Statistics Show an Ivy League Asian Quota

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On a positive note -

Whereever the Asians go, those colleges will become the new Ivies.

So - Let the braininess spread!

Amen!

Just had to get that last little racist swipe in, didn't you? After the PP debunked the stats showing a decline in Asian presence.

[Anonymous]

"I'm not sure how jewish people overturned the discrimination they faced decades ago when it came to admissions."

Name changes, nose jobs, and bleach. Just like Hollywood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"I'm not sure how jewish people overturned the discrimination they faced decades ago when it came to admissions."

Name changes, nose jobs, and bleach. Just like Hollywood.

Unfortunately for Asians, it would require a lot more than a noise jobs and a name change to change their looks. Not being racist...I'm Asian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope someone sues the shit out of them. It's disgusting that the must qualified are being turned away.

It's perfectly legal.

Probably for much longer.

[Anonymous]

If you are asian and smart why would you waste your money on paying for a private ivy when UVA is a much better option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"After the Justice Department closed an investigation in the early 1990s into charges that Harvard University discriminated against Asian-American applicants, Harvard’s reported enrollment of Asian-Americans began gradually declining, falling from 20.6 percent in 1993 to about 16.5 percent over most of the last decade."

"Thus, according to official statistics, the percentage of Asian-Americans enrolled at Harvard fell by more than 50 percent over the last two decades, while the percentage of whites changed little. This decline in relative Asian-American enrollment was actually larger than the impact of Harvard’s 1925 Jewish quota, which reduced Jewish freshmen from 27.6 percent to 15 percent."

Like a PP on the first page pointed out, this doesn't make the point you think it does. It's saying that Asians are now less over-represented at Harvard, but they're still over-represented. Reposting this particular quote in no way helps your case, in fact it makes you look obtuse.

We understand your underlying argument: you think Asians should be more-overrepresented, not less. Several posters have provided reasons why they think you're wrong. You have yet to make a convincing case for why you're right (and reposting your misconception of the quote above doesn't help your argument). You need to provide some reasons why you think:
(a) colleges should pick only the 3,000 very highest SATs and GPAs and ignore things like talent, leadership skills and passion, and
(b) your kid "deserves" Harvard more than that kid from Ballou who didn't enjoy the same educational advantages.

Take a look at schools like University of Michigan and University of California, Berkeley, once the use of in admissions process race was banned, number of Asian Americans being admitted increased substantially and number of Hispanics and AA admissions decreased.

Did Asian Americans all of sudden demonstrate better leadership skills, initiative, passion etc. when the ban took effect? Did Hispanics and AA all of sudden demonstrate less leadership skills, initiative, passion etc. at the same time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately for Asians, it would require a lot more than a noise jobs and a name change to change their looks. Not being racist...I'm Asian.

As hard as it may be for some people to understand, race is a social construct. It was once unimaginable to include the Irish or Italian or Eastern Europeans or Jews or Catholics as whites. The post-reconstruction Jim Crow laws defined just blacks and whites. So there was a whole series of court cases by Chinese and Hispanics and other ethnic groups arguing that since they were clearly not black, they must be white under the law. In response, the courts and legislatures created new definitions of racial categories in sync with the then newly fashionable "science" of race. Everything is malleable and all that is permanent is the use of race to protect privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Take a look at schools like University of Michigan and University of California, Berkeley, once the use of in admissions process race was banned, number of Asian Americans being admitted increased substantially and number of Hispanics and AA admissions decreased.

Did Asian Americans all of sudden demonstrate better leadership skills, initiative, passion etc. when the ban took effect? Did Hispanics and AA all of sudden demonstrate less leadership skills, initiative, passion etc. at the same time?

Don't compare apples and oranges. The big land grant universities are heavily reliant on GPA and test scores for their admission decisions and do not conduct holistic reviews that weigh leadership and passion. If the top public colleges used the same application review process as the Ivies, there would likely not have been any major change in Asian representation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take a look at schools like University of Michigan and University of California, Berkeley, once the use of in admissions process race was banned, number of Asian Americans being admitted increased substantially and number of Hispanics and AA admissions decreased.

Did Asian Americans all of sudden demonstrate better leadership skills, initiative, passion etc. when the ban took effect? Did Hispanics and AA all of sudden demonstrate less leadership skills, initiative, passion etc. at the same time?

Don't compare apples and oranges. The big land grant universities are heavily reliant on GPA and test scores for their admission decisions and do not conduct holistic reviews that weigh leadership and passion. If the top public colleges used the same application review process as the Ivies, there would likely not have been any major change in Asian representation.

I was just going to type in this response, and saw that PP beat me to it.

1st PP, I think I recognize you from other threads where you go to great lengths to imply, without actually stating, that you think Asians are superior intellectually to other racial groups.

You have lost this argument in multiple ways, from the posters talking about affording SAT prep to the posters talking about cultural traditions regarding cram schools to the PP above who just debunked your latest attempt involving Berkeley. Either you are extremely dense (which is ironic, for an Asian), or you have shut your eyes to the weakness of continuing to post BS like this, in order to imply Asian racial superiority, without finding some way, any way, to actually substantiate your implied claimed of racial supriority

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asians have become the must persecuted race. It's a shame because they do everything right, are highly educated, motivated and are penalized for these American ideals. I would like to see more Asians everywhere and until that happens it's discrimination.

Once more with feeling, and bolds and caps, so you get it. (Sorry to the rest of you, but this poster just doesn't want to face up to facts.)

You seem to think that motivation and high scores create an admissions "entitlement" for your kid, and that your kid is a "victim" if nobody delivers on this so-called "entitlement."


No one in this thread has posted anything about "entitlement". There is a difference between one who thinks he is is entitled to something and wanting equal and non-discriminatory/race-neutral treatment in college admissions.


Newsflash: Almost everyone applying to these schools is highly motivated and hard working. When almost EVERYONE pplying to the top colleges has high test scores AND is highly motivated, the mere fact of having these characteristics is NOT going to separate your child out from the pack of 20,000 OTHER highly motivated, high scoring kids. High scores and hard work, BY THEMSELVES, do NOT convey an "entitlement" to college admission in a world where 2/3 of the other applicants, OF ALL RACES, are ALSO hard working and highly motivated.


It is not true "almost everyone applying" has high test scores. Majority of applicants to top schools do not have high scores and are not really competitive applicants. It would be more like 10 to 20% of the applicant pool. No one has said high scores and hard work by themselves entitle anyone to admission to top schools. Again, the article indicates "quota" for Asians and that is wrong. No amount of shouting about "entitlement" no one discussed will change the fact that there seems to be a quota on Asians based on "race" which is wrong.

Also, high test scores are NOT a sign of intelligence in the 99th percentile, given all the test prep involved.


Again, no one is arguing high test score is a sign of intelligence. It may be or it may not be. College Board says you cannot increase SAT scores by taking prep courses and prep courses say otherwise. The prep courses may help some but probably not significantly for most students so "test prep" does not and cannot explain away completely the accomplishments of those who do achieve very high scores. While talking about SAT prep, Asians tend to take cheap 40 students per class twice a week courses but guess who takes $500 to $700 per hour one on one SAT prep tutoring by Ph.D. graduates from top schools? Whites not Asians. So complain about those people since that kind of intensive one on one prep might lead to significant increase in scores.


It's sad but true, that lots of highly motivated, high scoring kids of ALL RACES get rejected every year. This does not make your kid a victim. It simply means the colleges don't have enough room for all 2350 SAT scores, so they use other criteria to whittle down the applicant pool.


Sure many kids from all races get rejected. Again, no one is disputing that. However, Hispanic and AA applicants with lesser qualifications than Asians and whites get admitted to top schools based on race. I have actually seen this happen several times. We all know the competition is fierce but using race to boost certain group while capping other group is wrong regardless of your rants about non-existent "entitlement" no one has discussed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take a look at schools like University of Michigan and University of California, Berkeley, once the use of in admissions process race was banned, number of Asian Americans being admitted increased substantially and number of Hispanics and AA admissions decreased.

Did Asian Americans all of sudden demonstrate better leadership skills, initiative, passion etc. when the ban took effect? Did Hispanics and AA all of sudden demonstrate less leadership skills, initiative, passion etc. at the same time?

Don't compare apples and oranges. The big land grant universities are heavily reliant on GPA and test scores for their admission decisions and do not conduct holistic reviews that weigh leadership and passion. If the top public colleges used the same application review process as the Ivies, there would likely not have been any major change in Asian representation.

I was just going to type in this response, and saw that PP beat me to it.

1st PP, I think I recognize you from other threads where you go to great lengths to imply, without actually stating, that you think Asians are superior intellectually to other racial groups.

You have lost this argument in multiple ways, from the posters talking about affording SAT prep to the posters talking about cultural traditions regarding cram schools to the PP above who just debunked your latest attempt involving Berkeley. Either you are extremely dense (which is ironic, for an Asian), or you have shut your eyes to the weakness of continuing to post BS like this, in order to imply Asian racial superiority, without finding some way, any way, to actually substantiate your implied claimed of racial supriority

Who said anything about Asian Superiority? This discussion is about quota on Asians for admissions to top schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take a look at schools like University of Michigan and University of California, Berkeley, once the use of in admissions process race was banned, number of Asian Americans being admitted increased substantially and number of Hispanics and AA admissions decreased.

Did Asian Americans all of sudden demonstrate better leadership skills, initiative, passion etc. when the ban took effect? Did Hispanics and AA all of sudden demonstrate less leadership skills, initiative, passion etc. at the same time?

Don't compare apples and oranges. The big land grant universities are heavily reliant on GPA and test scores for their admission decisions and do not conduct holistic reviews that weigh leadership and passion. If the top public colleges used the same application review process as the Ivies, there would likely not have been any major change in Asian representation.

I was just going to type in this response, and saw that PP beat me to it.

1st PP, I think I recognize you from other threads where you go to great lengths to imply, without actually stating, that you think Asians are superior intellectually to other racial groups.

You have lost this argument in multiple ways, from the posters talking about affording SAT prep to the posters talking about cultural traditions regarding cram schools to the PP above who just debunked your latest attempt involving Berkeley. Either you are extremely dense (which is ironic, for an Asian), or you have shut your eyes to the weakness of continuing to post BS like this, in order to imply Asian racial superiority, without finding some way, any way, to actually substantiate your implied claimed of racial supriority

University of Michigan:

The Decision

"After conducting a comprehensive, holistic and individualized review of an application including academic preparation and extracurricular preparation, reviewers make an admissions decision recommendation based on the composite evaluation rating and comments. In the end, each final decision is influenced by a number of factors, each carefully weighed and considered to make the best possible decision for the applicant and the University of Michigan."

University of California-Berkeley:

"UC Berkeley pioneered the holistic review process at UC (now adapted by most of the UC campuses), enabling us to admit a diverse undergraduate class representing 53 states/commonwealths and 74 countries, with 17% who are first-generation college-going and 65% who receive financial aid. “Holistic review” refers to the process of evaluating applications, described below.

The goal of our selection process is to identify applicants who are most likely to contribute to Berkeley’s intellectual and cultural community and, ultimately, to the State of California, the nation, and the world.

The Holistic Review

All applications are read in their entirety by professionally trained readers. That means, we review each application in its entirety, word by word, page by page. Many applications are read two or even three times."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take a look at schools like University of Michigan and University of California, Berkeley, once the use of in admissions process race was banned, number of Asian Americans being admitted increased substantially and number of Hispanics and AA admissions decreased.

Did Asian Americans all of sudden demonstrate better leadership skills, initiative, passion etc. when the ban took effect? Did Hispanics and AA all of sudden demonstrate less leadership skills, initiative, passion etc. at the same time?

Don't compare apples and oranges. The big land grant universities are heavily reliant on GPA and test scores for their admission decisions and do not conduct holistic reviews that weigh leadership and passion. If the top public colleges used the same application review process as the Ivies, there would likely not have been any major change in Asian representation.

I was just going to type in this response, and saw that PP beat me to it.

1st PP, I think I recognize you from other threads where you go to great lengths to imply, without actually stating, that you think Asians are superior intellectually to other racial groups.

You have lost this argument in multiple ways, from the posters talking about affording SAT prep to the posters talking about cultural traditions regarding cram schools to the PP above who just debunked your latest attempt involving Berkeley. Either you are extremely dense (which is ironic, for an Asian), or you have shut your eyes to the weakness of continuing to post BS like this, in order to imply Asian racial superiority, without finding some way, any way, to actually substantiate your implied claimed of racial supriority

Who said anything about Asian Superiority? This discussion is about quota on Asians for admissions to top schools.

You're REALLY dense if you think nobody here is reading between the lines of your posts. Go away, racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take a look at schools like University of Michigan and University of California, Berkeley, once the use of in admissions process race was banned, number of Asian Americans being admitted increased substantially and number of Hispanics and AA admissions decreased.

Did Asian Americans all of sudden demonstrate better leadership skills, initiative, passion etc. when the ban took effect? Did Hispanics and AA all of sudden demonstrate less leadership skills, initiative, passion etc. at the same time?

Don't compare apples and oranges. The big land grant universities are heavily reliant on GPA and test scores for their admission decisions and do not conduct holistic reviews that weigh leadership and passion. If the top public colleges used the same application review process as the Ivies, there would likely not have been any major change in Asian representation.

I was just going to type in this response, and saw that PP beat me to it.

1st PP, I think I recognize you from other threads where you go to great lengths to imply, without actually stating, that you think Asians are superior intellectually to other racial groups.

You have lost this argument in multiple ways, from the posters talking about affording SAT prep to the posters talking about cultural traditions regarding cram schools to the PP above who just debunked your latest attempt involving Berkeley. Either you are extremely dense (which is ironic, for an Asian), or you have shut your eyes to the weakness of continuing to post BS like this, in order to imply Asian racial superiority, without finding some way, any way, to actually substantiate your implied claimed of racial supriority

University of Michigan:

The Decision

"After conducting a comprehensive, holistic and individualized review of an application including academic preparation and extracurricular preparation, reviewers make an admissions decision recommendation based on the composite evaluation rating and comments. In the end, each final decision is influenced by a number of factors, each carefully weighed and considered to make the best possible decision for the applicant and the University of Michigan."

University of California-Berkeley:

"UC Berkeley pioneered the holistic review process at UC (now adapted by most of the UC campuses), enabling us to admit a diverse undergraduate class representing 53 states/commonwealths and 74 countries, with 17% who are first-generation college-going and 65% who receive financial aid. “Holistic review” refers to the process of evaluating applications, described below.

The goal of our selection process is to identify applicants who are most likely to contribute to Berkeley’s intellectual and cultural community and, ultimately, to the State of California, the nation, and the world.

The Holistic Review

All applications are read in their entirety by professionally trained readers. That means, we review each application in its entirety, word by word, page by page. Many applications are read two or even three times."

ZING

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm not sure how jewish people overturned the discrimination they faced decades ago when it came to admissions."

Name changes, nose jobs, and bleach. Just like Hollywood.

Unfortunately for Asians, it would require a lot more than a noise jobs and a name change to change their looks. Not being racist...I'm Asian.

Yes. I have plenty of Jewish friends who "pass" but almost no Asian friends who could. Discrimination is too easy when physical features are so obvious. Wonder why so many Japanese-Americans were rounded up into camps during WWII, but no German-Americans were?

My kids look Asian but have an Anglo last name. When the time comes, they will not check any box on their application (or will check "other"). But their race will be obvious when admission officials see *my* name -- I only hope that, for Harvard at least, the legacy "plus" will nullify the race "minus"!

All that said, I am also an Asian Harvard interviewer and I wouldn't want a student body that was, for example, over 50% Asian if we got there just on the basis of test scores and GPAs. We really do look holistically at each applicant, which I am proud of.