Anti-Asian Bias in College Admissions?: Part 2 – In support of affirmative action
By Guest Contributor Jenn, originally published at Reappropriate
This post is broken into two parts for the sake of length:
- Anti-Asian Bias in College Admissions?: Part 1 – An improper comparison
- Anti-Asian Bias in College Admissions?: Part 2 – In support of affirmative action
Searching for “anti-Asian bias”: evidence of its existence
Espenshade presents data showing that acceptance rates to public and private institutions are universally lower for Asian American applicants compared to White applicants. I have graphed the appropriate data from Table 3.3 of Espenshade’s study below:
These data are striking. Neither Whites nor Asians benefit from affirmative action, and Whites and Asians share similar class distributions. Yet, Asian applicants are roughly 10% less likely to be accepted to private colleges, and nearly 15% less likely to be accepted to public institutions, compared to their White counterparts. The decreased acceptance rate holds true despite the fact that Asians are far less likely than applicants of other races to apply to public institutions — yet, unlike with the Black and Latino populations where reduced applicant rates explains, at least in part, high acceptance rates, the same is not true for Asian/Asian American applicants.
By all rights, since neither White nor Asian applicants benefit from affirmative action, our acceptance rates should be about the same.
All else being equal the reduced applicant rates could be due to one or a combination of the following explanations:
- Asian applicants, on the whole, have poor “breadth” qualifications that reduce the quality of their applications, e.g. music, art, a second language, etc.
- Asian applicants tend to be first and second generation, whereas White and Black applicants tend to be third, fourth or higher generation Americans (see Table 3.6 on page 7), making Asian applicants less likely to benefit from high acceptance rates for legacy students (Table 3.1 on page 2).
- Asian applicants are more likely to be international, and do not benefit from higher ”in-state” or “domestic” acceptance rates.
- There is a currently unaddressed anti-Asian bias in the admissions process.
Most of these possibilities are not addressed (or debunked) by Espenshade’s study. Thus, at this time, it’s possible to conclude that there is anti-Asian bias in the admissions process, but it’s not the kind of anti-Asian bias that has been used to launch attacks against affirmative action. Instead, Espenshade’s data suggests that there Asian/Asian American applicants might face unequal treatment, compared to White applicants, when applying for institutions of higher education.
Perhaps this manifests as admissions boards wanting to limit the size of their Asian American student population and therefore specifically choosing White applicants over similarly-qualified Asian applicants. Alternatively, perhaps we’re seeing a manifestation of an internalized (and institutionalized) model minority myth which makes it more difficult for Asian applicants to demonstrate “breadth” qualifications (that are nonetheless present in the application) because we are being perceived by the admissions review board as math, science or engineering nerds. Regardless, the possibility that Espenshade’s data are uncovering evidence of anti-Asian bias in the admissions process to public and private colleges warrants further study.
In support of affirmative action
Studies like Espenshade’s have been used by right-wing conservatives to attack affirmative action. And certainly, Espenshade’s data show that acceptance rates are not the same between under-represented and well-represented racial groups. But the question remains: should those rates be equal?
Proponents of ending affirmative action argue that each applicant, regardless of race or class, should have the same acceptance rate as any other applicant. And this might make sense — if applications could really be equally judged across race and class. However, as I’ve mentioned, debate rages on as to whether so-called “standardized” tests are truly standardized, or if they suffer from cultural bias. Without a federalized public high school system, the meaning behind high school GPAs also vary from district to district, and from state to state. In other words, getting straight A’s in one school might not get you straight A’s in another.
In addition, being from an upper-class background affords opportunities that lower-class applicants don’t have access to. Applicants from wealthy families can afford to enroll in expensive prep schools that specifically train students to get into college — even if they aren’t necessarily smarter than the poor kids who can’t afford private school tuitions. In addition, wealthy applicants can afford to pay the expensive application fees such that they can apply to multiple schools; poor students are limited to applying to schools with low application fees or to a fewer number of schools, reducing their chances of admittance.
Affirmative action is intended to address the disparities and unequal opportunities for applicants, and to make admission to higher education more accessible for disadvantaged applicants. But, more importantly, affirmative action policies exist to make a more diverse student body.
Consider this: in the state of California, where affirmative action practices have been out-lawed, the racial demographics in state colleges and universities have only become less representative of national demographics. Comparing students by race/ethnicity in the total UC system in 1993 against the same data collected in 2008 (Table 7k), we see that Asian American students now make up more than 40% of all undergraduate students, while the percentage of White, Black and Latino students decreased over that time period.
Not only are underrepresented minority groups languishing without affirmative action in place in the California school system, but students of well-represented racial/ethnic groups are also suffering due to these disproportionate student populations. Anti-affirmative action fundamentalists and fervent Asian American nationalists might applaud that nearly half of UC students are Asian American, but I propose that this actually diminishes the quality of education that our Asian American students have access to.
Academia is about developing a forum of discussion, argument and debate; where a free-flowing exchange of ideas can take place. This can only occur in a diverse populace where students are exposed to unique ideas originating from a multiplicity of different perspectives and backgrounds. When nearly half of all people that a student can meet in class come from a similar background, the student loses the opportunity to have his or her worldview challenge. Without that kind of an education, one must question how prepared these college students are to face a racially, ethnically, and economically diverse reality upon graduation. Perhaps more so than any other institution, colleges and universities need affirmative action in order to survive.
Summary
Getting into college isn’t easy; and it’s not supposed to be. We have to recognize that no one can — or should be allowed to — skate into college, and that the same difficulties and frustrations you feel with the admissions process of your favourite undergraduate institution are felt by high school students across the country, regardless of race, class or gender. When you get in, you feel on top of the world; but if you don’t, often you feel like the process was unfair and biased.
The argument against affirmative action in colleges is too-often made by groups who feel entitled to higher education, and who can’t abide by the fact that they should have to work for it (and to prove themselves) just like everyone else. And the classic “anti-Asian bias” argument that touts facts and figures comparing acceptance rates for Asian/Asian Americans against those of minority groups underrepresented in higher education only pits minority groups against one another while propping Asian Americans as the token “model minority”.
Rather than to blindly accept a charged, politically-motivated, and misleading interpretation of college admissions data (often collected in good faith by well-meaning scientists like Espenshade), it’s important to consider studies like those presented above carefully. I think there is evidence here that Asian Americans experience anti-Asian bias in the college admissions process. Nothing to date addresses the unequal acceptance rates between White and Asian students, despite a lack of difference in treatment by affirmative action policies, and despite similar application rates. More studies must be done to figure out what’s behind those disparate admissions probabilities.
But does that mean that Asian Americans aren’t benefiting from higher education? Hardly. Around the country, Asian Americans are better represented on college campuses than we are in the national population. And while some Asian ethnicities remain underrepresented, on the whole, our community is churning out well-educated degree-holders who are entering the skilled workforce en masse.
So, if you’re an Asian American high school student applying to college, remember the following: the admissions process will be difficult, but with decent grades and SAT scores, and with diverse interests in music, drama or another language, you’ll find a great college. Ask for help in preparing your application — clearly, there are lots of Asian Americans out there who have been through this process. And, above all, don’t limit yourself to the elite schools that are receiving tons of Asian American applicants: make sure to apply to a few less well-known or public schools, even just as a back-up.
Because here’s the final piece of advice I have, and it’s one that some people don’t want to vocalize: In the end, it’s not about what school you get into (or how you get in, whether by affirmative action, legacy, athletic scholarships, or if you speak six languages and are a world-renowned kazoo player) – it’s about how well you succeed once you get there.
The rest of it’s just getting your foot in the door. What happens after that is up to you.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Sorry, comments are accepted for this post. Don’t know why that was off…
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 2:59 pm ¶
Christine wrote:
This is really interesting to me, because I am currently applying to medical school. Dunno if anyone has every been to the forums at studentdoctor.net, but the discussions pertaining to affirmative action are a “racialicious” nightmare. A couple of people have told me that if I was going to make comments I should state my race or status first, because urms are in a different pool (which I’m not sure is true or legal) and what I have to say doesn’t apply for everyone. People make a lot of offensive comments and are largely unchecked. From these discussions it seems that a lot of Asian/Asian Americans attack affirmative action, because they think it is hurting their chances. I really wish the information in this post and the previous could be presented there. There is a lot of misinformation floating around and it is doing a lot of damage.
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 4:16 pm ¶
GENQ10 wrote:
“And while some Asian ethnicities remain underrepresented, on the whole”
The issue is this:
a. not all people come from Asian countries under the same circumstances. as a past racialicious article mentioned, populations who came as refugees from countries like cambodia face the same types of barriers to education and class mobility as other “underrepresented” minorities. it’s not fair to say, “you from Laos, you may have come here more heavily burdened and underresourced than this chinese kid, but all you asians are well-represented in the work force, so tough cookies”. The whole “asian” category is problematic to begin with.
2. if asian-americans are negatively impacted by admission rates, its not Affirmative Action, its LEGACY admission
3. “Not only are underrepresented minority groups languishing without affirmative action in place in the California school system, but students of well-represented racial/ethnic groups are also suffering due to these disproportionate student populations. Anti-affirmative action fundamentalists and fervent Asian American nationalists might applaud that nearly half of UC students are Asian American, but I propose that this actually diminishes the quality of education that our Asian American students have access to.”
It’s not a question of representation of Asian Americans in higher ed, and it’s not a question of Asian kids at Berkeley getting cheated out of a “diverse” college experience (there’s a ton of diversity within Chinese-Japanese-South Corean populations”.
You could same the same thing about majority white schools, like Harvard. White kids there are getting a badly diverse education the same way Asian kids are at Berkeley. The main problem is that this has no effect on the glass ceiling for Asians nationally. There still aren’t that may Asian CEOs or higher managers. All the removal of A.A. in the UC system has done is convinced white parents even more (from the articles Ive read) that the school is populated by souless asian working machines turning out labor for the work force (again, relatively few asians in upper management and at the CEO level from what I’ve read, especially compared to the Asian-American presence in higher ed). i read an article in which a berekely (white) college student said that all the asians are keeping out the black and latino students. Racism lives on and injustice is still being served. That’s the Lesson here.
And as usual, the culprit is white supremacy.
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 4:39 pm ¶
GENQ10 wrote:
*re: 1. I mean “this chinese kid from a middle class family with educated parents”
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 4:40 pm ¶
GENQ10 wrote:
this isnt to say that there arent chinese refugees, who also suffer for lack of resources…
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 5:09 pm ¶
RCHOUDH wrote:
I remember reading a case once of one Asian-American (in this case Indian) student’s parents suing a private school because they felt the school favored admitting white students over theirs. The girl had excellent grades and extracurricular activities, so the parents felt she was cheated out of getting admitted into this elite school because there were more Asians than whites in that school. So I guess you could say it was reverse reverse discrimination or something like that.
Also while I agree with much of what this article (and the last one) says, I too think distinctions should be made between Asian-American groups because the groups are so diverse.
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 6:28 pm ¶
Minotaar wrote:
This article really got me thinking about how activists react to higher education admissions inequalities. We are always complaining about admittance rates and who got in and who didnt. But the roster of accepted candidates is really just the final outcome in a byzantine, often outdated system. Every university comes up with its own admissions policy and admissions system, and the bottom line is that the system is SECRET, and developed privately. Perhaps evolving over decades. Instead of demanding to see how the system works, so that we can fix it, we, as activists, are always demanding results. I dont think anyone disagrees that the results are inequitable, and aside from the petty, arrogant admissions bureaucrat that we’d all love to excute, I think most people inside and outside the system just want to know HOW to improve it.
Right now, I feel like we are trying to fix a broken photocopier by studying the torn, stained output, while not trying hard enough to see what mechanism is chewing up the paper.
I think that we should try to take a page from the open-source software movement, and disclose how the system works. I believe if the admissions process was open (including parts clearly stating where a subjective decision is made, because, lets admit it, someone has to break ties) then a more rigorous discussion of the facts would be possible. I feel that much of the (justifiably) righteous fury directed at the inequities in college admissions is demanding too much ingenious design from too few people. Crafting a capable admissions policy and system is obviously hard, and making the system more transparent can both educate all of us about just how hard it is, and also enable all of us to contribute solutions, instead of demanding social justice from overworked bureaucrats.
Higher education is an industry that functions without a large amount of money, in comparison to our other industries. Many of the peculiarities in higher education exist as accomodations relating to this basic fact: You offer your professors guaranteed employment for life partly in exchange for the fact that most of those people could pull in double the money in industry. You offer relaxed admission requirements to your employees’ kids in part because you cant pay them as much. You offer relaxed admission requirements to your big donors because you need the money to get more competitive. Yes, of course this is a finger in the eye of academic idealism, but many of these sacrifices are necessary to keep the lights on, and also they spur actual academic advances – Tenured professors are also proctected as they do controversial research, hot shot scientists can be attracted to colleges in Flyover Country by the savings their kids get from going to the same university (especially considering how much college costs these days), and many critical research institutes and centers have been built from large private donations (such as the Broad Institute at MIT and Harvard). As a movement that seeks social justice, we need to begin with the system, busted and quirky as it is right now, and try to open it up and make it more transparent. We shouldnt ever overlook “Side Door” admissions requirements, but we should be trying, at least in the beginning, to get better equality in the “Front door” admissions policies first.
This is a really nice article, but I still find it hard to come to actionable conclusions based on the data presented. Why are we lobbying for equality so much when we could be lobbying for transparency in the admissions process? I think once we get the transparency, we’ll get the equality.
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 7:31 pm ¶
B. Canseco wrote:
“By all rights, since neither White nor Asian applicants benefit from affirmative action, our acceptance rates should be about the same.”
=======
According to every major study done on Affirmative Action in corporate america and education, white women are the single biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action policies and have been since the late 1960s.
Also give the makeup of most student bodies it’s just hard to believe “There is a currently unaddressed anti-Asian bias in the admissions process.”
Proportionate reputation is a slippery slope. My experience—speaking as someone who was an adjunct professor for 7 years at one of the top liberal arts schools in the US—is there is an open bias regarding Asian students and it’s this:
“They’ll make it, no matter what. They’re culturally geared towards education.”
Those sentiments have been expressed in countless discussions regarding students throughout my tenure and going all the way back to my days as an undergrad. there was just this odd conventional wisdom at work that said “Asian students don’t need any extra help because they’re innately smarter/harder workers.”
I tink some of that bias is seeping into the admissions process. There’s a belief that if they don’t get in here, they’ll get in somewhere good because after all, who doesn’t want a good Asian student?”
I think the more faculty you talk to, the more you’ll see that type of bias come up in the analysis of things.
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 7:40 pm ¶
Minotaar wrote:
BTW, is there any debate about what the ideal racial breakdown of a university should be? Can anyone even agree on an ideal breakdown?
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 8:52 pm ¶
GENQ10 wrote:
As a college student (at any ivy league institution, no less) who has worked with admission officers, I must say I’m torn as to a course of action. There are so many things to consider. There are certain biases, and while I don’t agree with the, it’s hard to change them. For example:
1. Bias towards athletes. What role should athletics have in academia? Not much many would say, but good teams bring in alumni donations and offer marketing opportunities. Of course, many sports (such as skiing, crew, hockey) are dominated by White players. Racial imbalance there.
2. Legacies? Same issue. Legacy preferences bring in funds. And most legacies are White.
But keep in mind:
Institutions never admit students who are not capable of succeeding. I really think the “anti-asian” bias is blown out of proportion. There are many asian and asian-american students at my institution.
Our country would be better suited addressing inequalities in K-12 education. The admission officers I know work very hard to understand if a student has made the best of the opportunities afforded to them. They are also sensitive to our first generation college student community and there is an interest in building this community on campus. But there are many things that go into making a “balanced” class. Much needs to change, this is true. But let’s not forget about all the education students receive before college. Large-scale inequality that already exists plays out in college admissions.
I like what Frank Wu said in ‘Yellow’ about “pure” meritocracy; whether its solely academic meritocracy in the forms of grades and tests, or some other type of “pure” meritocracy, one group of people is going to be privileged over other. There needs to be many ways in.
I guess what I’m saying is that a) the admission process is far more complicated than anyone is willing to admit. Before we condemn the colleges themselves, we should also take a look at the preexisting inequalities that contribute to skewed admissions.
b) (truthfully) As a non-asian student of color, I understand and see the racism that asian and asian-american students face, but it’s really hard to feel like Asian students are “disadvantaged” in terms of admissions. Admissions being skewed in favor of whites for reasons such as legacies and sports recruits probably harm asian-admission rates, yes, but I think there are more serious injustices being done. The mantra “well-deserving Asians are being kept out” frequently turns into people wanting to abolish Affirmative Action for blacks, latinos, and native americans, or wanting to “reform” A.A. (which usually means cutting it back in such a way that non-asian POC enrollment drops and asian enrollment increases while while enrollment holds fairly steady because white people have the system largely under their control). No one ever says “let’s abolish legacies”.
Also, Minotaar: how do you know that the system is “outdated” and that admissions bureaucrats are “petty and arrogant”? I resent that. The admissions officers I’ve met are open-minded and work hard to understand where students are coming from, the obstacles they’ve faced, as well as the way race, class, nationality, etc. factor into opportunity.
I am (generally) always surprised about how people so far away from the university and the university system form opinions about how universities function. Each uni. is different and that’s another thing that needs to be taken into account. The macro statistics are important, but we also have to remember the way micro systems fuction.
ok, I’m done.
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 10:41 pm ¶
PatrickInBeijing wrote:
Another good article, and a great final point!! I teach at a lower level school in Beijing, and many of my students moan and groan that they just missed a top school by a couple of points (the exam system in China is brutal, but no one has suggested anything fairer (here) at this point).
It’s not where you go, it’s what you do. A friend of mine is a top professor at a major Chinese college. He travels around the world, had met many world leaders, is a recognized expert in his area. He began his career as an undergraduate at a small agricultural college in the provinces. It was what he did that mattered.
Of course, China and America are not the same. Even if you go to a top uni in America, there is still lots of racial prejudice and glass ceilings waiting for you. Ask Prof. Gates of how much good his international fame and Harvard standing did him…….
I do believe that there is likely to be anti-Asian bias in admissions for the reasons cited. There is also anti-black and anti-Latino bias. And in some cases, still lingering anti-female bias. (Did we even get around to anti-gay bias? I bet that’s out there in many ways!).
It seems to me the solution to all of this is not only to fight for Affirmative Action (I firmly believe in it, for race and class especially, and for others as we need it!).
We need to fight to be a society where we are building more Harvards rather than fighting over too few seats in the existing one, where we are fighting to upgrade existing schools, raise their quality and levels.
The irony (to me) is that there are many QUALIFIED students who can’t go to good QUALITY schools because there aren’t enough seats. Instead of fighting over how to eliminate the “qualified”, we should be fighting for more seats at more schools.
I feel sad when we argue about who to eliminate, because then I think we have lost the battle.
Posted 29 Oct 2009 at 6:00 am ¶
GENQ10 wrote:
@patrick: “The irony (to me) is that there are many QUALIFIED students who can’t go to good QUALITY schools because there aren’t enough seats. Instead of fighting over how to eliminate the “qualified”, we should be fighting for more seats at more schools.”
one of the reasons excellent schools are so excellent is that they only have a limited number of resources and choose only to spend it on a smaller number of students. Schools have a right to limit their student body. The larger problem is too many people are focused on prestige and only care about getting their kids into “top” schools. There are enough spots at universities nationwide for everyone to go (and if there were an influx, more schools would accept more people). If Yale let in all its “qualified” candidates, it wouldn’t be Yale. There simply isnt enough space and there arent enough resources. and keep in mind, prestige comes in part through selectivity. not that I’m saying thats a good thing. my point is: you can get a good education anywhere.
Posted 29 Oct 2009 at 12:13 pm ¶
PatrickInBeijing wrote:
@GENQ10
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I am not advocating that Yale (for example) expand until it can accept every student who goes there. But it is not clear to me that we can’t make “more” Yales.
As a society, we do have the resources. We just choose to spend them on other things. We could make enough space, there are lots of underemployed good quality professors out there (many of them POC).
As to the prestige of a limited resource, I don’t really care about that, quality and prestige are not the same. There are plenty of idiots who graduate from Harvard and Yale (and other top schools) IMO.
It is really a matter of national priorities. And as American schools attract more and more foreign students (including some of mine), the need will increase. Or the competition will get worse.
Posted 29 Oct 2009 at 10:04 pm ¶
momo wrote:
Legacy admissions are an anti-poor bias! I wonder just how many people are admitted through legacies. Is it a significant percentage? Do all schools do this, even the state schools?
I’m from Canada, and I’ve never heard of that happening here. All our universities are public institutions. I don’t think athletes get any favourable treatment either, as college sports don’t generate any money at all here.
My school’s football team went 7 years without winning a game and nobody gave a shit.
Posted 30 Oct 2009 at 2:05 am ¶
Yetunde wrote:
I agree that affirmative action has its pros and cons. I feel like no matter what is done, one group will always lose out – and certain groups would lose out more than others.
I know one thing for sure: if any White or Asian student ever asks me if I feel guilty for getting accepted into a prestigious university, I’ll snap.
Ummm… ever heard of White privilege? :/
Posted 30 Oct 2009 at 2:18 pm ¶
KeepingHeadAboveH2O wrote:
Affirmative action…I was all for it. There is apparently a higher number of whites and Asians in colleges/universities…Why shouldn’t African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos also have the same opportunities? As an Asian American, I am all for the educational advancement of minorities. As I attended college, I participated in many minority based programs. Through these programs I was exposed to things that I, otherwise, would not have been. For that, I will always be grateful. I have always believed that affirmative action was much like these programs for minorities except for the exclusion of Asians. However, as a college graduate applying to professional schools, I I have since had many experiences that has left me disillusioned and embittered.
Let me explain my background. I am a second generation Korean American. I am also a second generation of public assistance recipients (please keep your negative comments to yourselves, this is neither the time nor the place). Throughout college, I worked two to three jobs at a time to support not only myself, but my family, which includes my elderly parents, son (yes, I’m a single mother), and other family members. At times, we lived without gas, water, and electricity for years on end.
As my friends and I applied for professional schools and different programs, I was being rejected left and right, while my friends were getting accepted left and right. These friends I’m talking about in particular are applicable for affirmative action. I was not understanding what the problem was; our GPAs and extracurricular activities were almost identical. At one particular college, two of my friends (African Americans) and I were granted interviews on the same day. As I left my interview, I broke down in tears. I was asked questions concerning business politics. I’m in the health care field, I never once stated in my resume, application, or in person that I was an expert or even interested in business politics. Upon my admission of ignorance on the subject matter, I was lectured and criticized for the next hour. Afterwards, my friends and I thoroughly discussed our interviews. At which time, I found out they also had the same interviewers. However, they were asked the expected questions about GPA, extracurricular activities, etc. Not once did they ask them anything concerning business politics. The one thing that really stood out as a red flag in my mind was that one of my friends was praised for raising a child and going to school, while the same person criticized and demoralized me throughout the interview. Needless to say, I was rejected and they were accepted. Even then, I did not connect it to my race/ethnicity. It was not until I heard the same comments that B. Canseco posted said to face during some of these interviews.
In my opinion, there should a system set up where people, particularly minorities, have the opportunity to gain acceptance into a place of higher learning where they might not otherwise have had a chance, much like affirmative action. At the same time, other factors besides race/ethnicity should also be considered, such as socioeconomic status. For example, one of my African American friends has wealthy parents. She is from the suburbs and attended one of the most prestiguous high schools in America. She did not have to work during college. She was also able to live on campus. Even though she and I have literally identical educational stats, she did not have the same type of obstacles to overcome. It is already been established that minorities are at a disadvantage when it comes to acceptance in colleges/universities and beyond. Why should it only apply to certain minorities?
As for the comment posted by Yetunde, congratulations on your acceptance into a prestigious university. As an Asian American, I don’t understand why you should “feel guilty” about that. It is quite an accomplishment and you should be proud of yourself. Nevertheless, I have heard of “white privilege” and I don’t understand how this would apply to me or other Asians. If anything, I learned from experience to go above and beyond the average white person with this “white privilege” just to prove my worth as an Asian American living in America. Then again, I guess my Asian background automatically grants me super Pokemon powers to call upon my ancestors to make me into an overachieving machine.
Posted 31 Oct 2009 at 5:09 am ¶
Minotaar wrote:
Genq10, I have an aversion to self identification, but I am a career academic at a top tier university that has advised and communicated with admissions officers for years, both on the undergraduate and graduate levels. It is an error to assume that another poster’s statements are taken from a perspective divorced from higher education. You said yourself that your experiences were positive, and that would lead me to believe that you could imagine other people having significantly different experiences.
Not all admissions officers are so progressive. Not all admissions officers do admissions work as their primary reason for employment – many decisions and votes, as I am sure you know, come from professors and fellow students who do not spend significant time thinking about these issues, regardless of how others train them. The corruption gets worse in professional schools, too.
I believe that admissions transparency is the only route to fairness.
Posted 01 Nov 2009 at 4:41 am ¶
Yetunde wrote:
KeepingHeadAboveH2O,
Thanks for sharing your experience. You’ve given me a lot to think about. I hope everything works out for you.
Posted 02 Nov 2009 at 10:37 pm ¶