Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that too many parents and students are focused on getting into the most elite schools. For most, even with the highest scores and perfect GPAs, the odds of getting in are rather slim. HYP accept 5%, 6% and 7% of applicants. The other 93 - 95 percent are rejected. Among the rejected applicants, I would be the majority all had the test scores and grades to match the applicants who were accepted. The test scores and grades get you in the door, after that the schools needs to start looking how to differentiate all the Lake Wobegon children from one another and to determine who will be the best fit for their incoming freshman class. There are limited spaces, and the decision needs to be made at some point about who will be in and who will be out. How would you differentiate, say, 20 applicants with perfect SATs and a perfect GPA. Should they all be admitted?

Not buying this either.

Yes, colleges will have to exercise discretion and apply mix of objective and subjective criteria for admission, That is reasonable but these criteria are applied differently based on race. The criticism is not that college admissions office use discretion or have subjective criteria. THEY ARE FINE as long as they are applied consistently and not racially discriminatory.

For example, if AA is given additional consideration for overcoming obstacles, some Asian Americans should be given additional consideration for overcoming obstacles as well such as language barrier, lack of support from parents due to language and cultural issues, being bullied in school, working after school, etc. The problem is AA will be given a bump for overcoming "obstacles" but Asians will not be given a bump and probably will be held to a higher standard even with demonstrated obstacles and viewed as "robots, drones, lacking creativity and one-dimensional etc." and other descriptions commonly thrown around on this forum without a second though.

The bottom line that people can get away with name calling and marginalizing Asian Americans because there won't be protests/riots whereas it is more "politically correct" to give AA a leg up and avoid marginalizing AA.

Agreed! I have a friend who has been in the CA school system as a teacher for over 20 years. She says that Asians come over not only not knowing the language, but they have to learn a whole new alphabet and essentially re-wire their brains to learn the language. And they succeed. She had one Asian boy who was not doing well, and it turned out he had an undiagnosed processing disorder. Went from Fs to As just by using an iPad in the classroom. His parents had been working for years to help their son, but were having language issues themselves. They are forever grateful to my friend for helping them. So is the boy who proudly said "see, I AM smart!" The bottom line is these parents were wonderful - involved, concerned, and wanting to help their child. They were instrumental in their son's fabulous outcome. Culturally, this is the norm.

Asians are not giving that bump - or often even credit by society - despite all they have achieved. It's wholly racist and the colleges need to be continually called out on it.

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that too many parents and students are focused on getting into the most elite schools. For most, even with the highest scores and perfect GPAs, the odds of getting in are rather slim. HYP accept 5%, 6% and 7% of applicants. The other 93 - 95 percent are rejected. Among the rejected applicants, I would be the majority all had the test scores and grades to match the applicants who were accepted. The test scores and grades get you in the door, after that the schools needs to start looking how to differentiate all the Lake Wobegon children from one another and to determine who will be the best fit for their incoming freshman class. There are limited spaces, and the decision needs to be made at some point about who will be in and who will be out. How would you differentiate, say, 20 applicants with perfect SATs and a perfect GPA. Should they all be admitted?

Nope. And that's not the problem. The problem is how these schools are making admissions decisions. Were it just the elite schools, I would agree. It's not. More and more colleges are adopting this holistics approach. The problem is having biased individuals making subjective decisions. Recipe for disaster.

Anonymous wrote:Should a school be 100% Asian?

If that's who qualifies, why not. It's not going to happen though. What you will see is more Asians and other groups that put hard work and education first culturally, followed by hard-working other minorities who struggle with education on a cultural level.

Anonymous wrote:

The point is that there are blatant rejections from students who have much higher qualifications in favor of other races. This is why the Fisher case is being re-visited by the SC. You think it's fair to take points off an Asian kid's test score and add points to a Black or Hispanic kid's simply due to race?

My husband said the other day "Oh, good, to women are graduating from Ranger school" My response was 'tell that to the guys that she has to pull off the battlefield". Then I asked him if he really wants a woman firefighter my size to be the one to get him out of a burning building. Crickets. He knows there's no way I could physically do that if he was passed out from smoke inhalation.

Sometimes what seems 'fair' is not at all fair and for multiple good reasons.

The Fisher case is a TERRIBLE example. TERRIBLE. Fisher didn't make the cut for automatic admission (top 10% of her high school class) and UT filled 92% of its Freshman slots that year with the 10% kids. She had a mediocre high school GPA and fine but not great SAT scores (1180 out of 1600).

So she was competing for the remaining 8% of the spots, which was insanely competitive. Of the kids who were accepted to fill that 8%, only 47 had worse scores than Fisher, but 42 of those were white.

Finally, 168 Black and Latino students with better scores than Fisher were also denied that year.

To recap, a mediocre student doesn't manage to get one of the guaranteed spots by doing better in high school, then loses out to a bunch of White kids with worse scores for the remaining spots, but blames race.

The question is, did the minority students admitted make the cut? That's why it's back at the SC. The 168 who were turned down? What was their socioeconomic class? There ARE Black and Latino students who do well, you know.

There's a reason the SC is agreeing to see this case again. And it's not about whether or not a white chick made the cut. It's about the politics of the school - and others - who seem to think active discrimination is fine, so long as they discriminate against the 'right races'. Colleges don't get to pick and choose their anointed groups.

“It should go without saying that Yale cannot destroy evidence essential to judicial review of its admissions policies and expect to withstand strict scrutiny if and when its admissions policies are challenged in court,” the letter read.

Blum also wrote that Yale’s employment of racial consideration in admissions decisions subjects the university to legal scrutiny under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that “this brazen attempt to avoid scrutiny of legally questionable admissions practices is precisely the wrong course of action at precisely the wrong time.”

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/3/23/blum-admissions-records-letters/

I forgot to add that what the West Point admission committee is looking at in candidates are those factors that will most likely lead the candidate to graduate from West Point and to advance to the O5 rank or colonel throughout a military career.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no evidence that Asian-American students have more and better extra-curriculars and leadership experience and other factors that go into a holistic admissions review. The only basis anyone claims that Asian-American students are more qualified is because of test scores. By definition, a non-holistic admissions process relies exclusively on grades and test scores. So if you argue that a holistic review is unfair, then you are demanding a numbers based process. And as I wrote earlier, every Asian education ministry says their test-based process is screwed up and unfair and produces bad results for learning.

We don't have the evidence because colleges refuse to release the information and actively block release of any information that will shed light on this issue. Harvard is even refusing to comply with the discovery requests made in the legal action brought by Asian Americans alleging racial discrimination using every trick not to release any relevant information.

Refusing to release relevant information and then saying there is no evidence for such allegation is self serving. There are plenty of anecdotal evidence of Asian Americans with "better extra-curriculars and leadership experience and other factors that go into a holistic admissions" compared to AA and Hispanics getting unfavorable assessments.

Blah, blah, blah. These colleges are private (and stop the public funds nonsense -- most of the schools we're talking about could stop taking fed money tomorrow and make it up from the private sector). The more info they release, the more it is subject to misinterpretation would be my guess. For example, how would you quantify a "gut feel" about a particular candidate vs. another? This is common in hiring decisions all the time.

The bottom line is a supply and demand issue. There are more people who want to go to to private elite schools than seats available. For status reasons, Asians (6 % of the U.S. population, 60 % of the world population) disproportionately want to go to the same big name private U.S. universities. You could fill the freshman classes of each of them entirely with qualified Asians and Asian Americans and there would still be unhappy people who felt they were cheated. Everyone acknowledges Ivy league admission is a crapshoot. By design, these universities choose a cross-selection of high achieving or high potential students. It's beyond competitive. Any one individual - regardless of race/ethnicity - is lucky to get in. No one individual - regardless of race or ethnicity - is guaranteed or entitled to get in. Lots of the griping comes down to people wanting to adhere to a formula and get in. (top test scores, top ECs, top grades). But the top universities want individuals, who don't necessarily come across in a seemingly "perfect" application. They want someone confident enough to say, "you'd be lucky to get me and if you turn me down, F.U., I'll take my talent + success elsewhere. Not someone who says, "stop giving under-represented minorities and talented athletes and other bright kids who bring something different a shot, so more of my race or type of student can get in."

I am curious among the elite schools how the military academies rank in terms of Asian admissions? Maybe our Asian friends should be pushing their students in that direction too. After all, you get a free education at among the top schools in America and guaranteed employment afterward and an alumni network that will tie you into the top ranks in politics and business in America.

I was being a bit tongue in cheek with my military academy comments, but then came across this Rand study on the West Point selection process and was intrigued whether: a) it mirrors anything used at civilian schools; and b) would satisfy those critics who feel - rightly or wrongly - that non-academic considerations, especially race, are making it unfair for some applicants to compete.

The Rand study: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR700/RR723/RAND_RR723.pdf talks about what is called the Whole Candidate Score (WCS). The WCS is comprised of 60 percent academics, including SAT/ACT scores, GPA and class rank; 30 percent community/leadership score, weighted evenly among athletics, ECs and teacher recommendations. The remaining 10 percent is a physical fitness assessment. While the WCS score is an important component of the admissions process, it is not the only part as essays, class composition goals and other factors also weigh in. I would be curious to know, however, how this process mirrors that at other selective schools.

They have minimum floors which eliminate some applicants
Then there are a series of buckets and categories. They take the best from each category. Thats how it works
Basically as an Asian person you ARE competing against other Asians plus other people from your school/geographic region, background, etc
You are competing against people that are similar to you and they can't take everyone
Is the top underrepresented minority person first generation college student that went to a terrible high school more deserving than the 100th asian with higher grades/test scores, more extracurriculars, from a high performing school district who knows but chances are the person will get in instead of the 100th asian.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no evidence that Asian-American students have more and better extra-curriculars and leadership experience and other factors that go into a holistic admissions review. The only basis anyone claims that Asian-American students are more qualified is because of test scores. By definition, a non-holistic admissions process relies exclusively on grades and test scores. So if you argue that a holistic review is unfair, then you are demanding a numbers based process. And as I wrote earlier, every Asian education ministry says their test-based process is screwed up and unfair and produces bad results for learning.

We don't have the evidence because colleges refuse to release the information and actively block release of any information that will shed light on this issue. Harvard is even refusing to comply with the discovery requests made in the legal action brought by Asian Americans alleging racial discrimination using every trick not to release any relevant information.

Refusing to release relevant information and then saying there is no evidence for such allegation is self serving. There are plenty of anecdotal evidence of Asian Americans with "better extra-curriculars and leadership experience and other factors that go into a holistic admissions" compared to AA and Hispanics getting unfavorable assessments.

Blah, blah, blah. These colleges are private (and stop the public funds nonsense -- most of the schools we're talking about could stop taking fed money tomorrow and make it up from the private sector). The more info they release, the more it is subject to misinterpretation would be my guess. For example, how would you quantify a "gut feel" about a particular candidate vs. another? This is common in hiring decisions all the time.

The bottom line is a supply and demand issue. There are more people who want to go to to private elite schools than seats available. For status reasons, Asians (6 % of the U.S. population, 60 % of the world population) disproportionately want to go to the same big name private U.S. universities. You could fill the freshman classes of each of them entirely with qualified Asians and Asian Americans and there would still be unhappy people who felt they were cheated. Everyone acknowledges Ivy league admission is a crapshoot. By design, these universities choose a cross-selection of high achieving or high potential students. It's beyond competitive. Any one individual - regardless of race/ethnicity - is lucky to get in. No one individual - regardless of race or ethnicity - is guaranteed or entitled to get in. Lots of the griping comes down to people wanting to adhere to a formula and get in. (top test scores, top ECs, top grades). But the top universities want individuals, who don't necessarily come across in a seemingly "perfect" application. They want someone confident enough to say, "you'd be lucky to get me and if you turn me down, F.U., I'll take my talent + success elsewhere. Not someone who says, "stop giving under-represented minorities and talented athletes and other bright kids who bring something different a shot, so more of my race or type of student can get in."

I am curious among the elite schools how the military academies rank in terms of Asian admissions? Maybe our Asian friends should be pushing their students in that direction too. After all, you get a free education at among the top schools in America and guaranteed employment afterward and an alumni network that will tie you into the top ranks in politics and business in America.

Anonymous wrote:"Penn is indeed racially balancing its freshman admittees as well as limiting the number of Asians it will accept,” Blum said. “What the data indicates to us, and to many observers, is that while Penn is raising the bar and lowering the bar as well as most competitive universities based on race, Penn is also engaged in a de facto quota limiting the number of Asians that it will take.”

http://www.thedp.com/article/2015/05/race-and-holistic-admissions-affirmative-action-and-asian-american-students

Right, but the whole point is that the "data" doesn't show you holistic admissions. Some folks are claiming that an Asian who plays guitar, captains the soccer team, interviews well, volunteers in their community, overcame a language barrier, carries straight As and aces the SAT is less likely to get into college than a White student who checks all of the same boxes. That may be true, but only the last two items on that list are "data" so by definition we can't know if it's true because all of the other stuff on that list isn't quantifiable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no evidence that Asian-American students have more and better extra-curriculars and leadership experience and other factors that go into a holistic admissions review. The only basis anyone claims that Asian-American students are more qualified is because of test scores. By definition, a non-holistic admissions process relies exclusively on grades and test scores. So if you argue that a holistic review is unfair, then you are demanding a numbers based process. And as I wrote earlier, every Asian education ministry says their test-based process is screwed up and unfair and produces bad results for learning.

We don't have the evidence because colleges refuse to release the information and actively block release of any information that will shed light on this issue. Harvard is even refusing to comply with the discovery requests made in the legal action brought by Asian Americans alleging racial discrimination using every trick not to release any relevant information.

Refusing to release relevant information and then saying there is no evidence for such allegation is self serving. There are plenty of anecdotal evidence of Asian Americans with "better extra-curriculars and leadership experience and other factors that go into a holistic admissions" compared to AA and Hispanics getting unfavorable assessments.

Blah, blah, blah. These colleges are private (and stop the public funds nonsense -- most of the schools we're talking about could stop taking fed money tomorrow and make it up from the private sector). The more info they release, the more it is subject to misinterpretation would be my guess. For example, how would you quantify a "gut feel" about a particular candidate vs. another? This is common in hiring decisions all the time.

The bottom line is a supply and demand issue. There are more people who want to go to to private elite schools than seats available. For status reasons, Asians (6 % of the U.S. population, 60 % of the world population) disproportionately want to go to the same big name private U.S. universities. You could fill the freshman classes of each of them entirely with qualified Asians and Asian Americans and there would still be unhappy people who felt they were cheated. Everyone acknowledges Ivy league admission is a crapshoot. By design, these universities choose a cross-selection of high achieving or high potential students. It's beyond competitive. Any one individual - regardless of race/ethnicity - is lucky to get in. No one individual - regardless of race or ethnicity - is guaranteed or entitled to get in. Lots of the griping comes down to people wanting to adhere to a formula and get in. (top test scores, top ECs, top grades). But the top universities want individuals, who don't necessarily come across in a seemingly "perfect" application. They want someone confident enough to say, "you'd be lucky to get me and if you turn me down, F.U., I'll take my talent + success elsewhere. Not someone who says, "stop giving under-represented minorities and talented athletes and other bright kids who bring something different a shot, so more of my race or type of student can get in."

Should a school be 100% Asian?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that too many parents and students are focused on getting into the most elite schools. For most, even with the highest scores and perfect GPAs, the odds of getting in are rather slim. HYP accept 5%, 6% and 7% of applicants. The other 93 - 95 percent are rejected. Among the rejected applicants, I would be the majority all had the test scores and grades to match the applicants who were accepted. The test scores and grades get you in the door, after that the schools needs to start looking how to differentiate all the Lake Wobegon children from one another and to determine who will be the best fit for their incoming freshman class. There are limited spaces, and the decision needs to be made at some point about who will be in and who will be out. How would you differentiate, say, 20 applicants with perfect SATs and a perfect GPA. Should they all be admitted?

Not buying this either.

Yes, colleges will have to exercise discretion and apply mix of objective and subjective criteria for admission, That is reasonable but these criteria are applied differently based on race. The criticism is not that college admissions office use discretion or have subjective criteria. THEY ARE FINE as long as they are applied consistently and not racially discriminatory.

For example, if AA is given additional consideration for overcoming obstacles, some Asian Americans should be given additional consideration for overcoming obstacles as well such as language barrier, lack of support from parents due to language and cultural issues, being bullied in school, working after school, etc. The problem is AA will be given a bump for overcoming "obstacles" but Asians will not be given a bump and probably will be held to a higher standard even with demonstrated obstacles and viewed as "robots, drones, lacking creativity and one-dimensional etc." and other descriptions commonly thrown around on this forum without a second though.

The bottom line that people can get away with name calling and marginalizing Asian Americans because there won't be protests/riots whereas it is more "politically correct" to give AA a leg up and avoid marginalizing AA.

The majority of Asian - Americans in this country have not faced the same type of institutionalized racial oppression that has been leveled at the descendents of African American slaves in this country. The large majority of African Americans in this country were systematically excluded from full participation in the political and economic life of this country from its very founding. Even well into the 20th century, Jim Crow and discriminatory banking, lending and housing polices worked to keep African Americans largely in poverty. It is the reason there is a large gap in household wealth between AAs and whites. Asians, despite the exclusion acts, etc., did not suffer to the same extent in America, nor did the Jews. They need to stop trying to claim reparations that are not theirs.

The only large Asian - American community I will give props to for overcoming obstacles - besides the Japanese who were compensated for WWII internment - are the Vietnamese. Most of them came here as refugees after the Vietnam War and suffered extreme hardships and had to largely build from nothing. Koreans I do not understand - most who come here are leaving a prosperous country and are coming with capital on their own to start businesses, etc. The obstacles they face are not the same as those of war refugees.

"Penn is indeed racially balancing its freshman admittees as well as limiting the number of Asians it will accept,” Blum said. “What the data indicates to us, and to many observers, is that while Penn is raising the bar and lowering the bar as well as most competitive universities based on race, Penn is also engaged in a de facto quota limiting the number of Asians that it will take.”

http://www.thedp.com/article/2015/05/race-and-holistic-admissions-affirmative-action-and-asian-american-students

Anonymous wrote:You are competing against people that are your similar profile
There are many many many people with perfect or near perfect scores. If you think that is going to distinguish you at an elite institution well lol
Think about TJ and then multiply the number of applicants by a factor of 1,000 and then you will start to see the picture

"For the millionth time, this response will address the same issue so pay attention:

Asian Americans do not argue for test scores or gpas to trump over other factors. In fact, colleges can use all the objective and subjective criteria they want to use. That is fine and dandy.

The problem is, pay attention now, the various criteria are APPLIED DIFFERENTLY based on race. Again Asians DO NOT complain about the factors used in college admissions at all. Asians only want them APPLIED CONSISTENTLY without illegal racial discrimination where one race has to show higher test scores, higher gpas, more club activities, more awards, more officer positions, more volunteer hours etc. That is the problem, not that colleges use test scores or gpas. I am sure this will have to be repeated over and over since someone will come back and say exactly the same thing: Why should we only look at SAT scores?, SAT doesn't show creativity, SAT doesn't predict college success, we don't want rote memorization, higher income will boost SAT scores etc. "