Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

These are the schools I want to get in to:

Bryn Mawr
Smith
Wellesley
Vassar
Wesleyan
Barnard
Princeton
Swarthmore

I have a 1430 SAT but I think I can bring it up to a 1500.

My GPA is around a 3.75

I will have taken by the time I graduate:
AP Language (5)
AP Literature
AP Statistics
AP Biology
AP World History (4)
AP US History
AP French (3 - but I had only taken French 4 when I took the exam)

I was born in Nigeria and lived in England for about 10 years.

I will have a recommendation from a Harvard Professor (I went to a summer writing program and she was the teacher).

I'm President of the Drama Club.
I'm president of students for global responsibility (a service/anti war group)
I cofounded a club for Social Justice.
I helped organize the large antiwar marches in DC last year.
I volunteer at the National Organization for Women, UNICEF and I tutored children in Science.
I am a teacher's assistant for the English Department.
I recruit members for the Fine Arts Club
I am on the Literary Magazine Staff.

I havent taken the SAT 2 yet but im guessing: 800 Writing, 750 Literature, 600 Math. (not a math person)

I'm worried because I attend a magnet high school but im not in the magnet program because i moved to the school in 11th grade and you can only join the magnet program in 9th. Also, i really slacked off my sophomore year and only took 5 academic classes, only 4 of which were honors.

By Trojan1444 (Trojan1444) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 04:39 am: Edit

You're in. Sadly enough, having the right skin color can get you in just about anywhere.

I don't in any way want to take away from your accomplishments (you obviously have many), but to answer your original question...YES, it REALLY helps to be a minority.

By South1985 (South1985) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 10:57 am: Edit

You have a good chance...

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 12:48 pm: Edit

I was born in Nigeria and lived in England for about 10 years.

This does not necessarily equate to URM ...

1. Are you a US citizen or a Permanent Resident?
2. Are you African American?

If you happen to be Nigerian or English, your ethnic background does not help you. You would be an international student. Now, if you are a URM, you can add about 200 points to your SAT, so your 1430 puts you in the perfect SAT category.

By the way, Trojan, regarding "Sadly enough, having the right skin color can get you in just about anywhere.", you probably should rewrite that as "Sadly enough, there are still places that will deny the mere CONSIDERATION for admission based on the wrong skin color." Just ask people in Augusta. Tiger Woods can win the Masters but cannot become a member... and that is half a century after the Civil Right movement began. I am not trying to preach but a little sensitivity goes a long way.

By Covalentbond007 (Covalentbond007) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 01:23 pm: Edit

Sadly enough, the same business leaders who advocate Affirmative Action are also the ones who belong to clubs like Augusta. Charity is much easier when you're using someone else's money.
Even sadder still is the fact that people try to use this as an excuse to discriminate in the face of the clear language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Use your race to get in, Sadeyedlady, and you will always be a slave to those whites who discriminated for you. Don't think those whites will ever let you forget what they did for you.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 03:03 pm: Edit

Kindergarten got out early today

By Sadeyedlady (Sadeyedlady) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 03:25 pm: Edit

I am a US Citizen and I'm African American. I was born in Nigeria, lived in England for 10 years, and Ive lived here for almost 7.

I'm not using my race to get in. They're going to ask me for it and I'm going to tell them, and I'm wondering how much of an effect it will have.

College Admissions has never been based totally on the academic strenghts anyway. Legacies get in at almost double the rate and they are often accepted even if they're not at the same level of other applicants, and VERY few black people are legacies. I never hear anyone bring that up when they talk about affirmative action.

By Folk_Hero (Folk_Hero) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 03:25 pm: Edit

It's not a fair process. The best do not always win. So many random, unfair things can affect your application that if I had any advantage at all, I would use it with no qualms. You should be able to make Harvard if you have a professor's rec! Lucky girl!

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 03:58 pm: Edit

You are playing the hand that was dealt to you. Do not be shy to use ALL your trump cards. The rules exist for a reason and you are not bending them in the least. DO you believe that a legacy would omit his preferential status for the sake of fairness?

Your only objective should be to be accpeted at the school of your dreams and then proceed to show all the naysayers how wrong they were in diminishing your merits. You ARE the type of student that the college want!

Good luck to you!

By Covalentbond007 (Covalentbond007) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 05:55 pm: Edit

Yes, the process has un-meritorious factors (legacy admits, etc). Why do you advocate making the process MORE unfair by using race as a factor, Sadeyedlady? Maybe it is just me, but I feel we should try to make the process as fair as possible (end legacy admits, end AA). Do you want a fair, objective admissions process or do you want a corrupt admissions process based on the whims of adcoms?

You are making a Faustian agreement. Use your race and you will get in. However, the cost of that admissions slot is respect. Conservatives will say it to your face that you only got in because of your race. Liberals will spit your accomplishments and trumpet that you got in only because of your race if you ever disagree with their ideology(see Justice Thomas and Maurice Dowd). You can have either respect or pity. Not both. Choose your path.

By Sadeyedlady (Sadeyedlady) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 06:07 pm: Edit

How am I "using" my race? They ask for my race and I give it to them. Are you going to withhold your race?

You can't make the process "more" unfair. There are no varying degrees of fairness. It never has been and never will be fair.

I dont think I will only get in because of my race because most of my scores are higher than their average. the only thing my race could do is boost my application, but race never gets you in.

By Covalentbond007 (Covalentbond007) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 06:27 pm: Edit

Yes, many students are withholding their race to protest the universities' use of race in admissions. You can certainly turn a blind eye and say "they ask for my race and I give it to them". Justice Thomas certainly turned a blind eye when Bush offered him the Supreme Court slot because of his race. Now look at him. All of his hard work and accomplishments are in doubt. Liberals shout at him that he only got in because of his race. Conservatives will whisper it behind his back. The funny thing is, he might have gotten the SC slot anyway without the use of race later in his life. In the end, your admissions slot will cost you respect. Just don't say we didn't warn you.

So we should allow the use of an unfair factor such as race because we can never make the process fair? So should we allow rape because we can never stop rape? No, we outlaw rape and try our best to stop it. We should do our best to make the process fair.

If you are given a "boost" because of your race, it means someone else is disadvantaged because he is not a member of your race. If you can justify that in your mind, then more power to you.

Good luck in your applications. You are a strong applicant who deserves to go to a good school. I wish the best of luck to you.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 08:38 pm: Edit

Covalent~

Your post is a litany of erroneous statements. Ending it with that feeble "best of luck to you" only reinforces how ridiculous your positions are. The crackers ain't dead yet.

By Gagner (Gagner) on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 10:18 pm: Edit

1. You may not "use" your race purposely, but the fact is that they do ask it for a reason and that reason will give you a good handicap.

2. If you get your SATs a good 1500 score and decent SAT IIs, then you have a good academic component. Ivies gets so many great students they all look the same.

3. President of Drama club will most likely help. I don't know about other theatres, but over here theatre takes your soul. We are talking 15 hr/week commitments here, plus work outside of school. That will definately help. Seriously, with all the same number-wise applicants, ECs are VERY important - especially a dedicated one like drama.

Basically, if you get a solid SAT score, you won't need to "use" your race to get into Harvard or wherever - I think you have a solid chance provided you have good essays.

That's just my personal opinion though.

BTW: What IS a URM?

By Serdu (Serdu) on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 08:02 pm: Edit

To answer gagner's question: Under Represented Minority

By Yonif18 (Yonif18) on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 03:57 pm: Edit

excuse me everyone, but dont yell at this kid for wanting to use his skin color to get into college!! How is it any different from using the fact that your parents have lots of money to wow a non-need blind college into accepting you? How is it any different from using a legacy to be admitted? How is it any different using the fact that your dad is Bill Clinton to get in? There are many things that we have no control over that get us into a top college. Thousands of kids have them. So you better just use what you have and dont listen to anyone saying, "You don't want to get in there just because of this...it'll make you feel less superior to whites." What a load of bull! If you have a leg up, frickin use it! Cuz everyone else who has that same oppurtunity is doing the same exact thing.

By Adxj220 (Adxj220) on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 04:48 pm: Edit

Seriously--covalent has problems. His little anecdote about Justice Thomas is a load of crap. been reading the aryan nation newletter lately? His efforts at patronizing sadyedlady are transparent, his analogies to rape bizarre, and his logic idiotic. I'm not black, white or hispanic-- I'll just tell you, from an unbiased standpoint, you sound like some right wing little biatch. I could also raise the point that well established white society has the money and influence to get their kids in, via legacy, money, and importance. A disproportionate number of blacks come from less than perfect backgrounds. Like hispanics, by in large they don't have the money and establishment to prep their kids from day 1, send them to private school, buy them counselors, and in effect purchase their college education. Don't tell me "slavery is over", as I've heard countless times. Simple national statistics tell it all--just look it up. The advantage that many white families have is in fact far greater than what AA provides. The only thing I will concede is that AA ought to focus more on opportunity than race, where well-to-do blacks, whites and hispanics don't get preference, but poor whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, etc. do. AA doesn't "cost the respect" of any normal and logical person, only of racists and idiots.

By L_Wonder (L_Wonder) on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 05:09 pm: Edit

*sigh* Well...you know application time is getting started up again when the URM topics start popping up.

Sadeyedlady,I think you have a good chance at getting into those schools you are applying to. Your activities and interests are well suited to those schools, and I think you are a good match for them! The simple truth is that there aren't that many Black students with your stats and course load, so you ARE going to be in demand.

Interestingly, when I was at Cornell most of the black students I met were of African decent (their parents were not born in the US), not African-American (family roots ties to slavery). There were also lots of Haitians and Jamaicans.
Anyways, good luck to you this year!

By Sadeyedlady (Sadeyedlady) on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 06:32 pm: Edit

i changed my senior schedule. i couldnt get into ap biology double period so instead im taking ap psychology and ap economics.

l wonder. at my school ive also noticed a difference between immigrants with educated parents and americans. the immigrants often do better because they understand the real value of education.

any one else?

By Armsgravy (Armsgravy) on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 08:51 pm: Edit

Don't forget that race is not just the only subjective factor in the college application process. Interestingly enough, location is also taken into consideration- colleges want representation from all 50 states. Take two applicants with the exact same test scores and the exact same schedules/GPA: one is from bleak, low-populated Wyoming, while the other is from bustling, highly-populated California. Who do you think would stand out? I'd place my bets on Wyoming.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 02:53 pm: Edit

Covalentbond007 sounds a WHOLE lot like a person who use to post frequently in the Parent's Forum, called "Shaheedm"---same gift for hyperbole, same off the wall analogies. Sadly enough though, Shaheedm is African American....Go figure! Might they be one in the same?

By Beenthereil (Beenthereil) on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 05:29 pm: Edit

If someone gives you an opportunity somewhere because of your race, just take advantage of the opportunity and don't apologize.

By Shaheedm (Shaheedm) on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 06:19 pm: Edit

I am not covalentbond007, but I do admire and agree with his arguements against racist admissions policies.

By Almostdone (Almostdone) on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 07:39 pm: Edit

AA based on race is wrong IMO, no doubt about it. but so are legacies, AA based on gender, etc, etc, etc, and I see no reason why sadeyedlady should withold your race. It's an unfair world, you're not going to be able to change it by witholding your race, so why not give yourself a little boost?

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 08:23 pm: Edit

Shaheedm~

Now you have company in your misery.

By Sadeyedlady (Sadeyedlady) on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 08:51 pm: Edit

Can anyone help me with more opinions on getting in?

By Valpal (Valpal) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 06:54 am: Edit

Sadeyedlady, I believe you have a legitimate chance at many of the schools to which you are applying (even without checking the "race" box). Your SAT and grade stats are solid. Your ECs are respectable. Just make sure to paint a clear, cohesive and interesting picture of yourself. The essay portion of the application presents your best opportunity to do this. Apparently, colleges are looking for students who are seriously focused; demonstrated passion in one or two areas is helpful. Sounds like theatre is your forte. There are several websites available which give examples of effective essays. The bookstores also have resources which address the college essay.

Strong recommendations are extremely important. Having a Harvard professor to vouch for you can be very helpful, if his/her recommendation is indeed a strong and enthusiastic one. Be very careful about who you ask to write a recommendaion. They should know you well, think highly of you and be articulate in expressing their opinion. There are many instances in which a strong candidate's application has be deep-sixed by a negative recommendation. Sad, but true.

Sadeyed, your background is very interesting. You mentioned that you are African American, but that you were born in Nigeria and lived in England for ten years. Does this mean you have dual citizenship? Were your parents born in America or Nigeria? What circumstances caused you to live in England for so long? Living in Europe for a decade has probably given you a very unique perspective. You might be able to use this to your advantage in an essay. Good Luck!

By Valpal (Valpal) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 07:03 am: Edit

Adxj220, I couldn't have put it any better.

By Sadeyedlady (Sadeyedlady) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 02:32 pm: Edit

My parents were born in Nigeria and I was there too. We moved to England so they could get their Ph.D's at Oxford, then we lived there for about 10 years, maybe a little less. Then My dad got a better job in the US so we moved here, and five years later we got our US citizenship. I don't have dual citizenship with Nigeria. I don't think the US allows it. So I'm just an American citizen. My parents didn't want to give up their Nigerian citizenship so they are just permanent residents.

Also, the Harvard professor taught me for 3 weeks at a writing workshop at Simon's Rock College. I think she knows me well, she will write more about my writing than me as a person.

By Sadeyedlady (Sadeyedlady) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 05:11 pm: Edit

Another correction: My GPA is actually a 3.9, but I'm still not in the top ten percent! I think I'm top 13 or 14%

Also, I'm definitely not applying to Princeton anymore

By Sadeyedlady (Sadeyedlady) on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 11:55 pm: Edit

And i think im adding georgetown or columbia.

anyone else

By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Saturday, September 06, 2003 - 10:24 am: Edit

College Preferences by Race, Sex and Legacy Status By John Perazzo FrontPageMagazine.com | July 11, 2003

Ever since opponents of affirmative action began criticizing the recent Supreme Court rulings that breathed longer life into preferential college-admissions policies, affirmative action supporters have repeatedly accused their ideological adversaries of intellectual inconsistency, selective outrage, and in some cases outright racism. They complain that the anti-preference contingent has focused its reproach largely on racial preferences, rather than on those awarded for “legacy” status or sex – the latter of which, they contend, produce white female beneficiaries in numbers far surpassing the black beneficiaries yielded by race preferences. These contentions warrant a serious response.

Many colleges, in their ceaseless quest to manipulate and micro-manage the composition of their student bodies, do in fact give preference to some women over men with better academic qualifications. And yes, this is philosophically repugnant to those who oppose any preferences awarded merely for physical, rather than merit-related, considerations. But it must be pointed out that in practicing such sex-based preferences in the admissions process, schools are compelled neither to delve deep into the pool of female applicants, nor to admit large numbers of women who are far less qualified than many men who are rejected. In this very important respect, the practical application of sex-based affirmative action bears virtually no resemblance to its race-based counterpart. The scholastic qualifications of females as a whole are largely comparable to those of males. The College Board reports that in 2002, female test-takers achieved an average score of 500 on the math SAT, a relatively modest 34 points lower than the male average. Meanwhile, the verbal SAT scores of females and males were nearly identical – 502 and 507, respectively.

These differences come nowhere near the black-white disparity, which generally hovers around 200 points (on the math and verbal tests combined) in any given year. Indeed black students at most competitive colleges and elite universities have median SAT scores ranging from 180 to 230 points lower than the median of their white classmates. Moreover, the median SAT scores of black admittees are often significantly lower than the median scores of whites who are rejected. This state of affairs simply does not exist across gender lines.

Another germane fact is that girls’ high-school grades tend to be better than those of boys. The publication Postsecondary Education Opportunity reports that in one recent year, 65.9 percent of male college freshmen had high-school grade averages of B or better, vs. 77.9 percent of female college freshmen. A legitimate case can be made that a college admissions committee is not acting improperly by choosing a female applicant with a slightly lower SAT score and a slightly higher grade-point-average than a particular male applicant. There is no such mitigating factor in the black-white question. The respective proportions of black and white high-school students with B averages or better were 56.8 percent and 74 percent. Incidentally, Asians far outperformed both groups, with 84.3 percent achieving B averages or better.

The practice of admissions committees favoring the sons and daughters of alumni, which is a longstanding tradition at many elite schools, presents a more palpable problem. Critics of this practice rightfully point out that such legacy preferences are, like racial preferences, based not on what a student has accomplished, but rather on whose child he or she happens to be – a mere accident of birth, not unlike skin color. Some go so far as to call legacy preferences racist, because contemporary white students are more likely than their black peers to have had parents or grandparents who attended college.


At the University of Virginia, for instance, some 11 percent of one recent freshman class were children of alumni – and over 90 percent of them were white. “Even if one takes into account that there's now a generation of minority students applying [for legacy consideration], the legacy preference can reach back generations,” says NAACP attorney Theodore Shaw. “It will take a long time before there is any equity there.” And indeed he makes a valid point.

But it must be noted that, as in the case of women and men, the academic qualifications of legacy students are generally not far below those of their non-legacy counterparts. At the University of Virginia (UV), for instance, legacies generally enter their freshman year with better high-school grades than the university's overall pool of in-state students, though not quite as good as the out-of-state students. In their 1994 book The Bell Curve, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray report that in 1990, the average student admitted to Harvard scored 697 on the verbal SAT and 718 on the math SAT, as compared to 674 and 695 for legacy students admitted; these disparities are miniscule in comparison to those that exist between white and black admittees.

Moreover, sometimes the scales actually tip in the other direction. For example, the legacies in the current freshman class at Vermont’s Middlebury College averaged 1389 on their SAT’s – fully 33 points higher than the overall class average. The admission rate of legacies in this class was 45 percent, considerably higher than the 27 percent rate for the class overall, but much lower than the nearly 60 percent rate for blacks.

A recent Center For Equal Opportunity (CEO) study found that in 1999 at the University of Virginia (UV), the relative odds of a legacy applicant being admitted – controlling for test scores, rank in his or her high-school class, legacy status, and in- or out-of-state residency – was 4.3 times that of a non-legacy applicant. By comparison, the CEO reports that “the relative odds ratio of black-to-white applicants – controlling for test scores, high-school grades, legacy status, and residency – is 111 to 1. That is, a black applicant has over a hundred times better chance of admission [to UV] compared to an equally qualified white candidate.” “Of all nonacademic factors,” the researchers summarize, “race is by far the heaviest thumb on the scale.”

UV is by no means unique in this regard. In the University of Michigan’s (UM) admissions system which was the center of much controversy prior to the recent Supreme Court rulings, 4 points out of a potential 150 were awarded to legacies. By comparison, 3 points were given to applicants who wrote an outstanding personal essay, 5 points to men planning to pursue careers in nursing, 12 points to students scoring a perfect 1600 on the SAT, and 20 points to anyone who simply was black, Hispanic, or Native American. Statistically, the odds of a black applicant with the same credentials as a white applicant being offered admission to UM Ann Arbor was an incredible 173.7 to 1. Clearly, race was a far stronger determinant of admission than was legacy status.

In their heralded 1998 book The Shape of the River, authors William Bowen and Derek Bok – staunch defenders of affirmative action – note that legacies are admitted to a select group of elite American universities at twice the rate of other candidates. But when SAT scores are taken into account, the legacy benefit is overshadowed by the racial preference given. For instance, among applicants with composite SAT scores of 1100 to 1199, some 22 percent of all legacies were accepted, versus 18 percent of all white applicants and 40 percent of all black applicants. Among applicants who scored between 1200 and 1299, about 35 percent of legacies were admitted, as compared to 22 percent of non-legacy applicants and 60 percent of black applicants.


We can only speculate what the admissions rate must be for black applicants who are also legacies.

Philosophically, the pro-affirmative action crowd is correct in asserting that it makes no sense for conservatives to condemn race-based preferences while quietly accepting legacy- and sex-based preferences. But lumping together these three faces of affirmative action conveniently masks the very relevant fact that the degree of preference involved in race-based affirmative action dwarfs any preference given to women and legacies. Race-based preferences have no peer in rendering all objective standards virtually irrelevant.

By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Saturday, September 06, 2003 - 10:30 am: Edit

June 19, 2003, 11:15 a.m.

The Non-Preferred Minority

Michigan, Asians, and Arbitrariness.

By Peter Kirsanow


Many college administrators do not hold this truth to be self-evident: that all men are created equal. In the Wonderland that is the campus-diversity industry, individuals from some racial/ethnic groups are more equal than others. And any rational attempt to discern how colleges separate the favored from the disfavored is a lesson in caprice, bias, and subjectivity — the supreme triumvirate of unequal treatment.

The racial-preference regime favors some — but not all — minority groups: Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans, yes; Asian Americans, no. Indeed, were Asian-American students not discriminated against in the college-admissions process, they would constitute the largest minority group, if not an outright majority, at many schools. As Peter Schmidt noted in the June 6, 2003, Chronicle of Higher Education, the percentage of Asian-American applicants granted admission at the University of Texas-Austin rose from 68 percent to 81 percent immediately after the Hopwood decision struck down race-based admissions policies in the Fifth Circuit. The New York Times reported (February 2, 2003) that after California's Proposition 209 ended race-based admissions, the percentage of Asian-American freshmen at Berkeley rose a full 6 percent.

Asian Americans, though only 4 percent of the nation's population, account for nearly 20 percent of all medical students. Forty-five percent of Berkeley's freshman class, but only 12 percent of California's populace, consists of Asian-Americans. And at UT-Austin, 18 percent of the freshman class is Asian American, compared to 3 percent for the state.

This "over-representation" has produced much consternation among elites who view racial preferences as the best mechanism for ensuring the "proper" racial mix on college campuses. President Clinton worried that, without preferences, "there are universities in California that could fill their entire freshman classes with nothing but Asian-Americans."

Of course, Asians are not the first racial or ethnic group whose admissions rates were intentionally suppressed because of their comparative academic achievement: During much of the 20th century, several Ivy League schools employed clever devices to curtail the influx of Jewish students. But the exclusion of Asian Americans from the list of the preferred is incongruent with today's campus-diversity rationale: that a mix of races and ethnicities, both in the classroom and in social settings, has a compelling pedagogical value; and that where the percentage of minorities falls below a certain "critical mass," that pedagogical value is diminished, not only because there are fewer opportunities for interaction between the races/ethnicities, but also because minorities will necessarily feel inhibited from expressing themselves, thereby depriving the campus of alternative opinions.

All of which begs the question: Why is this pedagogical value upset if Asian-American students are admitted at rates consistent with their qualifications?

It remains unclear how college administrators determine that optimum educational benefits are derived from a student population that is, for example, 65 percent white, 14 percent black, 12 percent Hispanic, 3 percent Native American, and 6 percent Asian American. Has some anthropological chemist concluded that a certain racial/ethnic mix makes student neurons fire best? Or will the neurons misfire if the percentage of Asians crests above, say, 8 percent? And why do neurons seem to fire just as well at Berkeley, where the freshman class is nearly half Asian, as at Yale, where the Asian-student population is only slightly more than one-tenth of the overall total?


When confronted with the absurdities inherent in the diversity rationale, preference proponents sometimes resort to the "historically disadvantaged or discriminated against" sub-rationale for preferring certain groups. The argument is that the presence of individuals from groups that have been discriminated against in the past (and are therefore disadvantaged in the present) brings distinctive insights and perspectives to the educational experience.

But while the median income and degree-attainment rates of Asian Americans exceed those of any other racial group in the country, there can be no dispute that Asian Americans have been discriminated against historically. From the Chinese Exclusion Act, to laws banning Japanese land ownership, to prohibitions against the public employment of Chinese, Asians have regularly been singled out for discriminatory treatment. Indeed, the Supreme Court has occasionally had to offer reminders that Chinese-Americans are indeed "persons" entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Moreover, not all "Asians" are socio-economically advantaged or "overrepresented," a fact that highlights the clumsy tendency of preference policies to arbitrarily lump individuals of varying cultures, religions, and pigments into one category. Chinese, Japanese, and Korean Americans tend to do relatively well both in terms of college attendance and economic status, but Cambodians, Vietnamese, and Laotians much less so, and many of Southeast Asian descent are at the very bottom of the socioeconomic and educational ladders. (The status of Asian-Indians so confounds college-admissions alchemists that Indians are typically identified as "White" rather than "Asian.")

In the end, it is clear that there are no objective standards justifying the exclusion of Asians (however defined) from the list of preferred minorities. The determination of what constitutes an under-represented minority and who gets a preference is entirely within a given college's discretion. That is nothing less than a license to discriminate. As the district court that initially struck down the Michigan preference program in Grutter v. Bollinger stated, if a college singles out "African-Americans and Hispanics for special commitment today, there is nothing to prevent it from enlarging, reducing or shifting its list of preferred groups tomorrow without any reasoned basis or logical stopping point."

Preferences giveth and preferences taketh away.

— Peter Kirsanow is a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Sunday, September 07, 2003 - 11:57 pm: Edit

As Peter Schmidt noted in the June 6, 2003, Chronicle of Higher Education, the percentage of Asian-American applicants granted admission at the University of Texas-Austin rose from 68 percent to 81 percent immediately after the Hopwood decision struck down race-based admissions policies in the Fifth Circuit.

Hey, MrAndover, do you even know WHY the percentage jumped up? I would not count on it. If you are able to analyze and understand the admission statistics of Texas, you'll be in for a surprise.