Statistics Show an Ivy League Asian Quota

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: 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.

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.

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.

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.

Have you read ANYTHING in this thread besides your own posts? Have you absorbed ANYTHING? Every single point you make above has already been rebutted, definitively. The Harvard interviewer who said that 30% of applicants have near-perfect scores and grades (which comes out to about 10,000 applicants for the 2,300 slots), contrary to what you just posted above. The poster who explained why you are most certainly "entitled" if you think that high test scores give you some sort of right to get into Harvard (this may be a language issue for you). The poster who explained that affirmative action usually isn't letting in unqualified students, instead in a pool where everyone ie equally qualified, it gives a small boost (and hey, I can give you my own anecdata about minorities, some of them legacies, with fantastic grades and SATs who were rejected from Ivies, but we all know that the 10 kids we know between us is useless statistically). And it's just stupid of you to argue that the poor Asian kids in SAT classes with 40 other kids have no advantage over the low-income kids who can't afford any SAT classes.

I'm sick of your casual racism and your sheer stupidity. We can't talk to stupid. Good bye

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

If you think that's zing-worthy, you're even stupider than the PP who bothered to cut and paste stuff from UC that doesn't even mention extracurriculars, leadership and passion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think any of the top universities only use test scores and GPA. They all use some form of "holistic" admission review process so use of only test scores and GPA is not the issue. People should stop stereotyping Asians as having only high test scores and high GPAs.

You acknowledge that there is a "race minus". The issue is whether using racial quota on Asian Americans by Ivy League colleges is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: 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.

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.

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.

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.

Have you read ANYTHING in this thread besides your own posts? Have you absorbed ANYTHING? Every single point you make above has already been rebutted, definitively. The Harvard interviewer who said that 30% of applicants have near-perfect scores and grades (which comes out to about 10,000 applicants for the 2,300 slots), contrary to what you just posted above. The poster who explained why you are most certainly "entitled" if you think that high test scores give you some sort of right to get into Harvard (this may be a language issue for you). The poster who explained that affirmative action usually isn't letting in unqualified students, instead in a pool where everyone ie equally qualified, it gives a small boost (and hey, I can give you my own anecdata about minorities, some of them legacies, with fantastic grades and SATs who were rejected from Ivies, but we all know that the 10 kids we know between us is useless statistically). And it's just stupid of you to argue that the poor Asian kids in SAT classes with 40 other kids have no advantage over the low-income kids who can't afford any SAT classes.

I'm sick of your casual racism and your sheer stupidity. We can't talk to stupid. Good bye

Who is "We"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

If you think that's zing-worthy, you're even stupider than the PP who bothered to cut and paste stuff from UC that doesn't even mention extracurriculars, leadership and passion.

"doesn't even mention extracurriculars, leadership and passion"

Also doesn't mention academics or test scores retard. I guess UC figures if you don't know what holistic means in this context you don't belong in the UC system.

[Anonymous]

We are raising a generation of children to feel that they are "victims" of some system, and this unhealthily teaches them to (at least psychologically) pit themselves against one another like some sort of runaway gladiator games.

I always try to teach my children to work the very hardest that they can, to accept that sometimes even your hardest work and effort will not bring your desired result, and to understand that putting/pulling someone else down does not build you up.

It is really negative for our children to think that I did not get what I worked for because (to post some recent examples on this forum). . . [I am a young woman; I am Asian; I attend TJ, Walt Whitman, or Sidwell; I am not an athlete; I am not wealthy; I am not a minority; I am not a legacy].

I always remind my children that the relative (and large) advantage that they have been given by being raised in an upper-middle class family, educated in an excellent public school district; with the ability to afford tutoring (when necessary) and test prep; and parents who have been supportive and involved in their extracurriculars; so far outweighs any advantage or slight that they perceive in "the process" (whatever one you are complaining about), that they should get over their momentary "victimization" complaint, and instead thank their lucky stars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

"doesn't even mention extracurriculars, leadership and passion"

Also doesn't mention academics or test scores retard. I guess UC figures if you don't know what holistic means in this context you don't belong in the UC system.

Wow. Just wow. You really are a piece of prejudiced, clueless work.

[Anonymous]

"Children have an innate sense of fairness. Together with increasing awareness as they become adults, these "children" react to unfairness that many older adults have been conditioned to accept. We would do well to work toward fixing the inequity rather than conditioning our children to accept it.

My children come from an ethic group that was discriminated against in the past, all four of their grandparents were from lower SES, it is manifestly unfair that organizations can legally discriminate against them. They are the victims of affirmative action. I hope they NEVER accept that injustice."

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

If you think that's zing-worthy, you're even stupider than the PP [i]who bothered to cut and paste stuff from UC that doesn't even mention extracurriculars, leadership and passion.

Wow! Just Wow! what a hypocrite

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

If you think that's zing-worthy, you're even stupider than the PP [i]who bothered to cut and paste stuff from UC that doesn't even mention extracurriculars, leadership and passion.

Wow! Just Wow! what a hypocrite

NP here: PP's I"m pretty sure this is the usual "Asian racist" poster, because it sounds just like her. She's immune to logic and ignores everything that doesn't fit her narrative. I mean, really, she used the R-word, and then accused someone for being hypocritical for calling her stupid. I think she's best dealt with by ignoring her from now on. She's hopeless.

[Anonymous]

Grow up PP. if you call someone stupid, then end up making an obvious gaffe, you're likely to be called a retard.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grow up PP. if you call someone stupid, then end up making an obvious gaffe, you're likely to be called a retard.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

16:50 here again: I rest my case. (And I wasn't the PP who called you stupid, but you're making her case for her.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grow up PP. if you call someone stupid, then end up making an obvious gaffe, you're likely to be called a retard.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

ZING

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Grow up PP. if you call someone stupid, then end up making an obvious gaffe, you're likely to be called a retard.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

16:50 here again: I rest my case. (And I wasn't the PP who called you stupid, but you're making her case for her.)

PP here. You're right, of course. Some people are immune to logic because they prefer to let their emotions govern them, in this case some racist emotions. This is my last post here.

[Anonymous]

This stuff about the UCs placing more emphasis on grades/SATs is pure garbage. UC administrators are among the people that chafe the most at Prop 209's limitations. There are literally hundreds of articles you can find online written by disgruntled UC administrators. They have openly tried to find ways to increase their URM admissions for almost two decades, including scraping the legacy system and creating outreach programs available only to blacks and hispanics. If anything, they have been trying to de-emphasize GPA/SATs. I remember a little while back, there were proposals to completely eliminate the SAT as a component of admission to certain UC schools.