[Mick]

I doubt it, if this fellow is the test subject.  A 2230 is really good, but he's behind more than 20,000 other students.  If you go on prepscholar.com, it states your chances of matriculating at the top 5 schools is "very low" regardless of ethnicity.  And "participation" in debate/speech competitions does not equal excellence.  Incidentally, I've had more than one counselor inform me that speech & debate essentially doesn't count with college admissions.

[Mick]

I doubt it, if this fellow is the test subject.  A 2230 is really good, but he's behind more than 20,000 other students.  If you go on prepscholar.com, it states your chances of matriculating at the top 5 schools is "very low" regardless of ethnicity.  And "participation" in debate/speech competitions does not equal excellence.  Incidentally, I've had more than one counselor inform me that speech & debate essentially doesn't count with college admissions.

[dabigv13]

He still got into Penn, and his SAT of 2230 was good, but hardly stellar given the competition. Get on with your life dude.

[dabigv13]

He still got into Penn, and his SAT of 2230 was good, but hardly stellar given the competition. Get on with your life dude.

[Stymie]

If you really believe that LSJU does not discriminate against applicants of Asian origin, just compare our admittance rates with those of Cal Tech.  "Diversity" is a two-edged sword.  It allowed us and most of our competitors to build student bodies which were much more inclusive than when I was there in the late 60's, but (outside of Cal Tech), we and all of our competitors seem to have balked when we all reached the 50% "people of color" line.  Same with the unstated meme of "we are a Global University, but we really don't want to get "foreigners" above 10% of the intake" that we and our competitors seem to practice.  We seem happy to admit legacies, children of famous people and generous donors and talented athletes disproprtionately to their academic abilities, but nobody seems to see this as discrimination against other pools of applicants.

Why?

End of rant.....

[Stymie]

If you really believe that LSJU does not discriminate against applicants of Asian origin, just compare our admittance rates with those of Cal Tech.  "Diversity" is a two-edged sword.  It allowed us and most of our competitors to build student bodies which were much more inclusive than when I was there in the late 60's, but (outside of Cal Tech), we and all of our competitors seem to have balked when we all reached the 50% "people of color" line.  Same with the unstated meme of "we are a Global University, but we really don't want to get "foreigners" above 10% of the intake" that we and our competitors seem to practice.  We seem happy to admit legacies, children of famous people and generous donors and talented athletes disproprtionately to their academic abilities, but nobody seems to see this as discrimination against other pools of applicants.

Why?

End of rant.....

[stupac2]

If you really believe that LSJU does not discriminate against applicants of Asian origin, just compare our admittance rates with those of Low APR U Tech.  "Diversity" is a two-edged sword.  It allowed us and most of our competitors to build student bodies which were much more inclusive than when I was there in the late 60's, but (outside of Low APR U Tech), we and all of our competitors seem to have balked when we all reached the 50% "people of color" line.  Same with the unstated meme of "we are a Global University, but we really don't want to get "foreigners" above 10% of the intake" that we and our competitors seem to practice.  We seem happy to admit legacies, children of famous people and generous donors and talented athletes disproprtionately to their academic abilities, but nobody seems to see this as discrimination against other pools of applicants.

Why?

End of rant.....

I dunno, reading the things this guy did, they were all just the standard things. I think that one of the main things you want to do to help get in is to be different. How many other applicants were there out there with high test scores, GPAs, tons of AP classes, and did piano and speech/debate? My guess is enough to fill 10 Stanford classes every year. Stanford doesn't want those kids, it wants the ones who start clubs or do volunteer work or other things that actually separate you from every other kid who does well in school.

In general, does Stanford have a quota of Asians? I doubt it. But comparing to Berkeley isn't really the best idea since the schools are selecting for different things.


(Also, one of the things that I find weird about these discussions is the idea that the Ivies/Stanford are so important to get into. The US isn't one of those countries where the right university makes or breaks your entire life, I doubt that if you correct for parent's income going to Berkeley or UCLA results in a worse lifetime earnings average than going to Stanford.)

[stupac2]

If you really believe that LSJU does not discriminate against applicants of Asian origin, just compare our admittance rates with those of Low APR U Tech.  "Diversity" is a two-edged sword.  It allowed us and most of our competitors to build student bodies which were much more inclusive than when I was there in the late 60's, but (outside of Low APR U Tech), we and all of our competitors seem to have balked when we all reached the 50% "people of color" line.  Same with the unstated meme of "we are a Global University, but we really don't want to get "foreigners" above 10% of the intake" that we and our competitors seem to practice.  We seem happy to admit legacies, children of famous people and generous donors and talented athletes disproprtionately to their academic abilities, but nobody seems to see this as discrimination against other pools of applicants.

Why?

End of rant.....

I dunno, reading the things this guy did, they were all just the standard things. I think that one of the main things you want to do to help get in is to be different. How many other applicants were there out there with high test scores, GPAs, tons of AP classes, and did piano and speech/debate? My guess is enough to fill 10 Stanford classes every year. Stanford doesn't want those kids, it wants the ones who start clubs or do volunteer work or other things that actually separate you from every other kid who does well in school.

In general, does Stanford have a quota of Asians? I doubt it. But comparing to Berkeley isn't really the best idea since the schools are selecting for different things.


(Also, one of the things that I find weird about these discussions is the idea that the Ivies/Stanford are so important to get into. The US isn't one of those countries where the right university makes or breaks your entire life, I doubt that if you correct for parent's income going to Berkeley or UCLA results in a worse lifetime earnings average than going to Stanford.)

[Stymie]

Good points, stupac2, but if we are primarily an academic institution, should we not give additional consideration to applicants who might become serioulsy good academics, over people who are not quite as smart but much more clubbable?

PS--I wasn't talking about Berkeley in my previous post, but Pasadena (CalTech).

[Stymie]

Good points, stupac2, but if we are primarily an academic institution, should we not give additional consideration to applicants who might become serioulsy good academics, over people who are not quite as smart but much more clubbable?

PS--I wasn't talking about Berkeley in my previous post, but Pasadena (CalTech).

[stupac2]

Good points, stupac2, but if we are primarily an academic institution, should we not give additional consideration to applicants who might become serioulsy good academics, over people who are not quite as smart but much more clubbable?

I don't know, it really depends on what you think the point of the institution should be. It's not like Stanford is full of academic lightweights, as Mick pointed out that SAT score isn't even particularly high for Stanford. But if you want to get into Stanford by being an excellent student and only an excellent student, you're going to have to be ridiculously excellent. And I don't think I knew a single person who got in that way, everyone had other things that they did to make them stand out.

I think of it this way, if you admit people are solely focused on academics then you'll basically get some kind of monastery. I don't think anyone wants that (at least any more, it's entirely possible that there are members of this board old enough to remember when that would've been more-or-less the goal, though I think that had died out even in the 50's). So you want people who try and excel in other things to foster a more interesting institution.

PS--I wasn't talking about Berkeley in my previous post, but Pasadena (CalTech).

This is why I fucking hate the autocorrect. I couldn't see past "Low APR U" to the Tech and missed your point entirely.

[stupac2]

Good points, stupac2, but if we are primarily an academic institution, should we not give additional consideration to applicants who might become serioulsy good academics, over people who are not quite as smart but much more clubbable?

I don't know, it really depends on what you think the point of the institution should be. It's not like Stanford is full of academic lightweights, as Mick pointed out that SAT score isn't even particularly high for Stanford. But if you want to get into Stanford by being an excellent student and only an excellent student, you're going to have to be ridiculously excellent. And I don't think I knew a single person who got in that way, everyone had other things that they did to make them stand out.

I think of it this way, if you admit people are solely focused on academics then you'll basically get some kind of monastery. I don't think anyone wants that (at least any more, it's entirely possible that there are members of this board old enough to remember when that would've been more-or-less the goal, though I think that had died out even in the 50's). So you want people who try and excel in other things to foster a more interesting institution.

PS--I wasn't talking about Berkeley in my previous post, but Pasadena (CalTech).

This is why I fucking hate the autocorrect. I couldn't see past "Low APR U" to the Tech and missed your point entirely.

[fullmetal]

I pointed out to a friend that his teachers may have been lukewarm at best in their recommendations, that his essays might have been overly pedantic or pompous, or that maybe he interviewed really poorly.  There's a lot we don't know about this kid, aside from the fact that he's the type of person to sue HYP for not admitting him.  I mean, "should have made him a lock for admission" is the kind of phrase only an entitled person would make.  He'd be marginally competitive among Stanford applicants...but not distinguished.

I've interviewed better candidates who didn't get into Stanford (to my heartfelt dismay).

Okay, maybe "should have made him a lock for admission" is probably a paraphrase by the article author, but that's just a ridiculous statement to make.

But I should also point out that my profile matches his somewhat closely.  I had a handful more noteworthy things...and I think Michael's "noteworthy" accomplishments were fewer in number than the article makes it seem.

[fullmetal]

I pointed out to a friend that his teachers may have been lukewarm at best in their recommendations, that his essays might have been overly pedantic or pompous, or that maybe he interviewed really poorly.  There's a lot we don't know about this kid, aside from the fact that he's the type of person to sue HYP for not admitting him.  I mean, "should have made him a lock for admission" is the kind of phrase only an entitled person would make.  He'd be marginally competitive among Stanford applicants...but not distinguished.

I've interviewed better candidates who didn't get into Stanford (to my heartfelt dismay).

Okay, maybe "should have made him a lock for admission" is probably a paraphrase by the article author, but that's just a ridiculous statement to make.

But I should also point out that my profile matches his somewhat closely.  I had a handful more noteworthy things...and I think Michael's "noteworthy" accomplishments were fewer in number than the article makes it seem.

[Nan3cy]

Poor kid "only" got into Penn. I wonder how many other kids in the same age cohort would give some vital anatomic part to be in his situation.

[Nan3cy]

Poor kid "only" got into Penn. I wonder how many other kids in the same age cohort would give some vital anatomic part to be in his situation.

[oldalum]

good grades and scores only get you into the game at the highly selective schools, these days you need a strong "hook" to get you in the door. This kid has no apparent hook. Last year a Stanford admissions officer said they could have accepted 5 different classes of 2,000 each that would not have been discernibly different from the others, but they can only offer 2,000. So they have a lot of leeway in what attracts them to any particular applicant. There is nothing in what the article describes that would make him stand out or seem attractive to Stanford. And Stanford is one of the schools that requires applicants to send them the scores from every sitting of every college entrance exam they have taken, so he couldn't hide that SAT score.

[oldalum]

good grades and scores only get you into the game at the highly selective schools, these days you need a strong "hook" to get you in the door. This kid has no apparent hook. Last year a Stanford admissions officer said they could have accepted 5 different classes of 2,000 each that would not have been discernibly different from the others, but they can only offer 2,000. So they have a lot of leeway in what attracts them to any particular applicant. There is nothing in what the article describes that would make him stand out or seem attractive to Stanford. And Stanford is one of the schools that requires applicants to send them the scores from every sitting of every college entrance exam they have taken, so he couldn't hide that SAT score.

[Stymie]

Just to set the record straight, I wasn't at all talking about the guy in the article, who might have been a complete dork or even a possible Nobel prize winner.  I don't know.  All I was trying to say is what I believe, and that belief is that I do not believe that Stanford, or virtually all "elite" Universities are non-discriminatory.

I, as most of the people on this site, don't know why I was admitted, and I know that I could have been rejected, as were several great candidates who were contemporaries and friends of mine.  I'd like to think that if I were applying in today's environment I'd have raised my game to compete with today's cohort, but I might not have been able to, but if so, I'd have adapted and survived.  But I NEVER thought that I might be rejected because of my ethnicity or background or beliefs or nationality or even gender.

When I was admitted (1964) Jane Stanford's rule of 2 male admissions for every female admission was still in force, and not more than 1-2% of the student body was black, and roughly the same for international students.  We white American men were bathed in privilege, even on the mythical beaches that Garvin remembers, unless he is talking Lake Lagunita rather than the San Mateo coast which was and is Baltic.....

I want Stanford to be the best that it can be, and I know from talking to a number of admissions officers that I know that they believe the same thing.  But, do they, and the University, have the same vision of what "the best" means to you and me?  I doubt it, and I don't know either, but I think, as a part of this great community, that we should not be afraid to expand our horizons in the context of this debate and of our future.

End of second rant.

[Stymie]

Just to set the record straight, I wasn't at all talking about the guy in the article, who might have been a complete dork or even a possible Nobel prize winner.  I don't know.  All I was trying to say is what I believe, and that belief is that I do not believe that Stanford, or virtually all "elite" Universities are non-discriminatory.

I, as most of the people on this site, don't know why I was admitted, and I know that I could have been rejected, as were several great candidates who were contemporaries and friends of mine.  I'd like to think that if I were applying in today's environment I'd have raised my game to compete with today's cohort, but I might not have been able to, but if so, I'd have adapted and survived.  But I NEVER thought that I might be rejected because of my ethnicity or background or beliefs or nationality or even gender.

When I was admitted (1964) Jane Stanford's rule of 2 male admissions for every female admission was still in force, and not more than 1-2% of the student body was black, and roughly the same for international students.  We white American men were bathed in privilege, even on the mythical beaches that Garvin remembers, unless he is talking Lake Lagunita rather than the San Mateo coast which was and is Baltic.....

I want Stanford to be the best that it can be, and I know from talking to a number of admissions officers that I know that they believe the same thing.  But, do they, and the University, have the same vision of what "the best" means to you and me?  I doubt it, and I don't know either, but I think, as a part of this great community, that we should not be afraid to expand our horizons in the context of this debate and of our future.

End of second rant.

[82lsju]

Poor kid "only" got into Penn. I wonder how many other kids in the same age cohort would give some vital anatomic part to be in his situation.

and Penn was apparently not to his liking as he attends Williams College


>> For now, he's enjoying his time at Williams College, where he just finished his sophomore year.


http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-w...ans-2015-5

[82lsju]

Poor kid "only" got into Penn. I wonder how many other kids in the same age cohort would give some vital anatomic part to be in his situation.

and Penn was apparently not to his liking as he attends Williams College


>> For now, he's enjoying his time at Williams College, where he just finished his sophomore year.


http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-w...ans-2015-5

[Mick]

I wondered about the bamboo ceiling in public schools, actually. 

Back before they removed it, the University of California system gave normal humans access to admissions data by year, ending in about 2011.  one of the criteria was ethnicity, and I seem to recall that applicants of Asian descent had to get a slightly higher gpa, about .1.  And as of 2010, Asian undergraduates outnumbered Caucasian undergraduates at every campus except Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz and UC-wide by a 68:55 ratio.  From 2007 to 2009, undergraduate degree recipients according to the ca.gov site were 34.64% of Asian descent (Asians are 11.55% of California's population) and 39.99% of Caucasian descent (Caucasians are 33.54% of California's population).

I responded to a private message from a poster who asked about my forensics comment above.  Out of curiosity, I looked at my son's high school site.  Two years ago, they had six speech/debaters finish first or second at the national finals, and oddly enough, there were three Asian or Indian kids and three Caucasian kids.  The Asian/Indian kids went to Harvard, Stanford and UC bzrkly.  The three Caucasian kids went to UC bzrkly, Santa Clara and a theological seminary.  Just an interesting point.

[Mick]

I wondered about the bamboo ceiling in public schools, actually. 

Back before they removed it, the University of California system gave normal humans access to admissions data by year, ending in about 2011.  one of the criteria was ethnicity, and I seem to recall that applicants of Asian descent had to get a slightly higher gpa, about .1.  And as of 2010, Asian undergraduates outnumbered Caucasian undergraduates at every campus except Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz and UC-wide by a 68:55 ratio.  From 2007 to 2009, undergraduate degree recipients according to the ca.gov site were 34.64% of Asian descent (Asians are 11.55% of California's population) and 39.99% of Caucasian descent (Caucasians are 33.54% of California's population).

I responded to a private message from a poster who asked about my forensics comment above.  Out of curiosity, I looked at my son's high school site.  Two years ago, they had six speech/debaters finish first or second at the national finals, and oddly enough, there were three Asian or Indian kids and three Caucasian kids.  The Asian/Indian kids went to Harvard, Stanford and UC bzrkly.  The three Caucasian kids went to UC bzrkly, Santa Clara and a theological seminary.  Just an interesting point.

[BostonCard]

Mick, here's your data for the school across the Bay:




It does show that after 1996, admission rates for Asians declined more slowly than admission rates for the entire student population (remember, there's been a recent trend of declining admissions for everyone), and that the proportion of admits who were Asian has increased.  However, over roughly the same period, the proportion of college age kids of Asian descent has also increased.

BC

[BostonCard]

Mick, here's your data for the school across the Bay:




It does show that after 1996, admission rates for Asians declined more slowly than admission rates for the entire student population (remember, there's been a recent trend of declining admissions for everyone), and that the proportion of admits who were Asian has increased.  However, over roughly the same period, the proportion of college age kids of Asian descent has also increased.

BC

[CornFed]

"(Caucasians are 16.78% of California's population)."

Really?


I've heard that Facebook has a couple of dozen different categories from which to choose the best descriptor of one's sexual orientation.  Has the breakdown of racial categories become so diffuse that Caucasians represent such a small portion.  Am I now classified by State green shades as a Danish-American?

Or, less provocatively, was it just a typo?

[CornFed]

"(Caucasians are 16.78% of California's population)."

Really?


I've heard that Facebook has a couple of dozen different categories from which to choose the best descriptor of one's sexual orientation.  Has the breakdown of racial categories become so diffuse that Caucasians represent such a small portion.  Am I now classified by State green shades as a Danish-American?

Or, less provocatively, was it just a typo?

[Mick]

"(Caucasians are 16.78% of California's population)."

Really?


I've heard that Facebook has a couple of dozen different categories from which to choose the best descriptor of one's sexual orientation.  Has the breakdown of racial categories become so diffuse that Caucasians represent such a small portion.  Am I now classified by State green shades as a Danish-American?

Or, less provocatively, was it just a typo?

Typos across the board, essentially cut percentages in half.  Here's the actual table from http://www.cpec.ca.gov/StudentData/DiversityReport.ASP:

[table][tr][td] Ethnicity	Degree Recipients (Undergraduate)	State Population 18 to 24
Asian/Pac Is	34.64%	11.55%
Black	3.04%	7.79%
Filipino**	4.83%
Latino	14.53%	43.51%
Nat Amer	0.60%	1.05%
Other	2.37%	2.57%
White	39.99%	33.54%
		** Population numbers for Asian/Pacific Islander include Filipino.
		Data Generated on Wednesday, June 03, 2015 at 5:01:36 PM

[/td][/tr][/table]

[Mick]

"(Caucasians are 16.78% of California's population)."

Really?


I've heard that Facebook has a couple of dozen different categories from which to choose the best descriptor of one's sexual orientation.  Has the breakdown of racial categories become so diffuse that Caucasians represent such a small portion.  Am I now classified by State green shades as a Danish-American?

Or, less provocatively, was it just a typo?

Typos across the board, essentially cut percentages in half.  Here's the actual table from http://www.cpec.ca.gov/StudentData/DiversityReport.ASP:

[table][tr][td] Ethnicity	Degree Recipients (Undergraduate)	State Population 18 to 24
Asian/Pac Is	34.64%	11.55%
Black	3.04%	7.79%
Filipino**	4.83%
Latino	14.53%	43.51%
Nat Amer	0.60%	1.05%
Other	2.37%	2.57%
White	39.99%	33.54%
		** Population numbers for Asian/Pacific Islander include Filipino.
		Data Generated on Wednesday, June 03, 2015 at 5:01:36 PM

[/td][/tr][/table]

[CornFed]

I'm only just learning this stuff, Mick, but I think the use of the phrase "your kind" is a micro-aggression.  So, I think, my Viking blood is boiling.  However, if I have misinterpreted this micro-aggression stuff, well, then,  "Never mind".


Addendum:  My error.  I was micro-aggressed by ferrari apparently.  Why is that not a surprise?

[CornFed]

I'm only just learning this stuff, Mick, but I think the use of the phrase "your kind" is a micro-aggression.  So, I think, my Viking blood is boiling.  However, if I have misinterpreted this micro-aggression stuff, well, then,  "Never mind".


Addendum:  My error.  I was micro-aggressed by ferrari apparently.  Why is that not a surprise?

[Mick]

I'm only just learning this stuff, Mick, but I think the use of the phrase "your kind" is a micro-aggression.  So, I think, my Viking blood is boiling.  However, if I have misinterpreted this micro-aggression stuff, well, then,  "Never mind".

Right back 'atcha.  It was Ferrari who made the comment, not me fair self, which makes my Irish side ask "Why do I fight?"

[Mick]

I'm only just learning this stuff, Mick, but I think the use of the phrase "your kind" is a micro-aggression.  So, I think, my Viking blood is boiling.  However, if I have misinterpreted this micro-aggression stuff, well, then,  "Never mind".

Right back 'atcha.  It was Ferrari who made the comment, not me fair self, which makes my Irish side ask "Why do I fight?"

[81alum]

Enjoy those CPEC statistics while you can, Brown eliminated CPEC early in his first term.  Decades ago I was Stanford's student rep to CPEC--a worthwhile agency.

The problem with the whole conversation about the Bamboo Ceiling is that it fails to distinguish between very different sub-groups withing the Asian American community.  Pacific Islanders, for example, do not necessarily share the same issues as do Korean-Americans or Japanese-Americans or Chinese-Americans or Indo-Americans.  And what box should our growing number Afghan students check?  The whole concept of "Asian-American" is a construct that says very little.  My wife hates the term.  She is Chinese-American if she is forced to use a hyphen at all.  At least that says something meaningful about her cultural heritage--something Asian-American does not.

Then there are my kids.  I don't actually know what box on his applications my son checked.  And I have not talked to my daughter about what box she will check.  I have never heard either of them refer to themselves by ANY category, come to think of it.  Never have I heard them say they are Caucasian, or white, or Asian-American.  These broad mega-categories do not seem to be a part of their identity.  Half the kids in Palo Alto seem to be of mixed heritage of one sort or the other.  If a multi-ethnic society is what we have now, increasingly we will live in a society of multi-ethnic individuals.

[81alum]

Enjoy those CPEC statistics while you can, Brown eliminated CPEC early in his first term.  Decades ago I was Stanford's student rep to CPEC--a worthwhile agency.

The problem with the whole conversation about the Bamboo Ceiling is that it fails to distinguish between very different sub-groups withing the Asian American community.  Pacific Islanders, for example, do not necessarily share the same issues as do Korean-Americans or Japanese-Americans or Chinese-Americans or Indo-Americans.  And what box should our growing number Afghan students check?  The whole concept of "Asian-American" is a construct that says very little.  My wife hates the term.  She is Chinese-American if she is forced to use a hyphen at all.  At least that says something meaningful about her cultural heritage--something Asian-American does not.

Then there are my kids.  I don't actually know what box on his applications my son checked.  And I have not talked to my daughter about what box she will check.  I have never heard either of them refer to themselves by ANY category, come to think of it.  Never have I heard them say they are Caucasian, or white, or Asian-American.  These broad mega-categories do not seem to be a part of their identity.  Half the kids in Palo Alto seem to be of mixed heritage of one sort or the other.  If a multi-ethnic society is what we have now, increasingly we will live in a society of multi-ethnic individuals.

[terry]

I'm not sure, but I think my kids all checked the "decline to identify" box on their college applications, just on general principles.

[terry]

I'm not sure, but I think my kids all checked the "decline to identify" box on their college applications, just on general principles.

[Bruce Wang]

You, Irish, and the Viking fight.  This Dago will take on the loser.

Chunk here will take on the winner.

[Bruce Wang]

You, Irish, and the Viking fight.  This Dago will take on the loser.

Chunk here will take on the winner.