Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ron Unz took the evidence of discrimination against Asians to a new level in a long article in the current issue of American Conservative, “The Myth of American Meritocracy.” As Steve Sailer has noted, Unz’s findings have received astonishingly little coverage. “Astonishingly,” because Unz has documented what looks very much like a tacitly common policy on the part of the Ivies to cap Asian admissions at about 16% of undergraduates, give or take a few percentage points, no matter what the quality of Asian applicants might be.That’s a strong statement, but consider the data that Unz has assembled.
How many Asians are there on the planet? They come from cultures where they study, study, study and there maybe relatively few elite universities in their countries, which means that demand exceeds supply and these students start looking to matriculate into US elite universities.
Look at it this way. Do you want all the workers of the world to have access to US jobs....even if they are more qualified than many of their US counterparts? If all the Asian worlds best and brightest aim to go to US universities, and they are let in, they would crowd out opportunities for US students......I am thinking?
I don't know....this is a possible scenario that would explain the cap.
Which is why there are state universities and junior colleges across the nation. Save the Ivy's and elite learning institutions for the "nerds".
If the Ivy's and "elite" learning institutions are attracting one-dimensional nerds, then they shouldn't be so highly valued or elite. Less value should be placed on people who only are good at taking tests.
Just because a student has a 4.0 or a 4.2 does not mean that they are automatically an asset to a school. A school filled with the socially awkward is not beneficial to the school's overall reputation.
A big part of college life is the social atmosphere. Bonds formed in college (fraternities/sororities/etc.) are a large part of the lifelong network.
Would much rather have an Asian earning a STEM degree than another frat boy hotshot taking psychology courses and cruising by with a 2.5 GPA and graduating with an inability to think critically and be a problem solver, any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Every Asian who works on our computational linguistics group is hard working and actually commands a better understanding of English than many Americans.
I'll never understand the anti-Asian sentiment on this board.
They contribute more to our nation than their numbers would suggest and they do so peacefully.
If the Ivy's and "elite" learning institutions are attracting one-dimensional nerds, then they shouldn't be so highly valued or elite. Less value should be placed on people who only are good at taking tests.
I applaud the capping.
This is a criticism that bluntly comes from people who didn't go to an Ivy or Ivy-equivalent (defined loosely here as harder to get into than Cornell) school.
I did as did most of my friends. I know several people who worked in admissions offices. You need to be one of the following (can overlap, but meeting one gets you in somewhere):
1) Merit candidate: high GPA AND high SATs AND impressive extracurriculars AND luck (to get into a specific one; make all 3 others and you'll get in somewhere of this caliber just not necessarily any specific one). The extracurricular piece can be in the form of one truly-out-of-this-world achievement (Putnam ranking, science Olympiad, published book with significant sales, etc.) or by successfully "playing the game" -- that is, combining all or most of a leadership position, instrument or sport, academic club (engineering, debate, political, etc.) or two, volunteer work, and doing something at least mildly impressive with your summers.
2) Affirmative Action candidate: Black or Hispanic and at least one of high GPA or high SATs.
3) Athlete: recruited at a school which values their teams and you just have to meet whatever minimum standards they have, if good enough to play but not recruited or the coach wants you at a school where sports aren't valued much this is like being a merit candidate but the extracurricular requirements are waived.
4) Legacy: Major donor is similar to a recruited athlete, gives regularly but not much is similar to but a bit weaker than the second category of athletes, legacy whose parents don't donate at all doesn't get an edge in admissions.
Your hypothetical student who just has good grades and test scores is much more likely to be at a good State school or less elite competitive private college. However, in contrast to your value judgement, these former students tend to be just as good and successful at their jobs after graduating as the people who had one of the edges or played the game and got into an Ivy or similar elite school.
This is a criticism that bluntly comes from people who didn't go to an Ivy or Ivy-equivalent (defined loosely here as harder to get into than Cornell) school.
I did as did most of my friends. I know several people who worked in admissions offices. You need to be one of the following (can overlap, but meeting one gets you in somewhere):
1) Merit candidate: high GPA AND high SATs AND impressive extracurriculars AND luck (to get into a specific one; make all 3 others and you'll get in somewhere of this caliber just not necessarily any specific one). The extracurricular piece can be in the form of one truly-out-of-this-world achievement (Putnam ranking, science Olympiad, published book with significant sales, etc.) or by successfully "playing the game" -- that is, combining all or most of a leadership position, instrument or sport, academic club (engineering, debate, political, etc.) or two, volunteer work, and doing something at least mildly impressive with your summers.
2) Affirmative Action candidate: Black or Hispanic and at least one of high GPA or high SATs.
3) Athlete: recruited at a school which values their teams and you just have to meet whatever minimum standards they have, if good enough to play but not recruited or the coach wants you at a school where sports aren't valued much this is like being a merit candidate but the extracurricular requirements are waived.
4) Legacy: Major donor is similar to a recruited athlete, gives regularly but not much is similar to but a bit weaker than the second category of athletes, legacy whose parents don't donate at all doesn't get an edge in admissions.
Your hypothetical student who just has good grades and test scores is much more likely to be at a good State school or less elite competitive private college. However, in contrast to your value judgement, these former students tend to be just as good and successful at their jobs after graduating as the people who had one of the edges or played the game and got into an Ivy or similar elite school.
Agreed.
Too; it depends on what kind of "Hispanic". A "white" 1 from Argentina would probably have more trouble getting in compared to a dark skin Indian whose people came from Mexico.
Studying physics or calculus, rather than break dancing or woman's studies, isn't approved of in liberal institutions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
