Post-affirmative action,Asian Americans are stressed about college admissions
latimes.com
latimes.com
Over 15 years in finance, including working at multiple top 10 hedge funds, I've gotten to work with a lot of top Ivy and non-Ivy graduates.
I've come to a couple conclusions:
- There doesn't seem to be a difference in the smartest people from an Ivy and the smartest people from state schools
- Going to a Ivy or top university definitely gives you an advantage at some firms and there is something to be said for the network these schools have both from an alumni perspective but also from people you went to school with.
- I would argue that state schools are a better preparation for "life in general" b/c you learn how to deal with a larger variety of people, organizations, social backgrounds etc than you do at an Ivy
- There are a LOT of senior people at firms that prioritize Ivy league graduates who did NOT go to an Ivy league school. That would lead me to believe that there are many paths to success outside of getting an Ivy league degree.
95% of college graduates didn't go to an Ivy league school, so that would be expected. But how easy is it to get into a hedge fund from Harvard compared to say UVA? In my profession, having an Ivy league degree confers a tremendous advantage. Out of the sitting Supreme Court Justices, all but one went to either Harvard or Yale.
As if counseling is anywhere close to being reliable at protecting a client from situations that would be mentally unhealthy in the absence of the counseling.
Also, these days, it’s not just about “going to an Ivy.” I went to Georgia Tech and I’ve never felt it’s held me back. But getting into a good flagship state school is quite difficult these days.
Put differently, in the social class of people for whom college is attainable, it’s not like there’s a huge fraction telling their kids “oh, don’t worry, just do what makes you happy.”
I am in favor of having good STEM schools, which is what the schools should do, but I don't think we can do that and simultaneously overvalue prestige rankings. The schools have contributed to tribalism across the country. They are really becoming a net negative I think.
> In Sotomayor’s telling, Asian Americans who are concerned about being racially stereotyped should attend “diverse” universities, where they can help dispel people’s misconceptions by simply existing and getting along with their peers. She then goes on to argue that race-conscious admissions allow Asian American applicants “who would be less likely to be admitted without a comprehensive understanding of their background” to “explain the value of their unique background heritage, and perspective” and allow colleges to “consider the vast differences within [that] community.” It’s hard not to read this as a premise for Asian American teen-agers to essentially dance for acceptance, or to try to distinguish themselves from other Asian Americans by explaining to the good people at the Harvard admissions office why, say, a Vietnamese applicant is more valuable to the Ivy League cultural texture than just another Chinese one.
The subjective processes employed at elite schools today are both unpredictable and unseemly. Of course people are upset about them.
I read this article as “in 2023, college admissions continue to be very stressful. “
“I don’t really know what they are looking for,” he said."
And therein lies the problem. I understand the bed too deviate from standardized testing and evaluate holistically. But when those evaluations are opaque, then anything goes, really, and it's impossible to tell what will work for your target school
"In 2010, USC's acceptance rate was 26.3%. By 2015, the acceptance rate had dropped to 18%. In 2020, USC's acceptance rate was 16%. For the Class of 2027, USC's acceptance rate further decreased to 9.75%."
https://www.crimsoneducation.org/us/blog/usc-admission-rate/....
Maybe it's questions all the way down until, why do the common people need to get good jobs/hobnob with the upper classes? Because central banking policy of inflation?
We need the actual data on university acceptance criteria itself (i.e. mandatory SAT score minimums) to truly assess the competitiveness of these schools over time. Raw % acceptance has become a diluted metric
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_admissions_in_the_Un...
I feel like maybe the headline, which would have been chosen hy an editor and not the author, created a bit of a red-herri g here. But even so, the issue of "post-affirmative action" admissions comes up throughout, and I can't really grok to what purpose.
The article seems to be unsure what it's trying to do.
No great sin, although probably made more grating by the choice of title, and I can't understand why it was published or why it's here.
There’s also the cultural discrimination inherent in the process. My brother-in-law’s girlfriend is applying to college, and she has great grades and test scores, along with a compelling “adversity” story. But she’s Filipino, and in most Asian cultures, poverty is shameful, so that didn’t come out in her essays. She’s taking a year off to try her application cycle again, and this time we are having her work with an admissions consultant who will be able to help her target her essays to the white people at the admissions offices.
I'm wondering how much longer that's going to be true. If we look, not at Bangladeshi Americans, but at Bangladeshis in Bangladesh - on most economic and developmental measures (GDP per capita, poverty, life expectancy) Bangladesh is now equalling or beating India, and both are leaving Pakistan way behind. In 2022, Bangladesh's GDP per capita (nominal) was US$2688, versus US$2411 for India and US$1589 for Pakistan. [0] In 2018, Bangladesh's life expectancy at birth was 73, India's was 71, Pakistan's was only 66. [1] The most recent figures for adult literacy have Bangladesh at 75% (2020), India at 76% (2022), Pakistan at 58% (2019). [2]
[0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?location...
[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN?location...
[2] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.ADT.LITR.ZS?location...
Was that system worse?
[UK]
In the US, I think it works differently: some students may have done some AP classes, but these aren't universal and don't represent the same degree of specialisation as A levels.
I’ve never heard of that system. Is there somewhere we can read about it, or maybe you can explain a bit more?
Is the offer of the form “we accept you, so long as your grades satisfy the following requirements…”?
Is the interview performance pass/fail or if you do poorly do they give you a less agreeable offer? (higher grades required?)
(1) In the final two years of secondary school (16/17 to 18) you choose a set of 3 or 4 subjects to study for A levels. This is usually done with a specific course at university in mind. For example, someone aiming for Chemistry might study Maths, Chemistry, and Physics. Some people also add Further Maths (if they're aiming for Maths at a top university, this adds things like group theory, differential equations) or a language (e.g. if you already know French, it's not all that difficult to do French A-level too).
(2) Before your final exams, you apply to universities and they have some process for giving you an offer. This process isn't standardised. Some universities have pre-interview exams (e.g. Oxford), some have extra exams you take alongside your A-level exams (e.g. to do Maths at Cambridge, you have to take STEP exams which are...super hard). My interview process for Maths at Oxford was pretty stressful, I had seven interviews, all very technical, at various colleges. Some I no doubt bombed, some I did okay in. I also had a phone interview with the college that ended up getting me.
(3) You get some offer, either conditional (get these grades and we'll let you in) or unconditional (you got in, grades don't matter). My offer was to just get all top grades so I really had to grind studying and was super stressed on results day.
(4) You pick two unis to go with. Usually one primary and one backup.
(5) You do your exams, then get results. If you met your offer, great! If not, you go into clearing where you can maybe go into a "leftover" place at some uni somewhere.
(6) You go to uni and study something. You got a place on a Maths course, you study Maths. I'm mentioning this because it works differently in the US.
There are pros and cons to this process. Specialising early means the baseline for a Maths course at uni is higher than in the US. But because you're asking 15 year olds to decide what they want to study for the next 5-6 years, lots of people probably pick the wrong thing. And if you're not good at Maths and don't study Maths at A-level, you're just locked out of anything STEM e.g. Chemistry, Physics, Maths, Computer Science, all require a Maths A-level. So you get a lot of kids making poor decisions they later regret and can't reverse.
This is the first problem in trying to fix the issue.
Second no one knows what they want during the admissions process and is the sole issue. Transparency in the process is what people should be demanding.