That's one person's opinion - not a "study."
Yea that's called a legacy admissions - which I have a problem with as well.
Yes, one person stating that his extracurricular choices were typical of applicants. Not Asian applicants but Harvard applicants. And it was his atypical film interest and his interview that separated him.
I'm not arguing that different extracurriculars are not weighed differently.
Then you're not disagreeing with anything that I've actually said. You're disagreeing with a more complex point that you are struggling to grasp.
I'm saying you haven't shown any proof that Asian student's extra's are vastly different from other applicants of different nationality. You're just stating that it is so.
I never said that they're vastly different from other applicants. I said that those extracurriculars are overrepresented in admissions. And so students with great test scores, regardless of nationality, but overrepresented extracurriculars will lose out compared to students with broader extracurriculars, regardless of nationality.
Now, read slowly because this is important:
If the claim is that Asian students are being discriminated against based
solely on looking at their high test scores and average GPA's compared to other students, it is not a useful piece of information unless you also have the soft criteria, such as extracurriculars to provide context. Simply having high test scores isn't as valuable when applying to elite colleges because everyone has high test scores so the applicant (of any nationality) needs a broad range of extracurriculars.
Read it again before you start typing. Did you? Ok....
What I have been saying is that high Asian test scores and GPA's are worthless for this discussion because if they have the typical extracurriculars that students,
of all nationalities, bring to the table then they are negating their higher test scores by not being unique enough elsewhere. And so they, just like other students with overrepresented extracurriculars will not get in despite having high test scores and GPAs.
That is the core point that you seem to struggle with. High test scores and GPAs don't matter at the elite college level if coupled with typical extracurriculars and there's no reason to assume that the extracurriculars of Asian students diverge significantly from the standard ones presented to Ivy League schools.
Nothing was "proven" untrue at Harvard and Princeton previously. You act like it's a foregone conclusion.They just won legally and had good lawyers.
Got it, so winning legally doesn't prove anything unless it's your opinion that won? That's pretty insane. You're not looking for truth, you're looking for confirmation of an opinion. And any disagreement with your opinion, even if based in truth, is bias.
That doesn't mean it's decided once and for all. There are plenty of legal cases where the "wrong" side won. The Supreme Court once ruled black people were not American citizens. Recent decisions like Citizens United are also horrible. OJ was deemed not guilty. That doesn't make it right.
Additionally, you only mention Harvard and Princeton and point to that as proof that there is no bias.
But this has been going on for a while at other universities as well and PROVEN to be.
The Justice Department found in the 80's UCLA had been discriminating against Asians in favor of white students.
At Stanford, the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid, after an exhaustive internal investigation, conceded negative action against Asian applicants
“No factor we considered can explain completely the discrepancy in admission rates between Asian Americans and whites.” Subconscious bias by admissions officers was likely the culprit, it concluded, but the Committee “elected not to investigate the bias because ‘the analysis required would be formidable.
A similar episode took place at Brown, where an internal committee found that “Asian American applicants have been treated unfairly in the admissions process.
It's not "decided" like you like to portray.
Right. It's not decided until it agrees with you.
As for the Stanford stuff, as I pointed out previously - it's not affirmative action that's hurting Asian students. It's negative action in favor of white students, athletes and legacies. The link that I provided, which included the Stanford information and as well as other institutions, points out that 85% of the issue is about white applicants, not other minorities ie not affirmative action. Did you grasp that part of it?
Students for Fair Admissions, which brought the lawsuit, includes Asian students. It's not only white kids.
The individual, Blum, who founded Students for Fair Admissions and sets their legal strategy is a white man who has brought multiple suits against multiple universities to challenge admissions. Who cares if they use Asian students as the front for their cases, that's basic litigation - find a sympathetic individual as the face of the case. In this case, he lost the UT case, he's litigating a different case against UNC and he has this one against Harvard.
You should have a baseline bit of knowledge on this litigation.
Well that's one thing I'm in agreement with you. I don't like legacy admissions either.
That's all well and good but if you're looking for why Asian students aren't getting in at greater rates, that's where you should actually be looking, plus donors and underqualified white applicants, instead of non-existent things like "quotas".
No it's not only alleging discrimination in favor of black kids. It's in favor of black, Latino AND white kids.
Asian applicants needed to score — on the 1600 point scale of the “old SAT” — 140 points higher than whites, 270 points higher than Hispanics, and 450 points higher than African Americans if other factors are held equal.
Are you seriously trying to say that HUGE of a discrepancy can be explained by differences in extracurriculars?
I literally quoted the person who put together that data in my last post and he stated that his information is incomplete because he didn't have access to all of the soft criteria, ranging from essays, to extracurriculars, to teacher recommendations. If the person who prepared the data doesn't think it points to bias because it's incomplete, how can you quote his data but reach a different conclusion.
And that's before addressing that those test scores are from over 2 decades ago. How in the world are you using 2 decade old data to discuss discrimination in the current applicant pool?
Seriously, step back for a second and put together the information I'm providing you.
Say what you want about extracurriculars, but everybody knows grades and test scores are the 2 MOST important factors in college admissions.
This exactly mirrors what happened to Jews in the earlier part of the century.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ivy-leagues-history-of-discriminating-against-jews-2014-12
2 most important factors does not mean the only 2 factors. Seriously, you're like someone who understands only half of a conversation. The 95th percentile of the SAT kicks in around 1400. The top 10% is at the mid-1300's. Over half of the admittees to Princeton's freshman class have perfect SAT scores. Stop and think about that for a moment and put it into context.
High test scores and GPA aren't special. They're not unique or even interesting when applying to elite colleges. You can take from the top 15% of the applicant pool with an SAT between 1250 and 1300. So, while applicants need to meet a baseline of scores and GPAs, once you cross that line all of the other stuff starts to matter more.
And another factor - from the 70's on, Asian students admittance were growing at an exponential rate until they started changing the standards. Now it is a static hard cap that hasn't moved. That points to an unspoken quota to me.
Really? Amazing? I wonder if it corresponded with a massive uptick in Asian immigrants...
Hmm, population uptick starting in the 1970's coupled with a leveling off in the 2000's. Seems consistent to me.