Asian American student with 1590 SAT score blames affirmative action for rejections from 6 colleges

[Anonymous]

What a foolish lawsuit. I feel bad for this kid that he is a pawn in this political nonsense. I hope he enjoys Georgia Tech and lives his life.

How embarrassing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He should sue and he should win. These kids work their tails off and then they are rejected because of race. It's outrageous.

Says who? Prove that. Show empirically that those schools chose someone else instead of this guy because of race. Berkeley? You seen the student population of Berkeley? You think Asians are being rejected from Berkeley because they are Asian? Are we serious right now?

Yeah, I know. I believe Berkeley is 50% Asian if you include internationals but the kid didn't get admitted because one of the 3% of blacks took his spot... Unfortunately, the likes of white supremacists are loving that minorities are being pitted against minorities (divide and conquer) despite the fact that the vast majority of spots at these schools are reserved for ALDCs. You look at the athletes on the rosters of these schools and they are disproportionately white (you will only see black faces on the basketball and football teams, and these the numbers are minuscule when you consider all the other sports like lacrosse, fencing, swimming, crew, soccer, baseball, squash, tennis, etc.). All these people have no problem cheering on their black athletes on the basketball/football teams (these are the only sports that matter) but if they are not bouncing a ball or scoring a touchdown, then to Hell with them....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He should sue and he should win. These kids work their tails off and then they are rejected because of race. It's outrageous.

Says who? Prove that. Show empirically that those schools chose someone else instead of this guy because of race. Berkeley? You seen the student population of Berkeley? You think Asians are being rejected from Berkeley because they are Asian? Are we serious right now?

The suit is against Harvard, not Berkley.

Also, CA went around the aa issue by taking the top 6% of HS. They don't have "likeability" factor, unlike Harvard.

The kid referenced in the article is upset he also didn't get into Berkeley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He should sue and he should win. These kids work their tails off and then they are rejected because of race. It's outrageous.

Says who? Prove that. Show empirically that those schools chose someone else instead of this guy because of race. Berkeley? You seen the student population of Berkeley? You think Asians are being rejected from Berkeley because they are Asian? Are we serious right now?

+1. Take a trip to Carnegie Mellon. It doesn't look like discrimination to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He should sue and he should win. These kids work their tails off and then they are rejected because of race. It's outrageous.

Says who? Prove that. Show empirically that those schools chose someone else instead of this guy because of race. Berkeley? You seen the student population of Berkeley? You think Asians are being rejected from Berkeley because they are Asian? Are we serious right now?

Yeah, I know. I believe Berkeley is 50% Asian if you include internationals but the kid didn't get admitted because one of the 3% of blacks took his spot... Unfortunately, the likes of white supremacists are loving that minorities are being pitted against minorities (divide and conquer) despite the fact that the vast majority of spots at these schools are reserved for ALDCs. You look at the athletes on the rosters of these schools and they are disproportionately white (you will only see black faces on the basketball and football teams, and these the numbers are minuscule when you consider all the other sports like lacrosse, fencing, swimming, crew, soccer, baseball, squash, tennis, etc.). All these people have no problem cheering on their black athletes on the basketball/football teams (these are the only sports that matter) but if they are not bouncing a ball or scoring a touchdown, then to Hell with them....

UCs don't look at legacies.

Using ALDC is not discriminatory.

Using race is discriminatory.

No wanting to be discriminated against doesn't mean that they are racist against other groups, and they will still cheer their favorite team/athlete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He should sue and he should win. These kids work their tails off and then they are rejected because of race. It's outrageous.

Says who? Prove that. Show empirically that those schools chose someone else instead of this guy because of race. Berkeley? You seen the student population of Berkeley? You think Asians are being rejected from Berkeley because they are Asian? Are we serious right now?

+1. Take a trip to Carnegie Mellon. It doesn't look like discrimination to me.

How many URM apply to CMU and get rejected vs how many Asian Americans apply and get rejected?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He should sue and he should win. These kids work their tails off and then they are rejected because of race. It's outrageous.

Says who? Prove that. Show empirically that those schools chose someone else instead of this guy because of race. Berkeley? You seen the student population of Berkeley? You think Asians are being rejected from Berkeley because they are Asian? Are we serious right now?

The suit is against Harvard, not Berkley.

Also, CA went around the aa issue by taking the top 6% of HS. They don't have "likeability" factor, unlike Harvard.

That's what we thought about Harvard too, but the lawsuit revealed the dirty secret.

[Anonymous]

We need more of these lawsuits to reveal more of the dirty secrets.

Who would think that Harvard is the only one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how no-one is engaging with the point about the surplus of stem applicants.

It's much easier to scapegoat Black and Brown applicants than to admit your kid decided to compete for a slot in the most competitive major, when slots are capped.

^
THIS

Yes, this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This year an Asian-American boy who was a USAMO camper was rejected by not only MIT but also CMU. Most DCUMs don’t know what USAMO camp is. It’s a pool of 250-300 best math students in the US competing for a spot on the USA Math Olympic Team. There are only 6 students on the national team. Then they compete against other countries in the Intl Math Olympiad. In the past, making USAMO cam was a guaranteed ticket to MIT. Not anymore. Especially if you are an Asian boy.

No student is owed admission to any college, regardless of their accomplishments.

No student should be owed admission to any college because of their race either.

And that does NOT happen. It is Harvards choice to build their freshman class the way they want. If you want a freshman class of all Asians, then I suggest you head to India or China and you can be happy. But if Harvard wants to have more Hispanics/Blacks/etc to bring more diversity to their campus, so be it.

What most of you do not care to appreciate is that the lower income (many times non-white/non-asian) student who achieves a 1500 and takes 3 APs because that is all their HS offers and overcomes being in a K-12 education system where most in their schools do not make it/even graduate let alone go to a 4 year college, is likely just as smart if not smarter than the privileged white/asian/whatever race student who grew up in a 1% household and never had any wants let alone any "needs". The first kid has had to overcome so much to get to that "1500" so yes it is impressive and top schools want kids like that who will go far. They do not just want to be a repository for elite/1%ers.

Harvard has always prided itself in having a diverse class, in every respect. Every state, every major, every race/ethnicity, many countries etc. And now does have a heavy focus on first-gen opportunities. Zero wrong with any of this.

Don’t take Fed $, then

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores alone are not highly indicative of a successful future college student. It makes no sense to force a college to admit students based on this criteria. I don’t know why we put so much weight upon them. All they really do is generically show relative strengths and weaknesses among high schools.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/19/study-finds-little-difference-academic-success-students-who-do-and-dont-submit-sat#:~:text=The%20study%20confirms%20that%20high,who%20will%20succeed%20in%20college.%22

I keep seeing this claim made but there are decades of research studies on this topic and many show that SAT scores are a very strong predictor of not only college grades but future career success as well.

+1 which is why MIT went back to requiring SAT scores.

MIT is only ONE T25 school. Georgetown still requires the SAT since it's not in the common app.

How about HYPS and the other 1,800+ who are test optional? How about the SAT/ACT going digital to even stay relevant?

I think you've missed the test optional trend. Get used to it. It is here to stay.

It is here to stay because more and more schools want to increase DEI. Getting rid of SAT scores is one way to do that. Why not just get rid of GPAs since there is so much grade inflation and grading is als
o pretty subjective?

GPA - and rigor- over 4 years is a better indicator of college success (at least freshman year) than one 3-hour test.

The AOs know this.

Lol, because everyone’s HS grading scale, grading policies, teacher quality, course quality etc. are exactly THE SAME with zero variance
/s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores alone are not highly indicative of a successful future college student. It makes no sense to force a college to admit students based on this criteria. I don’t know why we put so much weight upon them. All they really do is generically show relative strengths and weaknesses among high schools.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/19/study-finds-little-difference-academic-success-students-who-do-and-dont-submit-sat#:~:text=The%20study%20confirms%20that%20high,who%20will%20succeed%20in%20college.%22

I keep seeing this claim made but there are decades of research studies on this topic and many show that SAT scores are a very strong predictor of not only college grades but future career success as well.

+1 which is why MIT went back to requiring SAT scores.

MIT is only ONE T25 school. Georgetown still requires the SAT since it's not in the common app.

How about HYPS and the other 1,800+ who are test optional? How about the SAT/ACT going digital to even stay relevant?

I think you've missed the test optional trend. Get used to it. It is here to stay.

It is here to stay because more and more schools want to increase DEI. Getting rid of SAT scores is one way to do that. Why not just get rid of GPAs since there is so much grade inflation and grading is als
o pretty subjective?

GPA - and rigor- over 4 years is a better indicator of college success (at least freshman year) than one 3-hour test.

The AOs know this.

The AOs are failures in life. If they weren't, they wouldn't be stuck in an admissions office. They have low level degrees in xyz studies type areas and have their own personal social agendas to fulfill. I know this because I have the misfortune of interacting with many of them. Professors are not happy about the trajectory of admissions decisions over the past decade

The distain for people who work in education across this forum is so sad. If these failures are picking the classes, why would you want to be part of them? They suck at life, but somehow are able to put together talented cohorts year after year?

+1

Just sour grapes from the PP.

+1

Not to mention, how much "transparency" does China have?? GTFOH.

It's really a huge shame that the US has less transparency than even China when it comes to college admission. seriously WTF

Once again, if China is so awesome, you are free to go there and experience this awesome system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If everything is up to the private owner to decide, then there should be no argument about racism, sexism or homophobia because an individual shop/organization/church can set its own standards.

Huge difference, don't play stupid.

Not allowing gay people into your restaurant is not the same as Harvard saying "we want a balanced freshman class and that means we look at more than just SAT/GPA and instead look at the whole person and their entire resume, their teacher recommendations, their ECs, etc".
Once again, outside of Athletes or Mommy/Daddy/grandpa is a president or donated $20M to get a building with their name on it, Harvard is not admitting kids with 1200 SAT and 3.0 GPA---they are saying "we see equal value in a student with a 1450+/3.8+/only 3 APs from a kid at a school with 90% on FARMS and only 3 ap courses and only 5 % going to a 4 year college. We recognize the challenges this kid has been thru and we recognize that their resume is similar to the 1percenter who had everthing handed to them on a golden platter who got a 1550/3.99+/15APs and started "their own company that is really done for show"" Harvard is NOT discriminating against your "top student", they are simply selecting 5% of the thousands of qualified applicants---they are rejecting the majority, your kid and thousands of other equally qualified.

[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:Huge cultural chasm here. America does not have the same testing traditions you find in just about every other country in the world. Americans believe in never quitting more than they believe in winning. That's why footbalk teams that lose hard fought games get celebrated almost as though they won.

The difference is every other country in the world has clear rule and transparency.

Another difference is that America rewards persistence. Many other countries give you just one chance to measure up in life. Not so in the USA.

Test measures persistence. It's for 12 years of persistent education
Also they do reward persistence with sort of GPA together with Test

I don't care if you do GPA only Test only GPA + Test, GPA + Test + whatever.

The important thing is clear rule and transparency.

the only thing you are asking for is how much was spent on making sure those scores were achieved. that's it. and not an amount, a percentage of income. if a 400k family spends 40k and an 80k family spends 8k its the same type of leg up, it is.
I am so tired of test prep being a replacement for intelligence and capability.

Same for GPA, ECs, Essay, etc.
I think test score is at least most objective and fair, so that disadvantaged intelligent and capable students get chance to compete.

Standardized testing has racist origins in the U S (and was used to justify segregation in the military and schools)., is culturally biased ( "pre test" questions that were answered correctly by most blacks were thrown out), and today is more a reflection of household income , test prep, and superscoriing.

Not even close to objective.

Most of the 1,900 colleges that are now test optional will remain after the AA ruling.

Good.

+1

Those arguing against this are just upset their kid has "lost their advantage" of privilege. Also, they apparently do not understand the numbers---there are simply many more kids with 1400/1450+ SAT and "qualified for elite schools" than there are spots. So most will be rejected. Nobody is entitled to a spot at an elite school, nobody. Once you recognize that and plan with great "target schools" you will be happier. Focus on the goal---getting your degree and starting a career, which can be done at a school ranked #30

+1

There are good schools even from #31 through #200 or so.

People are obsessed with T25s.

Expectations for college admissions need to get reset.

OK, then tell that to the URM who apply to T25. Tell them they should aim lower T100 to T200. It fits them better.

URMs can apply to whatever school they want - just like everyone else.

The colleges will decide, T25s included.

I don't hear people telling high stats URM to aim low to T100 to T200. I only hear people telling that to Asian Americans, "There are plenty of good colleges out there".

Yes, they can apply to wherever they want to, but apparently certain schools discriminate against only one group.

Ummm, because the majority of High stats URMs already have plenty in the 50-200 range on their list, including ones they know they can AFFORD. They apply to the T25 as a true reach and hope they get in---if not they are not complaining, they likely will just attend the local state u with 80% acceptance rate that gives them a full ride because they NEED affordable, and closer to home means minimal travel expenses. Majority of high stats URMs don't attend T25 schools. They don't feel entitled to that and don't complain if they don't get in or cannot afford it. They are realistic and not jaded by expecting to get everything they want in life---they learned a long time ago to work hard and keep working hard even if you don't get what you want.

[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:Huge cultural chasm here. America does not have the same testing traditions you find in just about every other country in the world. Americans believe in never quitting more than they believe in winning. That's why footbalk teams that lose hard fought games get celebrated almost as though they won.

The difference is every other country in the world has clear rule and transparency.

Another difference is that America rewards persistence. Many other countries give you just one chance to measure up in life. Not so in the USA.

Test measures persistence. It's for 12 years of persistent education
Also they do reward persistence with sort of GPA together with Test

I don't care if you do GPA only Test only GPA + Test, GPA + Test + whatever.

The important thing is clear rule and transparency.

the only thing you are asking for is how much was spent on making sure those scores were achieved. that's it. and not an amount, a percentage of income. if a 400k family spends 40k and an 80k family spends 8k its the same type of leg up, it is.
I am so tired of test prep being a replacement for intelligence and capability.

Same for GPA, ECs, Essay, etc.
I think test score is at least most objective and fair, so that disadvantaged intelligent and capable students get chance to compete.

Standardized testing has racist origins in the U S (and was used to justify segregation in the military and schools)., is culturally biased ( "pre test" questions that were answered correctly by most blacks were thrown out), and today is more a reflection of household income , test prep, and superscoriing.

Not even close to objective.

Most of the 1,900 colleges that are now test optional will remain after the AA ruling.

Good.

+1

Those arguing against this are just upset their kid has "lost their advantage" of privilege. Also, they apparently do not understand the numbers---there are simply many more kids with 1400/1450+ SAT and "qualified for elite schools" than there are spots. So most will be rejected. Nobody is entitled to a spot at an elite school, nobody. Once you recognize that and plan with great "target schools" you will be happier. Focus on the goal---getting your degree and starting a career, which can be done at a school ranked #30

+1

There are good schools even from #31 through #200 or so.

People are obsessed with T25s.

Expectations for college admissions need to get reset.

OK, then tell that to the URM who apply to T25. Tell them they should aim lower T100 to T200. It fits them better.

First, plenty of URM never even think of applying to T25 because it's so outside of their world when their parents do not have college degrees and are struggling just to keep the lights on and food on the table. So the group of "qualified URMs" is already much much smaller than everyone else at a T25. And many of them do end attending "lower ranked schools"---they attend the local state U that has a 60%+ acceptance rate and will be affordable and an easy drive from home.

However, it is Harvard/Stanford/any T25 choice as to how they build their freshman class. They see value in a URM or lower income student with only a 1500 and it's their right to admit them. I tend to agree that kid getting a 1500 means more than your 1%er getting a 1580. That kid will work harder and contribute more to the university over 4 years, and if Harvard thinks that, they will offer them admissions. Fact is outside of athletes, nobody with just a 1200 is getting admission to Harvard. So stop arguing that your kid with a 1580 is "better than a kid with a 1450+"---the difference is only in your head. Harvard has concluded that "1450ish is the cutoff" or whatever level and from there they look at other factors. And yes, I'd like my kids to attend colleges that are diverse. If you want an all asian college, you can apply in India or china and achieve just that. I want diversity on all levels.

+1

-1 no one stated that they wanted all Asian Americans in the college. And you are racist, implying that Asian Americans should "go back to their country".

Not racist---married to an Asian American, so I intimately understand both systems, having had a spouse go thru both sides. They much prefer the US system and are grateful our kids are not going thru the other system. Just sick of the few posters who keep wishing our system was "like china and India"---those systems exist and if that is what you want, then yes you are free to send your kids there. The fact you want to send them to a US school indicates that yes, our system overall is a better system. There are many faults with the China/India/Much of Europe way of tracking kids at an early age. I hope we never do that in this country---I don't think it's beneficial.

But complaining it's not fair your 1580 kid got rejected from highly rejective schools is ridiculous. Fact is most kids get rejected. But yes there are plenty of excellent schools out there, so focus on ones your kid can get into, and apply to the Reaches and reach for the stars, if it happens great, but if not, your kid is not forced to attend school #4001---many other excellent choices, some even better than the T25s you are so hell-bent on attending.