SFFA doesn't like the Asian 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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like this is what people thought would happen…that it would benefit whites the most…yet how many Asians were on this forum celebrating the end of AA.

Asians complain about model minority and them totally believe in it when convenient.

Those darn Asians, believing in transparent policies with fair standards for all

Why can’t they accept that maybe they aren’t the best applicants…

I dunno, something about being the best students all throughout school kinda makes that difficult

Thinking you are something isn’t the same thing as being that something.

The only one who decides what makes the best applicants for a particular college is that college. They aren’t all looking for the same thing. And they certainly don’t want 2000 carbon copies of the same thing.

You have a weird mindset.
Every individual is unique.

Yes. And race is one aspect of an individual. And it can be considered wrt to that individual.

“Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise”

Asians probably got most affected by their race with all sorts of barriers, obstacles, and discrimination.

Maybe they should write about it in their essay.

Asian culture is not to make excuses and blame others, but they'll probably start doing that adopting to the American culture.

Well American universities reflect American culture and values. If AAPI kids in the US would prefer an Asian cultural experience in college they are welcome to apply to universities in Asia which will not care at all about their experiences with racism or how coaching Little League taught them empathy or whatever.

I wonder why more students don't just do this if they prefer a purely objective application process.

Because Asians in America are American you fkin moron. Most likely speak English better than you and most definitely do schooling better than you (and most don't speak a foreign language to any proficiency to go to school in a foreign country). Fkin racist. Culture is not nationality and Asian Americans do not hold allegiance to foreign states.

PP be sure to tell the other POC where to go back to school to enjoy their "culture." Like the country of "Central America," the country of the "Middle East," and the country of "Africa," right???

Asian American students are doing just fine. In California. The full pay Asian foreigners are the ones going to the Ivies and such. That's why they loooooove the standardized tests: it's part of the country wide testing culture.

Stop being racist. Asian Americans in California are not doing fine. By whose metric? Some are going to highly selective schools. There are a large number of Asian Americans in California being denied access to T10 and T20 universities because their test scores are somehow not good enough, yet much higher than other kids who got in through "holistic" measures.

There are also a lot of not-Asian kids being denied access to T10 and T20 universities because their very high test scores are not what those universities want.

+1

Exactly.

The Asian apologist troll needs to stop whining.

Don't worry. The asian percentages will go back in time. The fact that blcak and hispanic percentages did not drop is a red flag. it did at the traditionally meritocratic race blind schools (see Berkeley, UCLA, MIT, Caltech).

There are plenty of brilliant black and hispanic (read: URM) students to add to freshman classes at the top colleges around the country. They'll get accepted at at least half their respective U.S. percentages. Berkeley, UCLA, Caltech are California colleges: two of which are test blind. As a PP stated, the majority of Asian Americans live in California, so that makes perfect sense.

+1

In addition, contrary to the troll's focus on highly selective schools, most Asian Americans go to community college.



https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/asian-american-low-income-community-college-students-feel-unheard-affi-rcna92058

"While the debate over race-conscious admissions often centers Asian Americans with the means to go to a highly selective, prestigious private university, a higher share of the group goes to community college. In California, for example — the state with the highest population of the racial group — 41% of Asian American freshman in 2020 enrolled at community colleges."

Interesting.

Let the troll be the CA asian american community college czar or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I agree, there should be a similar number of white and asian students at most of these schools except at the MOST selective schools because at the 1550+ level asians outnumber whites by 2::1

Schools are allowed to decide that, above a certain very high score, differences don't matter for admissions purposes.

A score of 700 on each section of the SAT is enough to do predictably well at the best schools, assuming a solid high GPA.

Guess what? So is a 600 on each section. My kid scored 1320 and has an A- average in SFS at Georgetown. There is a reason one single test score only cares a certain amount of weight. I'm with the PP above-all you parents of the 1550+ top college rejects need to take a close look at just how one-dimensional you and your kids are and get out there and start living.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I agree, there should be a similar number of white and asian students at most of these schools except at the MOST selective schools because at the 1550+ level asians outnumber whites by 2::1

Schools are allowed to decide that, above a certain very high score, differences don't matter for admissions purposes.

A score of 700 on each section of the SAT is enough to do predictably well at the best schools, assuming a solid high GPA.

Guess what? So is a 600 on each section. My kid scored 1320 and has an A- average in SFS at Georgetown. There is a reason one single test score only cares a certain amount of weight. I'm with the PP above-all you parents of the 1550+ top college rejects need to take a close look at just how one-dimensional you and your kids are and get out there and start living.

I don't actually think that the 1500+ students are one-dimensional, but many of their parents are under the delusion that having great extracurricular credentials too automatically "ranks them over" someone scoring in the 1400s with great extracurricular activities too.

No. Schools want to assemble a class with students representing diverse interests, geography, etc. so if the 1500+ scorer has extracurricular activities that are already over-represented in the class, they'll opt for the lower SAT scorer whose extracurricular activities add to the class diversity. And that's totally allowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I agree, there should be a similar number of white and asian students at most of these schools except at the MOST selective schools because at the 1550+ level asians outnumber whites by 2::1

Schools are allowed to decide that, above a certain very high score, differences don't matter for admissions purposes.

A score of 700 on each section of the SAT is enough to do predictably well at the best schools, assuming a solid high GPA.

Guess what? So is a 600 on each section. My kid scored 1320 and has an A- average in SFS at Georgetown. There is a reason one single test score only cares a certain amount of weight. I'm with the PP above-all you parents of the 1550+ top college rejects need to take a close look at just how one-dimensional you and your kids are and get out there and start living.

I don't actually think that the 1500+ students are one-dimensional, but many of their parents are under the delusion that having great extracurricular credentials too automatically "ranks them over" someone scoring in the 1400s with great extracurricular activities too.

No. Schools want to assemble a class with students representing diverse interests, geography, etc. so if the 1500+ scorer has extracurricular activities that are already over-represented in the class, they'll opt for the lower SAT scorer whose extracurricular activities add to the class diversity. And that's totally allowed.

Under holistic admissions, the standardized test score isn't as determinitive as some people think, especially those with acceptance rates under 20%.

[Anonymous]

Yup, per Harvard, even the students who rank at the tippy top academically had only ~50% acceptance rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two potential solutions:

1. SCOTUS justices serve as the admissions panel for the top 10 schools

2. Top universities spell out the numerical metrics they will consider — e.g. test scores, grade point averages, etc. Each school pools together all the top applicants who rank highest on all the criteria collectively. Because that will still bring them more applicants than they can admit, each school identifies those they will offer admission from the pool via lottery. No consideration given to race, legacy status, geography, sport ability, etc. This is really the only completely fair and neutral way to do it.

These proposed solutions reflect a real misunderstanding of all the institutions involved to a degree that I find strange. Having the Supreme Court serve as an admissions panel for "top 10 schools" would be illegal and nonsensical especially when you understand that "top 10" is a purely subjective designation and there's not even agreement on what those 10 schools are (T10 is widely believed to actually refer to 12 schools). Additonally admission at the schools you are referring is driven more by wealth and social status than anything else certainly including race -- the surest path to admission to these schools is to attend one of a handful of extremely expensive and "elite" private high schools in the US and to have parents who can afford to pay for tutoring and college admissions counseling and involvement in specific extra curriculars. The entire point of these schools is to reinforce an elite by educating the existing elite's children. And I'm not even talking to legacy admissions here (though obviously yes including those) but just the ability of parents to essentially buy their children passage into these schools and then from these schools into top graduate schools and careers.

The idea that we need to overhaul the "system" for awarding this elite status to incoming college freshman in order to make it more fair is laughable -- the system is unfair by design and the only way to make it fair is to eliminate it altogether. Which will not happen. This is America's aristocratic elite. They control industry and the media and the financial system. This is how they choose to educate their children. It's a private system -- these are private colleges. People want access to these schools because they think it's the entry into the elite and for some tiny percentage of non-elite kids who via a combination of inborn talent and rigorous hard work and plain old luck it might be. But mostly it's not and the presence of these non-elites in the system (including the tiny fraction of middle and lower class Asian students who obtain admission via merit) is largely there to make the experience look and feel "right" to the elites that the system was designed by and for.

Like you just don't get it. These schools aren't for you. They aren't for me either by the way. This is not a meritocracy. Everyone knows this. If you want to make sure admission to public universities is as faire and unbiased as it possibly can be including with regards to race I will back you up and support that. But what you are asking for with regards to Harvard and Yale and Stanford and the like is pure fantasy. A fairy tale that has no basis in reality and no legal grounding and a 0% change of ever coming to fruition. They will burn these schools to the ground before making their admissions purely meritocratic. I don't know how else to explain this to you. These schools are not about finding and educating the best and the brightest out of a benevolent desire to better the world. Never have been and never will be. Look to public universities for this. That's where meritocracy can actually thrive.

That is a bit true but mostly cynical.

You think these schools are for the aristocracy with a few spaces set aside for the other kids? It's the other way around.
There may have been a time when this was true but the GI bill brought a crap ton of middle class veterans to these schools and harvard hasn't been predominantly boston brahmin in almost a century.
Harvard wants successful alumni and having wealthy parents is a real good indicator of future success.
I mean so many of the most successful fund managers are simply managing money for family and friends it's disgusting.
But the whole world works like this. Fine art dealers are mostly rich kids selling art to their family and friends. Extreme high end real estate brokers are simply rich kids who can get listings from their family and friends. And there is still a lot of that at places like harvard and yale ...but stanford, mit, chicago, and other places are not really this way.

Harvard and especially yale maintains it's standing on the strength of its endowment. I mean wtf is yale good at anymore anyway? The law school?

Stanford doesn't want the scions of today's millionaires, they want to produce tomorrow billionaires.
MIT doesn't want the children of yesterday's innovators. It wants to train tomorrow's innovators.
Chicago thinks if it can just get the smartest kids, things will work out over the long run. I don't think they know exactly how but it seems an article of faith with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two potential solutions:

1. SCOTUS justices serve as the admissions panel for the top 10 schools

2. Top universities spell out the numerical metrics they will consider — e.g. test scores, grade point averages, etc. Each school pools together all the top applicants who rank highest on all the criteria collectively. Because that will still bring them more applicants than they can admit, each school identifies those they will offer admission from the pool via lottery. No consideration given to race, legacy status, geography, sport ability, etc. This is really the only completely fair and neutral way to do it.

These proposed solutions reflect a real misunderstanding of all the institutions involved to a degree that I find strange. Having the Supreme Court serve as an admissions panel for "top 10 schools" would be illegal and nonsensical especially when you understand that "top 10" is a purely subjective designation and there's not even agreement on what those 10 schools are (T10 is widely believed to actually refer to 12 schools). Additonally admission at the schools you are referring is driven more by wealth and social status than anything else certainly including race -- the surest path to admission to these schools is to attend one of a handful of extremely expensive and "elite" private high schools in the US and to have parents who can afford to pay for tutoring and college admissions counseling and involvement in specific extra curriculars. The entire point of these schools is to reinforce an elite by educating the existing elite's children. And I'm not even talking to legacy admissions here (though obviously yes including those) but just the ability of parents to essentially buy their children passage into these schools and then from these schools into top graduate schools and careers.

The idea that we need to overhaul the "system" for awarding this elite status to incoming college freshman in order to make it more fair is laughable -- the system is unfair by design and the only way to make it fair is to eliminate it altogether. Which will not happen. This is America's aristocratic elite. They control industry and the media and the financial system. This is how they choose to educate their children. It's a private system -- these are private colleges. People want access to these schools because they think it's the entry into the elite and for some tiny percentage of non-elite kids who via a combination of inborn talent and rigorous hard work and plain old luck it might be. But mostly it's not and the presence of these non-elites in the system (including the tiny fraction of middle and lower class Asian students who obtain admission via merit) is largely there to make the experience look and feel "right" to the elites that the system was designed by and for.

Like you just don't get it. These schools aren't for you. They aren't for me either by the way. This is not a meritocracy. Everyone knows this. If you want to make sure admission to public universities is as faire and unbiased as it possibly can be including with regards to race I will back you up and support that. But what you are asking for with regards to Harvard and Yale and Stanford and the like is pure fantasy. A fairy tale that has no basis in reality and no legal grounding and a 0% change of ever coming to fruition. They will burn these schools to the ground before making their admissions purely meritocratic. I don't know how else to explain this to you. These schools are not about finding and educating the best and the brightest out of a benevolent desire to better the world. Never have been and never will be. Look to public universities for this. That's where meritocracy can actually thrive.

That is a bit true but mostly cynical.

You think these schools are for the aristocracy with a few spaces set aside for the other kids? It's the other way around.
There may have been a time when this was true but the GI bill brought a crap ton of middle class veterans to these schools and harvard hasn't been predominantly boston brahmin in almost a century.
Harvard wants successful alumni and having wealthy parents is a real good indicator of future success.
I mean so many of the most successful fund managers are simply managing money for family and friends it's disgusting.
But the whole world works like this. Fine art dealers are mostly rich kids selling art to their family and friends. Extreme high end real estate brokers are simply rich kids who can get listings from their family and friends. And there is still a lot of that at places like harvard and yale ...but stanford, mit, chicago, and other places are not really this way.

Harvard and especially yale maintains it's standing on the strength of its endowment. I mean wtf is yale good at anymore anyway? The law school?

Stanford doesn't want the scions of today's millionaires, they want to produce tomorrow billionaires.
MIT doesn't want the children of yesterday's innovators. It wants to train tomorrow's innovators.
Chicago thinks if it can just get the smartest kids, things will work out over the long run. I don't think they know exactly how but it seems an article of faith with them.

The veteran communities at top colleges and universities is so small it’s basically a rounding error. They’re seen as a minority, because they’re such a small community.
You’re discussing trends in public universities, not Ivy League institutions. Yale is exceptional in the humanities- something it’s always been exceptional in. Chicago also has some of the best economics, physics, math, and general grad school training of any college out there. You seem in knowledgeable about the “now.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonder how people would feel if admissions was largely based on SAT score and this resulted in classes at top schools heavily skewed towards men and mem are significantly more likely to score higher on the SAT than women

As overall students, women are better than men, and it’d be interesting to see what these colleges’ classes would look like if they stopped their 50/50 gender policies and went blind.

STEM (except stuff that can get you into medical school) would be vastly more male, most other majors would be vastly more female.

Which is a cultural issue that should be fixed, not an admissions one. Many other countries have women more represented in all stem subjects, so it comes down to understanding why there’s such a massive gap in the US, and why our standardized exam results in women with worse scores across the board

I think the gap in stem is mostly cultural and not really a big concern considering there are more women in law schools and medical schools than men.

The gap in standardized test scores are at the tails. Women have slightly higher average test scores but there are more men at the very bottom and the very tops of the curve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonder how people would feel if admissions was largely based on SAT score and this resulted in classes at top schools heavily skewed towards men and mem are significantly more likely to score higher on the SAT than women

As overall students, women are better than men, and it’d be interesting to see what these colleges’ classes would look like if they stopped their 50/50 gender policies and went blind.

STEM (except stuff that can get you into medical school) would be vastly more male, most other majors would be vastly more female.

Which is a cultural issue that should be fixed, not an admissions one. Many other countries have women more represented in all stem subjects, so it comes down to understanding why there’s such a massive gap in the US, and why our standardized exam results in women with worse scores across the board

There are a lot of people who believe the only way to solve the cultural issue is via admissions. Because essentially until you get more women in stem fields it is hard to attract women to stem fields. If you think there are other better ways go ahead and propose them but you better bring evidence-based arguments in their favor not just "shrug that's a cultural problem that should not be addressed via program or college admissions."

Shrug.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two potential solutions:

1. SCOTUS justices serve as the admissions panel for the top 10 schools

2. Top universities spell out the numerical metrics they will consider — e.g. test scores, grade point averages, etc. Each school pools together all the top applicants who rank highest on all the criteria collectively. Because that will still bring them more applicants than they can admit, each school identifies those they will offer admission from the pool via lottery. No consideration given to race, legacy status, geography, sport ability, etc. This is really the only completely fair and neutral way to do it.

For the 5 millionth time. Americans generally do not WANT a numbers only admission process like other countries have.

And of course it is relevant if a kid plays sports or does other time consuming ECs. Presumably if all the did was focus on grades those grades would be a bit higher. So an A- average but a busy EC schedule still shows a very accomplished kid.

That's fine, you just can't use race or a proxy for race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I agree, there should be a similar number of white and asian students at most of these schools except at the MOST selective schools because at the 1550+ level asians outnumber whites by 2::1

Schools are allowed to decide that, above a certain very high score, differences don't matter for admissions purposes.

But they are not allowed to select the white student over the asians student because they want more white kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I agree, there should be a similar number of white and asian students at most of these schools except at the MOST selective schools because at the 1550+ level asians outnumber whites by 2::1

Schools are allowed to decide that, above a certain very high score, differences don't matter for admissions purposes.

Asians are also better in leadership, ECs, interviews, etc., hence strong suspicion about racial discrimination.

This is based on...?

The harvard applicant pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:who cares guys,
get a life....

you people are pretty 1-dimensional as evidenced by this post.

Then move along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonder how people would feel if admissions was largely based on SAT score and this resulted in classes at top schools heavily skewed towards men and mem are significantly more likely to score higher on the SAT than women

As overall students, women are better than men, and it’d be interesting to see what these colleges’ classes would look like if they stopped their 50/50 gender policies and went blind.

STEM (except stuff that can get you into medical school) would be vastly more male, most other majors would be vastly more female.

Which is a cultural issue that should be fixed, not an admissions one. Many other countries have women more represented in all stem subjects, so it comes down to understanding why there’s such a massive gap in the US, and why our standardized exam results in women with worse scores across the board

I think the gap in stem is mostly cultural and not really a big concern considering there are more women in law schools and medical schools than men.

The gap in standardized test scores are at the tails. Women have slightly higher average test scores but there are more men at the very bottom and the very tops of the curve.

I'd prefer our brightest minds in engineering and chem grad schools, not in law school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I agree, there should be a similar number of white and asian students at most of these schools except at the MOST selective schools because at the 1550+ level asians outnumber whites by 2::1

Schools are allowed to decide that, above a certain very high score, differences don't matter for admissions purposes.

A score of 700 on each section of the SAT is enough to do predictably well at the best schools, assuming a solid high GPA.

No it's not. That's a standard deviation below the best students.