SFFA doesn't like the Asian American %

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's all relative. I didn't give a cutoff number, that was someone else. Standard deviations exist for a reason and so do percentiles. Let's say there are 5000 people above your 1540 (hypothetical score) and only 1000 spots open, of which some percentage of spots are set aside for athletes or legacy or whomever. Then yes, that "1540" is sh!tty. Go find another school where the "1540" is on the other side of the equation.

You are clearly out of your depth here. Even on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Correct about distribution of test scores which is precisely why the poster who keeps insisting that if a school doesn't just auto-admit everyone with above a 1550 on the SAT they are racist is not making sense. Schools know some students have outlier test scores and that is why they tend to view test scores as a threshhold factor instead of a ranking factor. They will look at students who have scores and GPAs above a specific threshhold but once you are in this group they will look at the totality of the application not simply rank the students by scores. And that includes "squishy" factors like whether the student brings a unique perspective or skill set to the school that could benefit the school as a whole. Thus it is generally not in a school's interest to simply admit all the highest scoring students who also often tend to share a lot of the same characteristics -- they lean male and and Asian and tend to have similar backgrounds. Well schools don't want a bunch of identical kids so they recruit kids with lower scores in order ot keep it diverse. This is legal even under the SC ruling and considered beneficial by most people applying to these schools.

There is no cutoff above which all sat scores are equal. You always want the higher test score but you may value something more than 10 more points on the sat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's all relative. I didn't give a cutoff number, that was someone else. Standard deviations exist for a reason and so do percentiles. Let's say there are 5000 people above your 1540 (hypothetical score) and only 1000 spots open, of which some percentage of spots are set aside for athletes or legacy or whomever. Then yes, that "1540" is sh!tty. Go find another school where the "1540" is on the other side of the equation.

No this is false because the only person who would actually rank those 5000 students by SAT score is you. Any sane person would view them all as about equal on SAT score (especially since many of them will be literally equal on score because your range is so narrow) and then look at ALL the other stuff that matters secure in the knowledge that any of the kids you pick have an SAT score that is high enough to justify admission. Perhaps a kid with a 1600 or 1590 gets an edge but so does a kid who started a successful landscaping business in the summer or the one who one an international writing competition.

No one who actually works admissions for any of the top schools would actually view a 1540 as a "sh!tty score" even when compared against people who all have higher scores. They would all tell you that a 1540 is an excellent score and would get you in the door to having your application reviewed for admission at even the most selective school unless you had something else that was an automatic ding (very low grades or you lied on your app or whatever).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Correct about distribution of test scores which is precisely why the poster who keeps insisting that if a school doesn't just auto-admit everyone with above a 1550 on the SAT they are racist is not making sense. Schools know some students have outlier test scores and that is why they tend to view test scores as a threshhold factor instead of a ranking factor. They will look at students who have scores and GPAs above a specific threshhold but once you are in this group they will look at the totality of the application not simply rank the students by scores. And that includes "squishy" factors like whether the student brings a unique perspective or skill set to the school that could benefit the school as a whole. Thus it is generally not in a school's interest to simply admit all the highest scoring students who also often tend to share a lot of the same characteristics -- they lean male and and Asian and tend to have similar backgrounds. Well schools don't want a bunch of identical kids so they recruit kids with lower scores in order ot keep it diverse. This is legal even under the SC ruling and considered beneficial by most people applying to these schools.

There is no cutoff above which all sat scores are equal. You always want the higher test score but you may value something more than 10 more points on the sat.

The let's get rid of superscoring. It's just another way to give inferior applicants another chance . That 10 point difference may actually have been 100 points since real life doesn't cherry pick outcomes like this.

[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.

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

But if the kind of diversity that they're seeking regarding geography or extracurricular activities has the coincidental effect of admitting white over Asian applicants, that's still allowed.

Yes as long as they can't prove you were using geography as an artifice for racial discrimination.

Even then, it’s not like people from New York are a protected class. If Harvard only wants to take students from Miami, no one other than their donors are stopping them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Correct about distribution of test scores which is precisely why the poster who keeps insisting that if a school doesn't just auto-admit everyone with above a 1550 on the SAT they are racist is not making sense. Schools know some students have outlier test scores and that is why they tend to view test scores as a threshhold factor instead of a ranking factor. They will look at students who have scores and GPAs above a specific threshhold but once you are in this group they will look at the totality of the application not simply rank the students by scores. And that includes "squishy" factors like whether the student brings a unique perspective or skill set to the school that could benefit the school as a whole. Thus it is generally not in a school's interest to simply admit all the highest scoring students who also often tend to share a lot of the same characteristics -- they lean male and and Asian and tend to have similar backgrounds. Well schools don't want a bunch of identical kids so they recruit kids with lower scores in order ot keep it diverse. This is legal even under the SC ruling and considered beneficial by most people applying to these schools.

There is no cutoff above which all sat scores are equal. You always want the higher test score but you may value something more than 10 more points on the sat.

The let's get rid of superscoring. It's just another way to give inferior applicants another chance . That 10 point difference may actually have been 100 points since real life doesn't cherry pick outcomes like this.

Funny how ignorant people think college admissions is a meritocracy and squabble over "10 point" differences in test scores.

It's a BUSINESS.

Superscoriing puts millions in the College Board's coffers.

It's not going away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

But if the kind of diversity that they're seeking regarding geography or extracurricular activities has the coincidental effect of admitting white over Asian applicants, that's still allowed.

This.

I think some posters never contemplated that there are reasons why the super high scoring and high GPA Asian American applicants weren't getting spots at all the top schools that had nothing to do with race. Schools don't actually want classes of super intense heavily "pushed" academic achievers. They want a good mix of high achieving students who are naturally curious and intelligent and have a broad range of strengths and interests and also reflect a broad range of backgrounds and experiences. They used to use race explicitly to accomplish this and now they can't so they use other things but their priorities have not shifted.

Plus a mix of degrees/majors. They can't have 1600 CS majors.

The 1600 CS majors most likely will run laps around the liberal arts majors in their majors. Or else why are LA majors allowed to take dumbed down versions of science and math classes to fulfill requirements? Should science majors be taking phonics classes then?

Science majors absolutely sometimes take "dumbed down" versions of arts and humanities classes to fulfill those requirements. Though at top schools generally it is believed that science majors have to be excellent writers and conversant in topics like history and philosophy because a scientist who can't communicate well in writing is going to struggle and a scientist who doesn't understand the historical or philosophical context of their work could be dangerous. Liberal arts majors also have to take science classes to become conversant in those topics for the same reasons but it is not necessary or even useful for a liberal arts major to understand quantum mechanics or advanced calculus in order to pursue studies or work in non-scientific fields.

You also should not assume that CS majors will "run laps" around liberal arts majors in their majors. Especially not at a top school. If you think an English or History degree from a T10 is easy and that any CS major could get a 4.0 in that major then you seriously misunderstand what it's actually like to attend one of these schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

But if the kind of diversity that they're seeking regarding geography or extracurricular activities has the coincidental effect of admitting white over Asian applicants, that's still allowed.

This.

I think some posters never contemplated that there are reasons why the super high scoring and high GPA Asian American applicants weren't getting spots at all the top schools that had nothing to do with race. Schools don't actually want classes of super intense heavily "pushed" academic achievers. They want a good mix of high achieving students who are naturally curious and intelligent and have a broad range of strengths and interests and also reflect a broad range of backgrounds and experiences. They used to use race explicitly to accomplish this and now they can't so they use other things but their priorities have not shifted.

Plus a mix of degrees/majors. They can't have 1600 CS majors.

The 1600 CS majors most likely will run laps around the liberal arts majors in their majors. Or else why are LA majors allowed to take dumbed down versions of science and math classes to fulfill requirements? Should science majors be taking phonics classes then?

Science majors absolutely sometimes take "dumbed down" versions of arts and humanities classes to fulfill those requirements. Though at top schools generally it is believed that science majors have to be excellent writers and conversant in topics like history and philosophy because a scientist who can't communicate well in writing is going to struggle and a scientist who doesn't understand the historical or philosophical context of their work could be dangerous. Liberal arts majors also have to take science classes to become conversant in those topics for the same reasons but it is not necessary or even useful for a liberal arts major to understand quantum mechanics or advanced calculus in order to pursue studies or work in non-scientific fields.

You also should not assume that CS majors will "run laps" around liberal arts majors in their majors. Especially not at a top school. If you think an English or History degree from a T10 is easy and that any CS major could get a 4.0 in that major then you seriously misunderstand what it's actually like to attend one of these schools.

This poor has ben argued since the beginning of the stem humanities divide. Why people think their intro course is anywhere near the rigor of junior seminars or comprehensives baffles me still, and I was a chem major

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's all relative. I didn't give a cutoff number, that was someone else. Standard deviations exist for a reason and so do percentiles. Let's say there are 5000 people above your 1540 (hypothetical score) and only 1000 spots open, of which some percentage of spots are set aside for athletes or legacy or whomever. Then yes, that "1540" is sh!tty. Go find another school where the "1540" is on the other side of the equation.

No this is false because the only person who would actually rank those 5000 students by SAT score is you. Any sane person would view them all as about equal on SAT score (especially since many of them will be literally equal on score because your range is so narrow) and then look at ALL the other stuff that matters secure in the knowledge that any of the kids you pick have an SAT score that is high enough to justify admission. Perhaps a kid with a 1600 or 1590 gets an edge but so does a kid who started a successful landscaping business in the summer or the one who one an international writing competition.

No one who actually works admissions for any of the top schools would actually view a 1540 as a "sh!tty score" even when compared against people who all have higher scores. They would all tell you that a 1540 is an excellent score and would get you in the door to having your application reviewed for admission at even the most selective school unless you had something else that was an automatic ding (very low grades or you lied on your app or whatever).

Why are you so stuck on 1540? OCD much? I said whatever the number is is arbitrary, but how many applicants above you is not. And activities such as "started your own _______" and writing contest or robotics team or something like that needs to be examined further. Much of it is access and general bs. Some are actually real but how are we to know?Only comps and activities that have a real time competition aspect will show if you actually have and can display the skills, and you did it all yourself--no daddy involvement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes as long as they can't prove you were using geography as an artifice for racial discrimination.

Good luck with that legal theory!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

But if the kind of diversity that they're seeking regarding geography or extracurricular activities has the coincidental effect of admitting white over Asian applicants, that's still allowed.

Yes as long as they can't prove you were using geography as an artifice for racial discrimination.

Even then, it’s not like people from New York are a protected class. If Harvard only wants to take students from Miami, no one other than their donors are stopping them

+1 Harvard could decided it only wanted rural applicants tomorrow and this would result in a class that was 60% white and 35% black and 4% Native and this would be considered absolutely legal even if not one of those students scored over a 1500 on the SAT.

The PP just cannot conceptualize the idea that a Harvard degree is not a public good that is supposed to be fairly distributed via some kind of government mechanism. It's a private good that Harvard can choose to sell to whomever it wants as long as they don't discriminate based on race. But "not discriminate based on race" does NOT mean only admitting the highest scoring applicants and it never ever will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's all relative. I didn't give a cutoff number, that was someone else. Standard deviations exist for a reason and so do percentiles. Let's say there are 5000 people above your 1540 (hypothetical score) and only 1000 spots open, of which some percentage of spots are set aside for athletes or legacy or whomever. Then yes, that "1540" is sh!tty. Go find another school where the "1540" is on the other side of the equation.

No this is false because the only person who would actually rank those 5000 students by SAT score is you. Any sane person would view them all as about equal on SAT score (especially since many of them will be literally equal on score because your range is so narrow) and then look at ALL the other stuff that matters secure in the knowledge that any of the kids you pick have an SAT score that is high enough to justify admission. Perhaps a kid with a 1600 or 1590 gets an edge but so does a kid who started a successful landscaping business in the summer or the one who one an international writing competition.

No one who actually works admissions for any of the top schools would actually view a 1540 as a "sh!tty score" even when compared against people who all have higher scores. They would all tell you that a 1540 is an excellent score and would get you in the door to having your application reviewed for admission at even the most selective school unless you had something else that was an automatic ding (very low grades or you lied on your app or whatever).

Why are you so stuck on 1540? OCD much? I said whatever the number is is arbitrary, but how many applicants above you is not. And activities such as "started your own _______" and writing contest or robotics team or something like that needs to be examined further. Much of it is access and general bs. Some are actually real but how are we to know?Only comps and activities that have a real time competition aspect will show if you actually have and can display the skills, and you did it all yourself--no daddy involvement.

LOL test scores are also absolutely gamed by wealthy families who can pay for extensive test prep and private tutoring. And I'm not even referring to superscoring here -- the advantages that wealthy and privileged students have for standardized testing are huge. Not just money for test prep or access to schools that better prep students for exams like the SAT but also access to medical diagnoses that can get them extra time.

The percent of kids who score abouve a 1500 on the SAT with no parental help to get them there is very small. Even when we aren't talking about a Varsity Blues-type scandal where parents are actually just trying to purchase higher scores wealthy parents absolutely go to great lengths to ensure their kids score higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

But if the kind of diversity that they're seeking regarding geography or extracurricular activities has the coincidental effect of admitting white over Asian applicants, that's still allowed.

Yes as long as they can't prove you were using geography as an artifice for racial discrimination.

Even then, it’s not like people from New York are a protected class. If Harvard only wants to take students from Miami, no one other than their donors are stopping them

+1 Harvard could decided it only wanted rural applicants tomorrow and this would result in a class that was 60% white and 35% black and 4% Native and this would be considered absolutely legal even if not one of those students scored over a 1500 on the SAT.

The PP just cannot conceptualize the idea that a Harvard degree is not a public good that is supposed to be fairly distributed via some kind of government mechanism. It's a private good that Harvard can choose to sell to whomever it wants as long as they don't discriminate based on race. But "not discriminate based on race" does NOT mean only admitting the highest scoring applicants and it never ever will.

Well said. Thank you. PLEASE let the annoying poster on this thread see this and understand.

No one wants a school of only high test scores ,same interests, same race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

But if the kind of diversity that they're seeking regarding geography or extracurricular activities has the coincidental effect of admitting white over Asian applicants, that's still allowed.

This.

I think some posters never contemplated that there are reasons why the super high scoring and high GPA Asian American applicants weren't getting spots at all the top schools that had nothing to do with race. Schools don't actually want classes of super intense heavily "pushed" academic achievers. They want a good mix of high achieving students who are naturally curious and intelligent and have a broad range of strengths and interests and also reflect a broad range of backgrounds and experiences. They used to use race explicitly to accomplish this and now they can't so they use other things but their priorities have not shifted.

Start seeing Asian Americans as people.

No YOU start seeing them as people.

Do you actually know any Asian American students who attend top colleges? I do and guess what-- they are not universally top scoring hyper-achievers in academics.

DP here.
Are you daft? The PP is literally admonishing his PP about seeing asians as "super intense heavily "pushed" academic achievers." and how they use race to avoid this.

Also, I know a lot of asians at top colleges and they are almost universally top scoring hyper achievers in academics, sometimes they are recruited athletes but even then their academics are very good. None of them are surprised they got in but all of them were afraid they wouldn't.

They are not all in STEM.

where are you getting the notion that anyone thinks all asians are in stem?

They did not all attend "top" high schools. Like the kids if other races at these schools, they tend to be wickedly smart and hard working while also being well rounded with genuine curiosity in their areas of academic study as well as personal hobbies and passions. They are different from one another and from other students they went to HS with and from of at debts at their university. To my knowledge none if them had over a 1550 on the SAT.

These students -- these Asian American students -- were admitted to these schools not because they are the smartest kids in the country or got the highest test scores. They were admitted because they are the whole package. If say the same thing about the black and Hispanic and white and native and mixed race kids I know at these schools. If you spend a lot of time around students at top schools you come to recognize the type and it becomes obvious why these schools don't just base admissions on test scores.

Which is why your obsession with the test scores of Asian American applicants as compared to other applicants misguided. You are missing the forest for ONE tree.

Why do people act like the princeton review ad is actually true. Doing well on the sat tells you more than how well they can do on the sat. Standardized tests measure a real thing that correlates with pretty much every academic metric you can think of except things like drive and motivation. Standardized tests are probably one the best measure we have of "wickedly smart" GPA is probably a good measure of hard working.

When you see large gaps in SAT scores between racial groups and these caps are persistent and consistent over time, it is natural to be concerned about racial discrimination.
Stop trying to racially discriminate directly or indirectly and these concerns go away. We understand it will probably take years so I hope they keep suing for years until they stop trying to construct classes around race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

But if the kind of diversity that they're seeking regarding geography or extracurricular activities has the coincidental effect of admitting white over Asian applicants, that's still allowed.

This.

I think some posters never contemplated that there are reasons why the super high scoring and high GPA Asian American applicants weren't getting spots at all the top schools that had nothing to do with race. Schools don't actually want classes of super intense heavily "pushed" academic achievers. They want a good mix of high achieving students who are naturally curious and intelligent and have a broad range of strengths and interests and also reflect a broad range of backgrounds and experiences. They used to use race explicitly to accomplish this and now they can't so they use other things but their priorities have not shifted.

Plus a mix of degrees/majors. They can't have 1600 CS majors.

Not all asians major in CS or even STEM.

Asian american men are more likely to major in economics than any other racial group of men. Asians american women are more like to major in economics than any other groups of women.
Asian american men are more likely to pursue an MBA than any other racial group of men. Same for women

Asians are under-represented in humanities. This will change as asians get wealthier and a legit asian upper class develops, one where the kids don't need to worry about money for generations.