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.
Ah, got it. So because the US system is better we need to celebrate racism. Thanks for your excellent opinion that is certainly valid since you are "married to an Asian American"
Nope--you would be the racist if you think it's always about race why someone does not get in. For every "asian with a 1580" who is rejected there are also white students, URM who are also rejected with similar scores---Why? Because those schools reject 95% of their applicants. It's lottery, and your SAT score buys you a ticket, after that the score does not matter---the rest of your application does. You have no clue what the teacher recs, ECs, volunteering, difficult life events a kid experienced goes into the holistic evaluation--and why the school accepts who they do. But fact is many many bright highly qualified kids gets rejected, along with yours. The sheer fact you think suing is a good thing in this situation tells me about your privilege and entitlement issues.
But yes, most schools do not aim to be 100% asian even in the engineering schools. Do you have issues with engineering programs who strive for a M/F balance, thus admitting more females each year to get there? I for one think the world is a better place that we now have more women in engineering/CS/STEM areas if that is what they want to major in. Since 50 years ago, women largely did not go to college, did you/do you find issues with universities working to ensure they have a good M/F balance. Similarly, I think it's great if we help ensure lower incomes students who have not had the same privileges as my kid, to get a great college experience. I can recognize my privilege and realize that a kid with a 3.7 and 1450 from an underprivileged life/environemnt might be more appealing than my 1% kiddo. I can feel happy that kid is getting the experience---I didn't think of suing when my kid didn't get into their T25 schools---I realized it was a lottery and had a long list of targets and safeties that they got into they loved as well
No feeling that you may have justifies systemic racism against Asian applicants but thank you for sharing
Harvard is ~30% asian for the most recent class. Berkeley is ~40% asian students.
USA is less than 10% persons of asian decent. How is it systemic racism? Each school admits a higher population of Asians than exist in the US population.
Are you now going to argue that asians are "just smarter" than everyone else and thus deserve to attend Harvard at a higher rate?
There are so many reasons he did not get accepted and race is likely not it. Berkeley is test blind and does not do AA for over a decade. Fact is while he is a great candidate, Harvard acceptance rate is single digits. 9+ kids are rejected for every 1 that is accepted. 8 out of every 9 kids rejected is likely considered" highly qualified" for Harvard (and any other T25). Yet the school has to reject all 9, so the first is easy, they are "not qualified", the other 8 could easily get the coveted spot, so the difference comes down to ECs, volunteering, personal essays, teacher recommendations, etc. 9 kids out of 10 will be disappointed. You did not read the essays or Teacher recs or see the volunteering or ECs, etc. You have no way to know why the choice was made. And a lot of it may be preferences---the AO liked the kid's essay, or the kid had an intriguing volunteer situation where they seemed to be genuinely engaged vs most who are just doing what they think will get them into a top school. You really have no clue what it is---99.9999% chance that race is NOT the reason. And if it seems that way, it's much more likely that Harvard saw an outstanding person who is first gen, low income and they want to give them the opportunity of attending Harvard---race is likely just a byproduct for you to scream "racism" ---it's very likely the person was admitted for being lower income or grabbed the AO attention due to being low income and how the persevered thru their life struggles and are somehow still a great candidate. So yes, I guess you are "discriminated against" for growing up with privilege, but that is a really convoluted way of looking at things.
DP.. why does it matter what the Asian American population is compared to the % of total population? Since when does any institution have to reflect the overall population? The reason why Asian American population is higher in colleges is because they apply to college at a higher rate; they value education. Other groups don't, I guess.
I don't know if Asian Americans are "smarter", but they sure have higher stats.
And if you look at the stats in the Harvard case, a black student from a UMC with lower stats has a better chance of getting in compared to an Asian American student from a MC family with higher stats.
Do you think a middle class Asian American student really has more academic and opportunity than an UMC black student with two lawyer parents?
this. there was an op-ed in the nytimes recently making the case the affirmitive action needs to change from being race-based to being class-based. I think that makes a lot of sense (I'm south asian american).
What you do not understand is that too many Asian applicants are the problem, not too many African American/Hispanic.
Why do you not understand that too many Blacks in the NBA are the problem?
Is the NHL a problem. How about the sailing, rowing or lacrosse teams. Are there problems in those sports because they are dominated by white people. Is badminton, table tennis or judo a problem because those sports are dominated by Asians?
HYPS and vast majority of the top colleges will follow suit with permanent TO in the future.
MIT will be a loner. Most STEM applicants will still get rejected.
Good luck.
If most of HYPS go permanently TO, that will be a huge deal. Schools at the edges of the T20 like Columbia, Notre Dame, Georgetown and similar aren't a great barometer.
Anonymous wrote:It must be really exhausting being a person of Asian descent if you want to get into medicine. You clearly *must* be that much better than basically all races. The MCAT and gpas of med school matriculants speak for themselves:
On the flip side, this means I'll go out of my way from now on to go to Asian doctors only, because they clearly must be wayyyyy better than the average because of their race of they want a shot.
Maybe we should bring affirmative action lawsuits to multibillion dollar industries like professional sports that clearly don't have enough diversity because they draft players based on skill and not diversity. How many Asian and Hispanic players can you name in the NBA or NFL. Those leagues are allowed to ignore diversity in admissions because they draft based on skills alone. If they're allowed, so should universities.
I will engage you since it seems people love to use the NBA as an example of why it is ok not to pursue diversity when it comes to players?
1) The NBA provides entertainment for customers. In order to put forward the best experience, teams draft the "best" players. Unlike in other areas of American life where so-called "merit" is often subjective (i.e., based on who is evaluating and what "standards" they want to use), NBA players show their talents by scoring, defending, etc. which show up in stats
2) Elite colleges are choosing which students get to join their "teams". So long as the students pass a threshold of acceptability when it comes to SATS and grades, whatever that may be (it seems like Harvard uses the 98th percentile for SATS/ACTs), then they take into account a number of factors including the race, geography, ECs, etc. These schools aren't picking these students to satisfy the needs of the public or consumers. These colleges aren't admitting the kids with only the highest SATs and grades. If that were the case, there still wouldn't be enough room to accommodate all the kids with perfect scores, so then what?
Also, I have a problem with your notion that someone getting a higher score or grades would make them a better doctor. Any doctor passing their boards should be capable of being a good doctor. Same goes with lawyers. Just because someone aced the LSAT and got great grades doesn't make them a better lawyer...
It’s a dumb analogy because NBA teams aren’t subject to any rules on how they select players. They’re setting their own standards and behaving accordingly. Colleges are doing exactly the same and these people just don’t like their standards.
Majority of the T25 colleges are Private Colleges. They can pick and choose what they want in their freshman class. Nobody is guaranteed a right to an "elite college education" if they score 1580+ on the SATs. If anything, the people involved in these lawsuits are going a long way to demonstrate why they might not be "T25 material"---they could be doing so much better for society if they focused their efforts on a topic to better society, not just to better themselves for a minuscule improvement in education (That nobody is guaranteed access to).
Top colleges are not-for-profit, so they are held to a different standard than sports teams, which are for-profit. If colleges want to retain their tax status, then they can't discriminate.
Nope. SCOTUS have already given private religious schools a license to discriminate based on admissions and hiring if applicants do not practice the schools religion. The private religious schools did not lose their tax exempt status.
Anonymous wrote:It must be really exhausting being a person of Asian descent if you want to get into medicine. You clearly *must* be that much better than basically all races. The MCAT and gpas of med school matriculants speak for themselves:
On the flip side, this means I'll go out of my way from now on to go to Asian doctors only, because they clearly must be wayyyyy better than the average because of their race of they want a shot.
Maybe we should bring affirmative action lawsuits to multibillion dollar industries like professional sports that clearly don't have enough diversity because they draft players based on skill and not diversity. How many Asian and Hispanic players can you name in the NBA or NFL. Those leagues are allowed to ignore diversity in admissions because they draft based on skills alone. If they're allowed, so should universities.
I will engage you since it seems people love to use the NBA as an example of why it is ok not to pursue diversity when it comes to players?
1) The NBA provides entertainment for customers. In order to put forward the best experience, teams draft the "best" players. Unlike in other areas of American life where so-called "merit" is often subjective (i.e., based on who is evaluating and what "standards" they want to use), NBA players show their talents by scoring, defending, etc. which show up in stats
2) Elite colleges are choosing which students get to join their "teams". So long as the students pass a threshold of acceptability when it comes to SATS and grades, whatever that may be (it seems like Harvard uses the 98th percentile for SATS/ACTs), then they take into account a number of factors including the race, geography, ECs, etc. These schools aren't picking these students to satisfy the needs of the public or consumers. These colleges aren't admitting the kids with only the highest SATs and grades. If that were the case, there still wouldn't be enough room to accommodate all the kids with perfect scores, so then what?
Also, I have a problem with your notion that someone getting a higher score or grades would make them a better doctor. Any doctor passing their boards should be capable of being a good doctor. Same goes with lawyers. Just because someone aced the LSAT and got great grades doesn't make them a better lawyer...
It’s a dumb analogy because NBA teams aren’t subject to any rules on how they select players. They’re setting their own standards and behaving accordingly. Colleges are doing exactly the same and these people just don’t like their standards.
Majority of the T25 colleges are Private Colleges. They can pick and choose what they want in their freshman class. Nobody is guaranteed a right to an "elite college education" if they score 1580+ on the SATs. If anything, the people involved in these lawsuits are going a long way to demonstrate why they might not be "T25 material"---they could be doing so much better for society if they focused their efforts on a topic to better society, not just to better themselves for a minuscule improvement in education (That nobody is guaranteed access to).
Top colleges are not-for-profit, so they are held to a different standard than sports teams, which are for-profit. If colleges want to retain their tax status, then they can't discriminate.
Nope. SCOTUS have already given private religious schools a license to discriminate based on admissions and hiring if applicants do not practice the schools religion. The private religious schools did not lose their tax exempt status.
Sorry, SCOTUS will say no discrimination based on race whether public(UNC) or private(Harvard).
Anonymous wrote:It must be really exhausting being a person of Asian descent if you want to get into medicine. You clearly *must* be that much better than basically all races. The MCAT and gpas of med school matriculants speak for themselves:
On the flip side, this means I'll go out of my way from now on to go to Asian doctors only, because they clearly must be wayyyyy better than the average because of their race of they want a shot.
Maybe we should bring affirmative action lawsuits to multibillion dollar industries like professional sports that clearly don't have enough diversity because they draft players based on skill and not diversity. How many Asian and Hispanic players can you name in the NBA or NFL. Those leagues are allowed to ignore diversity in admissions because they draft based on skills alone. If they're allowed, so should universities.
I will engage you since it seems people love to use the NBA as an example of why it is ok not to pursue diversity when it comes to players?
1) The NBA provides entertainment for customers. In order to put forward the best experience, teams draft the "best" players. Unlike in other areas of American life where so-called "merit" is often subjective (i.e., based on who is evaluating and what "standards" they want to use), NBA players show their talents by scoring, defending, etc. which show up in stats
2) Elite colleges are choosing which students get to join their "teams". So long as the students pass a threshold of acceptability when it comes to SATS and grades, whatever that may be (it seems like Harvard uses the 98th percentile for SATS/ACTs), then they take into account a number of factors including the race, geography, ECs, etc. These schools aren't picking these students to satisfy the needs of the public or consumers. These colleges aren't admitting the kids with only the highest SATs and grades. If that were the case, there still wouldn't be enough room to accommodate all the kids with perfect scores, so then what?
Also, I have a problem with your notion that someone getting a higher score or grades would make them a better doctor. Any doctor passing their boards should be capable of being a good doctor. Same goes with lawyers. Just because someone aced the LSAT and got great grades doesn't make them a better lawyer...
It’s a dumb analogy because NBA teams aren’t subject to any rules on how they select players. They’re setting their own standards and behaving accordingly. Colleges are doing exactly the same and these people just don’t like their standards.
Majority of the T25 colleges are Private Colleges. They can pick and choose what they want in their freshman class. Nobody is guaranteed a right to an "elite college education" if they score 1580+ on the SATs. If anything, the people involved in these lawsuits are going a long way to demonstrate why they might not be "T25 material"---they could be doing so much better for society if they focused their efforts on a topic to better society, not just to better themselves for a minuscule improvement in education (That nobody is guaranteed access to).
Top colleges are not-for-profit, so they are held to a different standard than sports teams, which are for-profit. If colleges want to retain their tax status, then they can't discriminate.
Nope. SCOTUS have already given private religious schools a license to discriminate based on admissions and hiring if applicants do not practice the schools religion. The private religious schools did not lose their tax exempt status.
That’s because freedom of religion is protected by the first amendment. You have some misplaced confidence in your knowledge of the law.
HYPS and vast majority of the top colleges will follow suit with permanent TO in the future.
MIT will be a loner. Most STEM applicants will still get rejected.
Good luck.
If most of HYPS go permanently TO, that will be a huge deal. Schools at the edges of the T20 like Columbia, Notre Dame, Georgetown and similar aren't a great barometer.
Anonymous wrote:It must be really exhausting being a person of Asian descent if you want to get into medicine. You clearly *must* be that much better than basically all races. The MCAT and gpas of med school matriculants speak for themselves:
On the flip side, this means I'll go out of my way from now on to go to Asian doctors only, because they clearly must be wayyyyy better than the average because of their race of they want a shot.
Maybe we should bring affirmative action lawsuits to multibillion dollar industries like professional sports that clearly don't have enough diversity because they draft players based on skill and not diversity. How many Asian and Hispanic players can you name in the NBA or NFL. Those leagues are allowed to ignore diversity in admissions because they draft based on skills alone. If they're allowed, so should universities.
I will engage you since it seems people love to use the NBA as an example of why it is ok not to pursue diversity when it comes to players?
1) The NBA provides entertainment for customers. In order to put forward the best experience, teams draft the "best" players. Unlike in other areas of American life where so-called "merit" is often subjective (i.e., based on who is evaluating and what "standards" they want to use), NBA players show their talents by scoring, defending, etc. which show up in stats
2) Elite colleges are choosing which students get to join their "teams". So long as the students pass a threshold of acceptability when it comes to SATS and grades, whatever that may be (it seems like Harvard uses the 98th percentile for SATS/ACTs), then they take into account a number of factors including the race, geography, ECs, etc. These schools aren't picking these students to satisfy the needs of the public or consumers. These colleges aren't admitting the kids with only the highest SATs and grades. If that were the case, there still wouldn't be enough room to accommodate all the kids with perfect scores, so then what?
Also, I have a problem with your notion that someone getting a higher score or grades would make them a better doctor. Any doctor passing their boards should be capable of being a good doctor. Same goes with lawyers. Just because someone aced the LSAT and got great grades doesn't make them a better lawyer...
It’s a dumb analogy because NBA teams aren’t subject to any rules on how they select players. They’re setting their own standards and behaving accordingly. Colleges are doing exactly the same and these people just don’t like their standards.
Majority of the T25 colleges are Private Colleges. They can pick and choose what they want in their freshman class. Nobody is guaranteed a right to an "elite college education" if they score 1580+ on the SATs. If anything, the people involved in these lawsuits are going a long way to demonstrate why they might not be "T25 material"---they could be doing so much better for society if they focused their efforts on a topic to better society, not just to better themselves for a minuscule improvement in education (That nobody is guaranteed access to).
Top colleges are not-for-profit, so they are held to a different standard than sports teams, which are for-profit. If colleges want to retain their tax status, then they can't discriminate.
Nope. SCOTUS have already given private religious schools a license to discriminate based on admissions and hiring if applicants do not practice the schools religion. The private religious schools did not lose their tax exempt status.
Sorry, SCOTUS will say no discrimination based on race whether public(UNC) or private(Harvard).
. We will see. This court is unpredictable. And since stare decis is all but gone, ten year later we are with a new court and starting from scratch.
Anonymous wrote:It must be really exhausting being a person of Asian descent if you want to get into medicine. You clearly *must* be that much better than basically all races. The MCAT and gpas of med school matriculants speak for themselves:
On the flip side, this means I'll go out of my way from now on to go to Asian doctors only, because they clearly must be wayyyyy better than the average because of their race of they want a shot.
Maybe we should bring affirmative action lawsuits to multibillion dollar industries like professional sports that clearly don't have enough diversity because they draft players based on skill and not diversity. How many Asian and Hispanic players can you name in the NBA or NFL. Those leagues are allowed to ignore diversity in admissions because they draft based on skills alone. If they're allowed, so should universities.
I will engage you since it seems people love to use the NBA as an example of why it is ok not to pursue diversity when it comes to players?
1) The NBA provides entertainment for customers. In order to put forward the best experience, teams draft the "best" players. Unlike in other areas of American life where so-called "merit" is often subjective (i.e., based on who is evaluating and what "standards" they want to use), NBA players show their talents by scoring, defending, etc. which show up in stats
2) Elite colleges are choosing which students get to join their "teams". So long as the students pass a threshold of acceptability when it comes to SATS and grades, whatever that may be (it seems like Harvard uses the 98th percentile for SATS/ACTs), then they take into account a number of factors including the race, geography, ECs, etc. These schools aren't picking these students to satisfy the needs of the public or consumers. These colleges aren't admitting the kids with only the highest SATs and grades. If that were the case, there still wouldn't be enough room to accommodate all the kids with perfect scores, so then what?
Also, I have a problem with your notion that someone getting a higher score or grades would make them a better doctor. Any doctor passing their boards should be capable of being a good doctor. Same goes with lawyers. Just because someone aced the LSAT and got great grades doesn't make them a better lawyer...
It’s a dumb analogy because NBA teams aren’t subject to any rules on how they select players. They’re setting their own standards and behaving accordingly. Colleges are doing exactly the same and these people just don’t like their standards.
Majority of the T25 colleges are Private Colleges. They can pick and choose what they want in their freshman class. Nobody is guaranteed a right to an "elite college education" if they score 1580+ on the SATs. If anything, the people involved in these lawsuits are going a long way to demonstrate why they might not be "T25 material"---they could be doing so much better for society if they focused their efforts on a topic to better society, not just to better themselves for a minuscule improvement in education (That nobody is guaranteed access to).
Top colleges are not-for-profit, so they are held to a different standard than sports teams, which are for-profit. If colleges want to retain their tax status, then they can't discriminate.
Nope. SCOTUS have already given private religious schools a license to discriminate based on admissions and hiring if applicants do not practice the schools religion. The private religious schools did not lose their tax exempt status.
That’s because freedom of religion is protected by the first amendment. You have some misplaced confidence in your knowledge of the law.
Eh. The law evolves and it is only as good as what judges are interpreting them at the time
Anonymous wrote:I wonder whether the people suggesting this Asian candidate is a "dime a dozen" can actually point to very many Black or Hispanic students with similar credentials applying to the same schools.
My Hispanic daughter with a 1600 SAT and 4.0 unweighted GPA got rejected from both Harvard and Princeton. She was accepted to Stanford, MIT, Yale… We felt she had won the lottery. Pompous to feel you deserve to get accepted into any T20 school. I also agree the focus should be more on socio economic diversity than race diversity.
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.
Ah, got it. So because the US system is better we need to celebrate racism. Thanks for your excellent opinion that is certainly valid since you are "married to an Asian American"
Nope--you would be the racist if you think it's always about race why someone does not get in. For every "asian with a 1580" who is rejected there are also white students, URM who are also rejected with similar scores---Why? Because those schools reject 95% of their applicants. It's lottery, and your SAT score buys you a ticket, after that the score does not matter---the rest of your application does. You have no clue what the teacher recs, ECs, volunteering, difficult life events a kid experienced goes into the holistic evaluation--and why the school accepts who they do. But fact is many many bright highly qualified kids gets rejected, along with yours. The sheer fact you think suing is a good thing in this situation tells me about your privilege and entitlement issues.
But yes, most schools do not aim to be 100% asian even in the engineering schools. Do you have issues with engineering programs who strive for a M/F balance, thus admitting more females each year to get there? I for one think the world is a better place that we now have more women in engineering/CS/STEM areas if that is what they want to major in. Since 50 years ago, women largely did not go to college, did you/do you find issues with universities working to ensure they have a good M/F balance. Similarly, I think it's great if we help ensure lower incomes students who have not had the same privileges as my kid, to get a great college experience. I can recognize my privilege and realize that a kid with a 3.7 and 1450 from an underprivileged life/environemnt might be more appealing than my 1% kiddo. I can feel happy that kid is getting the experience---I didn't think of suing when my kid didn't get into their T25 schools---I realized it was a lottery and had a long list of targets and safeties that they got into they loved as well
No feeling that you may have justifies systemic racism against Asian applicants but thank you for sharing
Harvard is ~30% asian for the most recent class. Berkeley is ~40% asian students.
USA is less than 10% persons of asian decent. How is it systemic racism? Each school admits a higher population of Asians than exist in the US population.
Are you now going to argue that asians are "just smarter" than everyone else and thus deserve to attend Harvard at a higher rate?
There are so many reasons he did not get accepted and race is likely not it. Berkeley is test blind and does not do AA for over a decade. Fact is while he is a great candidate, Harvard acceptance rate is single digits. 9+ kids are rejected for every 1 that is accepted. 8 out of every 9 kids rejected is likely considered" highly qualified" for Harvard (and any other T25). Yet the school has to reject all 9, so the first is easy, they are "not qualified", the other 8 could easily get the coveted spot, so the difference comes down to ECs, volunteering, personal essays, teacher recommendations, etc. 9 kids out of 10 will be disappointed. You did not read the essays or Teacher recs or see the volunteering or ECs, etc. You have no way to know why the choice was made. And a lot of it may be preferences---the AO liked the kid's essay, or the kid had an intriguing volunteer situation where they seemed to be genuinely engaged vs most who are just doing what they think will get them into a top school. You really have no clue what it is---99.9999% chance that race is NOT the reason. And if it seems that way, it's much more likely that Harvard saw an outstanding person who is first gen, low income and they want to give them the opportunity of attending Harvard---race is likely just a byproduct for you to scream "racism" ---it's very likely the person was admitted for being lower income or grabbed the AO attention due to being low income and how the persevered thru their life struggles and are somehow still a great candidate. So yes, I guess you are "discriminated against" for growing up with privilege, but that is a really convoluted way of looking at things.
DP.. why does it matter what the Asian American population is compared to the % of total population? Since when does any institution have to reflect the overall population? The reason why Asian American population is higher in colleges is because they apply to college at a higher rate; they value education. Other groups don't, I guess.
I don't know if Asian Americans are "smarter", but they sure have higher stats.
And if you look at the stats in the Harvard case, a black student from a UMC with lower stats has a better chance of getting in compared to an Asian American student from a MC family with higher stats.
Do you think a middle class Asian American student really has more academic and opportunity than an UMC black student with two lawyer parents?
this. there was an op-ed in the nytimes recently making the case the affirmitive action needs to change from being race-based to being class-based. I think that makes a lot of sense (I'm south asian american).
What you do not understand is that too many Asian applicants are the problem, not too many African American/Hispanic.
Why do you not understand that too many Blacks in the NBA are the problem?
Is the NHL a problem. How about the sailing, rowing or lacrosse teams. Are there problems in those sports because they are dominated by white people. Is badminton, table tennis or judo a problem because those sports are dominated by Asians?
The MLB, NHL, etc...DO get a lot of flak for 'not having enough diversity'.
Set a filter with X GPA and Y SAT scores. Throw all people who make it into the pool and use a random computer algorithm to pick people.
Totally the fairest way to choose. All of the extraneous stuff is nonsense. Schools should decide where they want to set the bar for quality, then have a completely race agnostic system for selection. Drawing straws is fair after the cutoff is met.
Anonymous wrote:This case is going nowhere. Those stats are run of the mill at those schools, regardless of ethnicity.
I doubt more than 5% high school grads earn these stats.
Do you realize how many kids that 5% is?
More than 17,000 kids are in the top 1% of SAT scores alone. Harvard only admitted 2,318 applicants. So even if being in the top 1% were their sole criteria (and in fact it appears that 90% of admitted students were), more than 14,000 kids in the top 1% would be (and were) rejected.
Around 2000 x t20 = 40,000
They(top 1%) should at least get in a T20 school.
So you believe the only criterion for admission to a T20 school should be the SAT?
Most of these kids also have high gpa and rigor as well as good ECs, essay, leadership, interview, etc.
It's not a common case to have only supirior SAT. Didn't you see the Harvard data?
They know all the criterion involved, and prepared.
That's why Harvard had to introduce courage/kindness/likability score.
Google it for further information.
um...no, they introduced those "soft" metrics as a way to discriminate against Jews. Google it for further information.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
