's difficult to achieve as a Muslim-American woman in the US. I think that's why it's problematic to only identify certain groups as worthy of a second look, different standard and not others. Any kid who has ever had a teacher unable to pronounce his name, been compared to Osama Bin laden, laughed at because she had an accent, etc. should perhaps get that look.

Are they underrepresented in higher education? If yes, then they should get a second look. If no, then they shouldn't. Of course there are particular instances, but if you're looking for a bright-line rule, then that's the only one that seems coherent.
If there's some "I was discriminated against as an Arab-American woman, and my mom couldn't go to school in her home country" background, then that should definitely go in an essay.
I wonder what people make of the "discrimination" against girl applicants. After all, it's harder to get in as a girl than a boy, all other factors being equal. So is that a lawsuit we need to start?

Women are given preferential treatment in admission to the MIT, CalTech, etc schools.

Great. How about all the other non-tech schools.

which is why on page one i said white girls should be on the side of asian-americans on this.

Nah. I'm a white girl, but I still think racism matters and URMs should get a bump.

If racism matters, then racism against Asian Americans matter as well both racism in general and the racism in college admissions.

Yes but since Asians are not underrepresented, you're not showing racism that impacts educational attainment.

If we are going to go back to the proportional representation, we have to be consistent and talk about proportional representation in other areas as well.

For example, Asian Americans should make up 6% of the Judges in this country. Asian Americans should make up 6% of the politicians in this country. Asian Americans should make up 6% of the CEOs of fortune 500 companies. Asian Americans should make up 6% of the actors in movies and TVs. Asian Americans should make up 6% of the professional athletes in this country etc. The list is almost endless.

The point is, why is it that one area (academics) where Asians apparently are "over-represented" a major problem but the fact that Asian Americans are severely "under-represented" in virtually all other areas never a problem?

The proportional argument should be applied consistently for all areas not just one or two.

Because we value education differently. And because we are talking about education here. If Asians are underrepresented as ceo's or judges that's an issue, but not related to college admissions.

Education is certainty valued by Asian Americans as well. The other areas are mentioned only in response to the usual proportional representation argument. We do not live in a vacuum. Education and eventual accomplishments and success are all connected. In fact, extreme under-representation of Asian Americans in all areas except college student populations demonstrates extreme discrimination and obstacles.

Can we also say that it's ok to have under-representation of blacks in education since blacks are over-represented in sports, music industry etc.? We are still talking about education.

If blacks made up 36% of the NFL players, we could say they are certainly still over-represented compared to the general population of about 12%. In reality, blacks make up about 70% of the NFL players. That is what Asian Americans are saying: Yes, 18% of the top colleges is greater than 6% but it would be closer to 36% without the discrimination and quotas.

+1000

You misunderstood. When I said we value education differently I meant we, as a society, value education differently than we value things like sports. We care more about education because it is the key to nearly everything. So having some groups be underrepresented in education is a major social issue, whereas having certain groups be underrepresented in hockey isn't.

I really wish that the following were true and that we "value education differently than we value things like sports. We care more about education because it is the key to nearly everything". However, the reality is that most Americans value sports, music etc. more than education.

Just look at universities in general: Pennstate atrocity was only possible because we (colleges) value revenue generating, reputation enhancing athletic programs more than providing education. UNC atrocity was only possible since we (colleges) value (sad but true) revenue generating, reputation enhancing athletic programs more than providing education. Not just colleges, in high schools all over the country as well. The high school football players in PA received "slap on the wrist" for rape because we value football programs more than providing good education. Who are the most valued "stars" in almost all high schools? Football stars, basketball stars, baseball stars etc. NOT academic achievers.

Sadly, we, as a society do not value education more than things like sports. Having certain racial group underrepresented in business, government, media, entertainment industry (which plays a key role in general perception and views), sports, law, military, academia, etc. etc. is a major social issue especially when it is so wide spread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:College admissions in the US is not the gaokao and it shouldn't be. Testing is not everything and even the Chinese and Koreans and Japanese are debating how to reduce their reliance on college admissions testing because it stifles creativity and ignores the multiple sources of excellence.

As a first generation Chinese-American with two Ivy degrees, I am just fed up with the whining about admissions to the Ivies. There are simply no race based quotas. Since only 1 percent of college students can go to an Ivy, the debate is largely inconsequential to improving the life options of Asian Americans. Fight the discrimination that affects the other 99%.

After interviewing scores of applicants, it is pretty obvious that there are lots of students with good grades who test well, but have almost nothing else. The profiles are often remarkably similar: math/science excellence, limited intellectual depth in literature and the arts, few ECs besides classical music training and occasionally individual sports like golf or tennis. Worse, they present themselves as pretty ho-hum with no passion or excitement for learning. It is as if their parents are all reading from the same book on how to raise a child who gets in to Harvard.

Another thing to remember is that the Ivies are all liberal arts colleges! A hugely disproportionate share of Asian-American applicants are in the STEM fields. Since Harvard is choosing students to fill all its majors, Asians are largely competing against other math and science students applying to Harvard, not the historians, lit majors, artists, or football players. Which also means they are largely competing against themselves. That is why the test scores look skewed and why the admission rates are lower. Caltech does not need to find students to fill its philosophy department, while Harvard does.

The bottom line is this: if you took all the names off the college applications so that the admissions directors could not tell what race an applicant is, way way more asians would be getting accepted. So all your arguing that it's because asians only have good grades and test scores, that they have fewer ECs, no sports... none of that is relevant because it is already being taken into consideration in the admissions process. Nobody is just comparing test scores and we understand that. And nobody is complaining that only test scores and gpa's should count. We are comparing EVERYTHING. What is happening is that an asian applicant with the same credentials including ECs, leadership ability... is not getting in just because they're asian (or they need above and beyond other races to get accepted). Why is that so hard to understand? I hate to stereotype but YOU really sound like an asian that must have only had good grades and not much of anything else including common sense. Maybe back when you went to ivy, it wasn't so competitive for asians to get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College admissions in the US is not the gaokao and it shouldn't be. Testing is not everything and even the Chinese and Koreans and Japanese are debating how to reduce their reliance on college admissions testing because it stifles creativity and ignores the multiple sources of excellence.

As a first generation Chinese-American with two Ivy degrees, I am just fed up with the whining about admissions to the Ivies. There are simply no race based quotas. Since only 1 percent of college students can go to an Ivy, the debate is largely inconsequential to improving the life options of Asian Americans. Fight the discrimination that affects the other 99%.

After interviewing scores of applicants, it is pretty obvious that there are lots of students with good grades who test well, but have almost nothing else. The profiles are often remarkably similar: math/science excellence, limited intellectual depth in literature and the arts, few ECs besides classical music training and occasionally individual sports like golf or tennis. Worse, they present themselves as pretty ho-hum with no passion or excitement for learning. It is as if their parents are all reading from the same book on how to raise a child who gets in to Harvard.

Another thing to remember is that the Ivies are all liberal arts colleges! A hugely disproportionate share of Asian-American applicants are in the STEM fields. Since Harvard is choosing students to fill all its majors, Asians are largely competing against other math and science students applying to Harvard, not the historians, lit majors, artists, or football players. Which also means they are largely competing against themselves. That is why the test scores look skewed and why the admission rates are lower. Caltech does not need to find students to fill its philosophy department, while Harvard does.

Thank you for such a coherent discussion of what is a really going on. It is so easy to get caught up in numbers and test scores, when, as you so rightly point out, liberal art colleges, in particular are not simply about STEM or who is a math whiz.

Sometimes I think part of the problem and the onus behind this lawsuit is the intensity of the Asian obsession with the Ivy League. Certainly, they're not alone in this, but when I lived in China and India you would have thought that Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT and Princeton were the only schools we had in this country. Everyone, regardless of their background, needs to realize that only a miniscule fraction of kids who could succeed at these schools get a chance to go to them. It's a crapshoot regardless of your ethnicity and the numbers tell only part of the story. I'm constantly amazed that with so much obvious brainpower, Asia hasn't done a better job of developing elite institutions on par with Harvard et. al.

I guess it's not simply brain power. Think about jews are arguably one of the most intelligent groups, did they have any thing on par with Harvard?

I'm tired of the the Jews/Asian comparison. Apples and Oranges and way too pat. Yes, both groups have experienced discrimination, but for different reasons and at different periods of time. Remind me about the Asian holocaust? Or the period of time when Chinese slaves were bought and sold in America? There are a lot of reasons that certain admissions practices have evolved the way they have. I'm not saying I agree with all of them, just that there are reasons for this imperfect system that have nothing to do with discriminating against Asians. Asians make up 60% of the world population and Asian Americans account for 5-6 percent of the U.S. population. Should Harvard be 60% Asian? Or 6 percent? Or somewhere in between? Should a certain percentage of Asian or Asian/Americans who apply be admitted just because a larger proportion of Asian/Asian Americans apply because Harvard or name the elite school is considered the only acceptable option?

If you read the lawsuit the example of the student with near perfect scores, impressive activities, etc. could just as easily have been a white, or Jewish student turned down in what has become an unbelievably and fiercely competitive process that takes a lot of factors into account.

As for Jews creating "any thing" on par with Harvard, look no further than the movie industry, or their incredible influence in the media world. America responds to power and influence, which is why you don't find too many Jews filing discrimination suits against elite universities. The trick is showing that you can bring something special to the table and sometimes that takes a generation of two.

[Anonymous]

I guess it's not simply brain power. Think about jews are arguably one of the most intelligent groups, did they have any thing on par with Harvard?


I'm tired of the the Jews/Asian comparison. Apples and Oranges and way too pat. Yes, both groups have experienced discrimination, but for different reasons and at different periods of time. Remind me about the Asian holocaust? Or the period of time when Chinese slaves were bought and sold in America? There are a lot of reasons that certain admissions practices have evolved the way they have. I'm not saying I agree with all of them, just that there are reasons for this imperfect system that have nothing to do with discriminating against Asians. Asians make up 60% of the world population and Asian Americans account for 5-6 percent of the U.S. population. Should Harvard be 60% Asian? Or 6 percent? Or somewhere in between? Should a certain percentage of Asian or Asian/Americans who apply be admitted just because a larger proportion of Asian/Asian Americans apply because Harvard or name the elite school is considered the only acceptable option?

If you read the lawsuit the example of the student with near perfect scores, impressive activities, etc. could just as easily have been a white, or Jewish student turned down in what has become an unbelievably and fiercely competitive process that takes a lot of factors into account.

As for Jews creating "any thing" on par with Harvard, look no further than the movie industry, or their incredible influence in the media world. America responds to power and influence, which is why you don't find too many Jews filing discrimination suits against elite universities. The trick is showing that you can bring something special to the table and sometimes that takes a generation of two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College admissions in the US is not the gaokao and it shouldn't be. Testing is not everything and even the Chinese and Koreans and Japanese are debating how to reduce their reliance on college admissions testing because it stifles creativity and ignores the multiple sources of excellence.

As a first generation Chinese-American with two Ivy degrees, I am just fed up with the whining about admissions to the Ivies. There are simply no race based quotas. Since only 1 percent of college students can go to an Ivy, the debate is largely inconsequential to improving the life options of Asian Americans. Fight the discrimination that affects the other 99%.

After interviewing scores of applicants, it is pretty obvious that there are lots of students with good grades who test well, but have almost nothing else. The profiles are often remarkably similar: math/science excellence, limited intellectual depth in literature and the arts, few ECs besides classical music training and occasionally individual sports like golf or tennis. Worse, they present themselves as pretty ho-hum with no passion or excitement for learning. It is as if their parents are all reading from the same book on how to raise a child who gets in to Harvard.

Another thing to remember is that the Ivies are all liberal arts colleges! A hugely disproportionate share of Asian-American applicants are in the STEM fields. Since Harvard is choosing students to fill all its majors, Asians are largely competing against other math and science students applying to Harvard, not the historians, lit majors, artists, or football players. Which also means they are largely competing against themselves. That is why the test scores look skewed and why the admission rates are lower. Caltech does not need to find students to fill its philosophy department, while Harvard does.

The bottom line is this: if you took all the names off the college applications so that the admissions directors could not tell what race an applicant is, way way more asians would be getting accepted. So all your arguing that it's because asians only have good grades and test scores, that they have fewer ECs, no sports... none of that is relevant because it is already being taken into consideration in the admissions process. Nobody is just comparing test scores and we understand that. And nobody is complaining that only test scores and gpa's should count. We are comparing EVERYTHING. What is happening is that an asian applicant with the same credentials including ECs, leadership ability... is not getting in just because they're asian (or they need above and beyond other races to get accepted). Why is that so hard to understand? I hate to stereotype but YOU really sound like an asian that must have only had good grades and not much of anything else including common sense. Maybe back when you went to ivy, it wasn't so competitive for asians to get in.

Says you. how about taking the sex off the application as well since sometimes girls have a more difficult time getting into certain elite U's. Harvard is a private university and should accept who they see fit.. Yes, they make use of public money, but with their reputation and endowment they could likely make it without. I'm with PP. Stop whining -- either show them why you're so unique in your achievements they can't turn you away or go somewhere else and make them sorry -- that should be the mantra for kids of ALL backgrounds. There are a lot of routes to success for the hardworking and resourceful in this country. This isn't Brown v. Topeka denying an underprivileged minority the basic right of equal and unsegregated schooling.

Interesting, btw, the difference a generation or so makes. In Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson in 1971, it was Chinese Americans battling to keep San Francisco public school segregated so Chinese students would not lose touch with their heritage...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College admissions in the US is not the gaokao and it shouldn't be. Testing is not everything and even the Chinese and Koreans and Japanese are debating how to reduce their reliance on college admissions testing because it stifles creativity and ignores the multiple sources of excellence.

As a first generation Chinese-American with two Ivy degrees, I am just fed up with the whining about admissions to the Ivies. There are simply no race based quotas. Since only 1 percent of college students can go to an Ivy, the debate is largely inconsequential to improving the life options of Asian Americans. Fight the discrimination that affects the other 99%.

After interviewing scores of applicants, it is pretty obvious that there are lots of students with good grades who test well, but have almost nothing else. The profiles are often remarkably similar: math/science excellence, limited intellectual depth in literature and the arts, few ECs besides classical music training and occasionally individual sports like golf or tennis. Worse, they present themselves as pretty ho-hum with no passion or excitement for learning. It is as if their parents are all reading from the same book on how to raise a child who gets in to Harvard.

Another thing to remember is that the Ivies are all liberal arts colleges! A hugely disproportionate share of Asian-American applicants are in the STEM fields. Since Harvard is choosing students to fill all its majors, Asians are largely competing against other math and science students applying to Harvard, not the historians, lit majors, artists, or football players. Which also means they are largely competing against themselves. That is why the test scores look skewed and why the admission rates are lower. Caltech does not need to find students to fill its philosophy department, while Harvard does.

The bottom line is this: if you took all the names off the college applications so that the admissions directors could not tell what race an applicant is, way way more asians would be getting accepted. So all your arguing that it's because asians only have good grades and test scores, that they have fewer ECs, no sports... none of that is relevant because it is already being taken into consideration in the admissions process. Nobody is just comparing test scores and we understand that. And nobody is complaining that only test scores and gpa's should count. We are comparing EVERYTHING. What is happening is that an asian applicant with the same credentials including ECs, leadership ability... is not getting in just because they're asian (or they need above and beyond other races to get accepted). Why is that so hard to understand? I hate to stereotype but YOU really sound like an asian that must have only had good grades and not much of anything else including common sense. Maybe back when you went to ivy, it wasn't so competitive for asians to get in.

Says you. how about taking the sex off the application as well since sometimes girls have a more difficult time getting into certain elite U's. Harvard is a private university and should accept who they see fit.. Yes, they make use of public money, but with their reputation and endowment they could likely make it without. I'm with PP. Stop whining -- either show them why you're so unique in your achievements they can't turn you away or go somewhere else and make them sorry -- that should be the mantra for kids of ALL backgrounds. There are a lot of routes to success for the hardworking and resourceful in this country. This isn't Brown v. Topeka denying an underprivileged minority the basic right of equal and unsegregated schooling.

Interesting, btw, the difference a generation or so makes. In Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson in 1971, it was Chinese Americans battling to keep San Francisco public school segregated so Chinese students would not lose touch with their heritage...

+1,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess it's not simply brain power. Think about jews are arguably one of the most intelligent groups, did they have any thing on par with Harvard?


I'm tired of the the Jews/Asian comparison. Apples and Oranges and way too pat. Yes, both groups have experienced discrimination, but for different reasons and at different periods of time. Remind me about the Asian holocaust? Or the period of time when Chinese slaves were bought and sold in America? There are a lot of reasons that certain admissions practices have evolved the way they have. I'm not saying I agree with all of them, just that there are reasons for this imperfect system that have nothing to do with discriminating against Asians. Asians make up 60% of the world population and Asian Americans account for 5-6 percent of the U.S. population. Should Harvard be 60% Asian? Or 6 percent? Or somewhere in between? Should a certain percentage of Asian or Asian/Americans who apply be admitted just because a larger proportion of Asian/Asian Americans apply because Harvard or name the elite school is considered the only acceptable option?

If you read the lawsuit the example of the student with near perfect scores, impressive activities, etc. could just as easily have been a white, or Jewish student turned down in what has become an unbelievably and fiercely competitive process that takes a lot of factors into account.

As for Jews creating "any thing" on par with Harvard, look no further than the movie industry, or their incredible influence in the media world. America responds to power and influence, which is why you don't find too many Jews filing discrimination suits against elite universities. The trick is showing that you can bring something special to the table and sometimes that takes a generation of two.

+1. The Asian 'victim' whine diminishes his argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College admissions in the US is not the gaokao and it shouldn't be. Testing is not everything and even the Chinese and Koreans and Japanese are debating how to reduce their reliance on college admissions testing because it stifles creativity and ignores the multiple sources of excellence.

As a first generation Chinese-American with two Ivy degrees, I am just fed up with the whining about admissions to the Ivies. There are simply no race based quotas. Since only 1 percent of college students can go to an Ivy, the debate is largely inconsequential to improving the life options of Asian Americans. Fight the discrimination that affects the other 99%.

After interviewing scores of applicants, it is pretty obvious that there are lots of students with good grades who test well, but have almost nothing else. The profiles are often remarkably similar: math/science excellence, limited intellectual depth in literature and the arts, few ECs besides classical music training and occasionally individual sports like golf or tennis. Worse, they present themselves as pretty ho-hum with no passion or excitement for learning. It is as if their parents are all reading from the same book on how to raise a child who gets in to Harvard.

Another thing to remember is that the Ivies are all liberal arts colleges! A hugely disproportionate share of Asian-American applicants are in the STEM fields. Since Harvard is choosing students to fill all its majors, Asians are largely competing against other math and science students applying to Harvard, not the historians, lit majors, artists, or football players. Which also means they are largely competing against themselves. That is why the test scores look skewed and why the admission rates are lower. Caltech does not need to find students to fill its philosophy department, while Harvard does.

First, no one is saying (certainly not most Asian Americans) U.S. college admissions is or should be equivalent to "gaokao". This is your first confusion. Most Asian Americans are perfectly willing and able to comply with the rules and requirements of the U.S. college admissions system. Asian Americans are not saying "testing is everything". That is often alleged by non-Asian Americans who want to perpetuate the stereotype of Asian Americans and portray Asian Americans as one-dimensional. This is offensive as saying blacks are not intelligent or Hispanics are lazy. Any stereotyping of races should not be tolerated. Your entire argument assumes Asian Americans only regard testing as important and that they only excel with tests and that is simply not true and also offensive as noted earlier.

I am fed up with those claiming to be Asian Americans who display the attitude that since I already attended Ivy League school and have "Ivy degrees" hell with all the other Asian Americans and that any allegation of discrimination is whining. You simply cannot say there is no race based quotas just because you have two Ivy degrees. All the historical evidence points to a cap on Asian acceptances. Obviously, a college will not circulate a written memo stating they have a "quota" on Asian acceptances but they can certainly have an understanding what the rough percentage would be for Asian acceptances. In addition, Asian Americans should fight discrimination in all major areas and college admissions is a prominent area where discrimination should not be tolerated. Good education plays a major role in eventual success and accomplishment in general and many key/leadership positions in society appear to be closely connected to good/great education. In addition, precisely since there is a pervasive racial discrimination against Asian Americans in general, obtaining the best possible educational credentials is even more important compared to other races.

You are making blanket statements regarding Asians and Asian Americans when you say "it is pretty obvious that there are lots of students with good grades who test well, but have almost nothing else." "The profiles are often remarkably similar: math/science excellence, limited intellectual depth in literature and the arts,---" Maybe you have forgotten how it was before you earned your two "Ivy degrees". Maybe your two "Ivy degrees" have opened doors for you and you have done relatively well in your chosen field but try to imagine what could have happened if you were denied admissions to Ivy League schools and attended some typical state universities. Would you still say that Asian Americans are "whining" when you hear of racial dissemination against Asian Americans in college admissions? If you are really a "Chinese American" and not someone masquerading as Asian, can you honestly say that your kids will be treated equally with blacks, Hispanics and white applicants when they apply to Ivy League schools?

Let me point out few things that you may have forgotten thanks to your two "Ivy degrees". Asians tend to gravitate towards STEM fields because that is about the only area where there appears to be less discrimination against Asians in general. Whites tend to view Asians as "competent" engineers, computer programmer, scientists etc. but generally, that is not the case in non-STEM areas such as business management, law, media, entertainment, music, politics, national security, military etc. Another possible reason for choosing STEM field may be that if Asian is not very fluent with the English language, STEM field may be more attractive as well. I have seen plenty of Asian students active in all kinds of activities at my son's high school including debate, MUN, yearbook, school newspaper, volunteer activities, various team sports etc. You just cannot make blanket statements and promote stereotyping of Asian Americans. Shame on you for having the attitude that I got my Ivy degrees so hell with other Asians. College Admissions should be non-discriminatory, fair and transparent. There should not be racial balancing with something so fundamental and important as college educational opportunities.

Ivies are generally comprehensive research oriented national universities with the possible exception of 1 or 2 schools. In fact, Cornell, Princeton and Columbia have a major STEM presence and Harvard also has strong science programs, "School of Applied Science and Engineering" as well as premier Medical School and bioengineering program. It would be inaccurate to portray Ivy league schools as Liberal Arts Colleges.

Finally, Caltech may be primarily a STEM school but UC, Berkeley and UCLA certainly are not primarily tech schools and they seem to be doing fine not practicing racial preference or racial discrimination in college admissions. In fact, they also have good athletic programs as well as good philosophy, English etc. in addition to good science and tech programs.

Thank you for your effective rebuttal!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess it's not simply brain power. Think about jews are arguably one of the most intelligent groups, did they have any thing on par with Harvard?


I'm tired of the the Jews/Asian comparison. Apples and Oranges and way too pat. Yes, both groups have experienced discrimination, but for different reasons and at different periods of time. Remind me about the Asian holocaust? Or the period of time when Chinese slaves were bought and sold in America? There are a lot of reasons that certain admissions practices have evolved the way they have. I'm not saying I agree with all of them, just that there are reasons for this imperfect system that have nothing to do with discriminating against Asians. Asians make up 60% of the world population and Asian Americans account for 5-6 percent of the U.S. population. Should Harvard be 60% Asian? Or 6 percent? Or somewhere in between? Should a certain percentage of Asian or Asian/Americans who apply be admitted just because a larger proportion of Asian/Asian Americans apply because Harvard or name the elite school is considered the only acceptable option?

If you read the lawsuit the example of the student with near perfect scores, impressive activities, etc. could just as easily have been a white, or Jewish student turned down in what has become an unbelievably and fiercely competitive process that takes a lot of factors into account.

As for Jews creating "any thing" on par with Harvard, look no further than the movie industry, or their incredible influence in the media world. America responds to power and influence, which is why you don't find too many Jews filing discrimination suits against elite universities. The trick is showing that you can bring something special to the table and sometimes that takes a generation of two.

Jews make up 30% of Ivies on average and they make up 2% of the population (15 times ratio) so they are overwhelmingly over represented. You cannot say Jews have the same chances as Asians since Jews enjoy an actual boost in admission as opposed to quotas experienced by Asians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


The bottom line is this: if you took all the names off the college applications so that the admissions directors could not tell what race an applicant is, way way more asians would be getting accepted. So all your arguing that it's because asians only have good grades and test scores, that they have fewer ECs, no sports... none of that is relevant because it is already being taken into consideration in the admissions process. Nobody is just comparing test scores and we understand that. And nobody is complaining that only test scores and gpa's should count. We are comparing EVERYTHING. What is happening is that an asian applicant with the same credentials including ECs, leadership ability... is not getting in just because they're asian (or they need above and beyond other races to get accepted). Why is that so hard to understand? I hate to stereotype but YOU really sound like an asian that must have only had good grades and not much of anything else including common sense. Maybe back when you went to ivy, it wasn't so competitive for asians to get in.

I think this is a great idea. I think race and gender should be removed from the application. It would make it more like those blind orchestra auditions. If we find that the result is too few white/black/hispanic males, we should then change the objective criteria so that even with a blind admission, they would be selected. Perhaps put a even higher weight on football, for example.

If we find the asians/women change their strategy so that they still get selected, maybe we should rethink admissions altogether. Maybe schools should mark students as qualified/not-qualified and then use a random number generator to select. They would get the correct proportion of every kind of diversity that way, as long as they didn't set the "qualified" bar too high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess it's not simply brain power. Think about jews are arguably one of the most intelligent groups, did they have any thing on par with Harvard?


I'm tired of the the Jews/Asian comparison. Apples and Oranges and way too pat. Yes, both groups have experienced discrimination, but for different reasons and at different periods of time. Remind me about the Asian holocaust? Or the period of time when Chinese slaves were bought and sold in America? There are a lot of reasons that certain admissions practices have evolved the way they have. I'm not saying I agree with all of them, just that there are reasons for this imperfect system that have nothing to do with discriminating against Asians. Asians make up 60% of the world population and Asian Americans account for 5-6 percent of the U.S. population. Should Harvard be 60% Asian? Or 6 percent? Or somewhere in between? Should a certain percentage of Asian or Asian/Americans who apply be admitted just because a larger proportion of Asian/Asian Americans apply because Harvard or name the elite school is considered the only acceptable option?

If you read the lawsuit the example of the student with near perfect scores, impressive activities, etc. could just as easily have been a white, or Jewish student turned down in what has become an unbelievably and fiercely competitive process that takes a lot of factors into account.

As for Jews creating "any thing" on par with Harvard, look no further than the movie industry, or their incredible influence in the media world. America responds to power and influence, which is why you don't find too many Jews filing discrimination suits against elite universities. The trick is showing that you can bring something special to the table and sometimes that takes a generation of two.

Jews make up 30% of Ivies on average and they make up 2% of the population (15 times ratio) so they are overwhelmingly over represented. You cannot say Jews have the same chances as Asians since Jews enjoy an actual boost in admission as opposed to quotas experienced by Asians.

I did not say that. Please reread my post. What I said was that Asian student in the example in the lawsuit could have been any race -- the standout academics, test scores, activities etc. seem like a starting point for consideration by Harvard (all boxes checked, etc.), not grounds for an automatic acceptance or a cry of discrimination if rejected. Can we please get over the whole proportional representation thing? Not going to happen. And that's not what Harvard or any good school is about. It's getting a mix of what the admissions officers think is an extraordinary group of people. Does that mean that everyone not accepted wasn't extraordinary? No. It means by the calculations of the human admission officers employed by a particular school, they weren't deemed must-haves or ideal fits for that particular class.

People need to stop looking for the perfect formula, take their best shot and get over it. Again, show them that they're wrong, stop whining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


The bottom line is this: if you took all the names off the college applications so that the admissions directors could not tell what race an applicant is, way way more asians would be getting accepted. So all your arguing that it's because asians only have good grades and test scores, that they have fewer ECs, no sports... none of that is relevant because it is already being taken into consideration in the admissions process. Nobody is just comparing test scores and we understand that. And nobody is complaining that only test scores and gpa's should count. We are comparing EVERYTHING. What is happening is that an asian applicant with the same credentials including ECs, leadership ability... is not getting in just because they're asian (or they need above and beyond other races to get accepted). Why is that so hard to understand? I hate to stereotype but YOU really sound like an asian that must have only had good grades and not much of anything else including common sense. Maybe back when you went to ivy, it wasn't so competitive for asians to get in.

I think this is a great idea. I think race and gender should be removed from the application. It would make it more like those blind orchestra auditions. If we find that the result is too few white/black/hispanic males, we should then change the objective criteria so that even with a blind admission, they would be selected. Perhaps put a even higher weight on football, for example.

If we find the asians/women change their strategy so that they still get selected, maybe we should rethink admissions altogether. Maybe schools should mark students as qualified/not-qualified and then use a random number generator to select. They would get the correct proportion of every kind of diversity that way, as long as they didn't set the "qualified" bar too high.

How do you figure that? If I were the dean of a University and this was suggested to me I would think it was crazy. This isn't a lottery or a math problem where you can plug in x and y, weight them properly and get the right answer, it's selecting a group of individuals based on a multitude of factors to make up a class. Nor is it getting together the best sounding people to play a song.

And what would you do at interviews? Have applicants wear a disguise? C'mon. Just keep repeating to yourself: There are a lot of factors considered, some people are more impressive in person than on paper, some people bring something unique to a class that others even with higher test scores and seemingly more impressive sounding activities don't. Even if all identifying info was taken away -- " that's soccer -- not men's or women's soccer that the student was captain of," someone would figure out a way to identify the sex, ethnicity whatever. And no one would ever be happy and the world or application process would never feel completely fair to everyone