Insider Perspectives from a Highly Selective Admissions Office

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, what do you (and those in your office) think about the higher standards being placed on Asian American applicants?

It's a difficult topic. We receive thousands of applications from Asian Americans who score a 2200+ and who have a 4.0 UW or close to it. We know these students have worked immeasurably hard to achieve these goals. The reality is that our purpose is to bring people from all walks of life, and unfortunately, when Asians are already over-represented at campus, it's hard to admit more students without compromising the diversity we aim for. Our white % is already noticeably lower than the US Census; the Hispanic and African-American numbers are a little lower or around the same, but the Asian American number is much higher than the US Census. Most of our international students are Asians as well. I know that sounds hypocritical when our campus is so privileged socioeconomically, but our admit pool is ultimately a microcosm of the larger applicant pool- no matter how many adjustments we try to make- we receive a lot (and I mean a lot) more applications from rich students, we receive more applications from Asians than Blacks or Hispanics and just a few more Caucasian applications than Asian applications.

I see the value of a meritocracy similar to the UC system- admitting students on the basis of their objective measures. My personal stance is that subjectives are as key to bringing the best and brightest. Were we to rely on just numbers, we'd exclude the student who graduated summa cum laude in our college but had only a 1750 SAT from her inner city background (real story, just happened last May). We'd exclude the valedictorian who had to work full time to support their family, and thus didn't have the ability to do test prep. Relying on objectives alone means eliminating the richness and complexity that is part of these students' lived backgrounds and experiences, and we just don't want to do that. We also want to make sure the students ARE capable of handling the work, hence the minimum expectations for GPA, test scores, etc. and a heavy consideration of academic potential by LORs.

isn't this the same argument used to hold jews down before?

[Anonymous]

No, diversity wasn’t a goal when Jewish quotas were in place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, diversity wasn’t a goal when Jewish quotas were in place.

So the goal has shifted but quotas remain?

It seems how OP describes it all that there is a defacto quota system.

[Anonymous]

OP, when you see an applicant from NCS, St Albans or SIdwell, is the presumption for, against, or not at all a factor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, what do you (and those in your office) think about the higher standards being placed on Asian American applicants?

It's a difficult topic. We receive thousands of applications from Asian Americans who score a 2200+ and who have a 4.0 UW or close to it. We know these students have worked immeasurably hard to achieve these goals. The reality is that our purpose is to bring people from all walks of life, and unfortunately, when Asians are already over-represented at campus, it's hard to admit more students without compromising the diversity we aim for. Our white % is already noticeably lower than the US Census; the Hispanic and African-American numbers are a little lower or around the same, but the Asian American number is much higher than the US Census. Most of our international students are Asians as well. I know that sounds hypocritical when our campus is so privileged socioeconomically, but our admit pool is ultimately a microcosm of the larger applicant pool- no matter how many adjustments we try to make- we receive a lot (and I mean a lot) more applications from rich students, we receive more applications from Asians than Blacks or Hispanics and just a few more Caucasian applications than Asian applications.

I see the value of a meritocracy similar to the UC system- admitting students on the basis of their objective measures. My personal stance is that subjectives are as key to bringing the best and brightest. Were we to rely on just numbers, we'd exclude the student who graduated summa cum laude in our college but had only a 1750 SAT from her inner city background (real story, just happened last May). We'd exclude the valedictorian who had to work full time to support their family, and thus didn't have the ability to do test prep. Relying on objectives alone means eliminating the richness and complexity that is part of these students' lived backgrounds and experiences, and we just don't want to do that. We also want to make sure the students ARE capable of handling the work, hence the minimum expectations for GPA, test scores, etc. and a heavy consideration of academic potential by LORs.

isn't this the same argument used to hold jews down before?

Interesting point, so riddle me this. I'll use Yale as an example but the numbers are comparable at any top school. At Yale, jews represent 28% of the student body, asians represent 21%. Jews represent 2% of the US population, asians represent 5.6% So jews are represented 14x the expected rates while asians are represented under 4x the expected rate. Yet the college is concerned with over-representation of one group and not the other.....why is that? Could it be because Asians look different from others and thus are easily identifiable? And i like how the admissions officer effectively lumped the international asians in with asian-americans in his calculation of asian representation on campus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, what do you (and those in your office) think about the higher standards being placed on Asian American applicants?

It's a difficult topic. We receive thousands of applications from Asian Americans who score a 2200+ and who have a 4.0 UW or close to it. We know these students have worked immeasurably hard to achieve these goals. The reality is that our purpose is to bring people from all walks of life, and unfortunately, when Asians are already over-represented at campus, it's hard to admit more students without compromising the diversity we aim for. Our white % is already noticeably lower than the US Census; the Hispanic and African-American numbers are a little lower or around the same, but the Asian American number is much higher than the US Census. Most of our international students are Asians as well. I know that sounds hypocritical when our campus is so privileged socioeconomically, but our admit pool is ultimately a microcosm of the larger applicant pool- no matter how many adjustments we try to make- we receive a lot (and I mean a lot) more applications from rich students, we receive more applications from Asians than Blacks or Hispanics and just a few more Caucasian applications than Asian applications.

I see the value of a meritocracy similar to the UC system- admitting students on the basis of their objective measures. My personal stance is that subjectives are as key to bringing the best and brightest. Were we to rely on just numbers, we'd exclude the student who graduated summa cum laude in our college but had only a 1750 SAT from her inner city background (real story, just happened last May). We'd exclude the valedictorian who had to work full time to support their family, and thus didn't have the ability to do test prep. Relying on objectives alone means eliminating the richness and complexity that is part of these students' lived backgrounds and experiences, and we just don't want to do that. We also want to make sure the students ARE capable of handling the work, hence the minimum expectations for GPA, test scores, etc. and a heavy consideration of academic potential by LORs.

isn't this the same argument used to hold jews down before?

Interesting point, so riddle me this. I'll use Yale as an example but the numbers are comparable at any top school. At Yale, jews represent 28% of the student body, asians represent 21%. Jews represent 2% of the US population, asians represent 5.6% So jews are represented 14x the expected rates while asians are represented under 4x the expected rate. Yet the college is concerned with over-representation of one group and not the other.....why is that? Could it be because Asians look different from others and thus are easily identifiable? And i like how the admissions officer effectively lumped the international asians in with asian-americans in his calculation of asian representation on campus.

Agree! Admissions is using race here - if you would have admitted a black kid with the same stats but wont admit an Asian kid with same stats because of diversity, what is the diversity here? Color of the skin? Hogwash. One can argue that there is diversity in the Asian community as they have different backgrounds - you are lumping ALL the Asians together based on how they look, and not on their backgrounds/diversity - a Japanese is not the same as a Korean or a Vietnamese or a Thai person. Shame on admissions for practicing racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, what do you (and those in your office) think about the higher standards being placed on Asian American applicants?

It's a difficult topic. We receive thousands of applications from Asian Americans who score a 2200+ and who have a 4.0 UW or close to it. We know these students have worked immeasurably hard to achieve these goals. The reality is that our purpose is to bring people from all walks of life, and unfortunately, when Asians are already over-represented at campus, it's hard to admit more students without compromising the diversity we aim for. Our white % is already noticeably lower than the US Census; the Hispanic and African-American numbers are a little lower or around the same, but the Asian American number is much higher than the US Census. Most of our international students are Asians as well. I know that sounds hypocritical when our campus is so privileged socioeconomically, but our admit pool is ultimately a microcosm of the larger applicant pool- no matter how many adjustments we try to make- we receive a lot (and I mean a lot) more applications from rich students, we receive more applications from Asians than Blacks or Hispanics and just a few more Caucasian applications than Asian applications.

I see the value of a meritocracy similar to the UC system- admitting students on the basis of their objective measures. My personal stance is that subjectives are as key to bringing the best and brightest. Were we to rely on just numbers, we'd exclude the student who graduated summa cum laude in our college but had only a 1750 SAT from her inner city background (real story, just happened last May). We'd exclude the valedictorian who had to work full time to support their family, and thus didn't have the ability to do test prep. Relying on objectives alone means eliminating the richness and complexity that is part of these students' lived backgrounds and experiences, and we just don't want to do that. We also want to make sure the students ARE capable of handling the work, hence the minimum expectations for GPA, test scores, etc. and a heavy consideration of academic potential by LORs.

isn't this the same argument used to hold jews down before?

Interesting point, so riddle me this. I'll use Yale as an example but the numbers are comparable at any top school. At Yale, jews represent 28% of the student body, asians represent 21%. Jews represent 2% of the US population, asians represent 5.6% So jews are represented 14x the expected rates while asians are represented under 4x the expected rate. Yet the college is concerned with over-representation of one group and not the other.....why is that? Could it be because Asians look different from others and thus are easily identifiable? And i like how the admissions officer effectively lumped the international asians in with asian-americans in his calculation of asian representation on campus.

Agree! Admissions is using race here - if you would have admitted a black kid with the same stats but wont admit an Asian kid with same stats because of diversity, what is the diversity here? Color of the skin? Hogwash. One can argue that there is diversity in the Asian community as they have different backgrounds - you are lumping ALL the Asians together based on how they look, and not on their backgrounds/diversity - a Japanese is not the same as a Korean or a Vietnamese or a Thai person. Shame on admissions for practicing racism.

THat's another interesting point. Do colleges lump south asian applicants (Indian, Pakistani, etc.) in with east and southeast asian applicants?

[Anonymous]

We do recognize differences in ethnicity. For instance, being Hmong or Uzbek will mean you are reviewed under a different light than if you were Chinese or Indian. At the end of the day, all of these groups will be reported in the same census group, but we are tasked with bringing a diversity of students, and that means people from all ethnic backgrounds. A case in point- we had an applicant ranked #4 who was Chinese and another ranked #13 who was Vietnamese; the former had higher test scores and more extracurricular involvements, but the Vietnamese applicant was low-income and the strongest STEM student in their school. We admitted the latter, not the former; we receive so many qualified Chinese applications, but not many Vietnamese ones.

Please learn to read. Obviously they do not lump all Asians as one identity in the consideration process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We do recognize differences in ethnicity. For instance, being Hmong or Uzbek will mean you are reviewed under a different light than if you were Chinese or Indian. At the end of the day, all of these groups will be reported in the same census group, but we are tasked with bringing a diversity of students, and that means people from all ethnic backgrounds. A case in point- we had an applicant ranked #4 who was Chinese and another ranked #13 who was Vietnamese; the former had higher test scores and more extracurricular involvements, but the Vietnamese applicant was low-income and the strongest STEM student in their school. We admitted the latter, not the former; we receive so many qualified Chinese applications, but not many Vietnamese ones.

Please learn to read. Obviously they do not lump all Asians as one identity in the consideration process.

Don’t be dim, of course they do when they set their quota.

[Anonymous]

At Yale, jews represent 28% of the student body, asians represent 21%. Jews represent 2% of the US population, asians represent 5.6% So jews are represented 14x the expected rates while asians are represented under 4x the expected rate.

How do you know this? How do you know Jews aren't 10x or 14x more likely to apply to Yale than gentile peers?

Are you alleging there's a conspiracy to admit more Jews? How would an entire university go about doing that without that collusion eventually leaking and leading to a huge whistle blower lawsuit? How does admissions know a student is Jewish?

Why did this outgoing talented Jewish student get rejected from every top 20 university?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

At Yale, jews represent 28% of the student body, asians represent 21%. Jews represent 2% of the US population, asians represent 5.6% So jews are represented 14x the expected rates while asians are represented under 4x the expected rate.

How do you know this? How do you know Jews aren't 10x or 14x more likely to apply to Yale than gentile peers?

Are you alleging there's a conspiracy to admit more Jews? How would an entire university go about doing that without that collusion eventually leaking and leading to a huge whistle blower lawsuit? How does admissions know a student is Jewish?

Why did this outgoing talented Jewish student get rejected from every top 20 university?

Lol.....good lord you’re a bit slow. The point is that colleges are implicitly placing quotas on Asians but not on other minority groups such as Jews. Feel better now?

[Anonymous]

What level of donation gets your kid in the VIP level? Does giving history matter (1-5k per year for 10 years for instance) or do you need more like a $50-100k one or two time gift a few years before applying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At Yale, jews represent 28% of the student body, asians represent 21%. Jews represent 2% of the US population, asians represent 5.6% So jews are represented 14x the expected rates while asians are represented under 4x the expected rate.

How do you know this? How do you know Jews aren't 10x or 14x more likely to apply to Yale than gentile peers?

Are you alleging there's a conspiracy to admit more Jews? How would an entire university go about doing that without that collusion eventually leaking and leading to a huge whistle blower lawsuit? How does admissions know a student is Jewish?

Why did this outgoing talented Jewish student get rejected from every top 20 university?

Lol.....good lord you’re a bit slow. The point is that colleges are implicitly placing quotas on Asians but not on other minority groups such as Jews. Feel better now?

And that is because Asians are not white.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

At Yale, jews represent 28% of the student body, asians represent 21%. Jews represent 2% of the US population, asians represent 5.6% So jews are represented 14x the expected rates while asians are represented under 4x the expected rate.

How do you know this? How do you know Jews aren't 10x or 14x more likely to apply to Yale than gentile peers?

Are you alleging there's a conspiracy to admit more Jews? How would an entire university go about doing that without that collusion eventually leaking and leading to a huge whistle blower lawsuit? How does admissions know a student is Jewish?

Why did this outgoing talented Jewish student get rejected from every top 20 university?

She is obnoxious. So glad she didn't get in. MCPS weighs their grades so highly it is almost impossible to NOT get an A. They also give a full point higher in honors and AP's. There are so many over achievers out there with close to 5.0 GPA. I watched a video on Amherst admissions round table and one kid had a 6.5 GPA. What the heck is that? Admissions weeds out ones that seem fake, put together. If she was on par with many kids in her school, didn't play sports or theater/music and only focused on grades, she is vanilla. And yes, if she was Latino, she would have been a shoe in. That part sucks but she still doesn't seem so great to me. Fake actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At Yale, jews represent 28% of the student body, asians represent 21%. Jews represent 2% of the US population, asians represent 5.6% So jews are represented 14x the expected rates while asians are represented under 4x the expected rate.

How do you know this? How do you know Jews aren't 10x or 14x more likely to apply to Yale than gentile peers?

Are you alleging there's a conspiracy to admit more Jews? How would an entire university go about doing that without that collusion eventually leaking and leading to a huge whistle blower lawsuit? How does admissions know a student is Jewish?

Why did this outgoing talented Jewish student get rejected from every top 20 university?

She is obnoxious. So glad she didn't get in. MCPS weighs their grades so highly it is almost impossible to NOT get an A. They also give a full point higher in honors and AP's. There are so many over achievers out there with close to 5.0 GPA. I watched a video on Amherst admissions round table and one kid had a 6.5 GPA. What the heck is that? Admissions weeds out ones that seem fake, put together. If she was on par with many kids in her school, didn't play sports or theater/music and only focused on grades, she is vanilla. And yes, if she was Latino, she would have been a shoe in. That part sucks but she still doesn't seem so great to me. Fake actually.

+1 She is so whiney. Grades and GPA aren't the sum total of an applicant's strengths. I too am glad she didn;t get in because she represents the wosrts aspects of applicants to selective colleges. Just gross.