<p>
I can speculate, though. My speculation is that location has a lot to do with it. Nashville is a very different proposition from Georgia or Houston. It might also have to do with impressions about majors–for example, Hopkins is well known as a school for pre-meds.</p>
<p>
To the contrary, I consider it plausible that Berkeley might be taking steps to prevent itself from becoming majority Asian.</p>
<p>I just looked up the demographics of a few of these cities. Houston has 5.3% Asians, Atlanta has 5.2%, and Nashville has 3.1%. Is that enough to explain the difference? I suspect it’s part of it, but I also think that Houston and Atlanta are just more cosmopolitan in general.</p>
<p>But does anybody think that the reason Vanderbilt has so few Asians, relative to similar-ranked schools, is because of discrimination by Vanderbilt, or (as seems most like to me), is it that Asian students are less interested in going there?</p>
<p>And here’s sort of a corollary question. Among the Ivies, Brown has the fewest Asians, at 12%, while Columbia has the most, at 19% (according to College Board). Do you think that this reflects a differing judgment by these two schools about how many Asians would be “too many?” Or might there be other factors that explain the difference? I confess I was surprised by these numbers–I thought Dartmouth would be the lowest (it’s second lowest, at 14%).</p>
<p>"“No one ever seems to have an answer for this … Where do the deserving Asians whose seats were taken away . . . wind up going? I’m serious. Where do they wind up?” </p>
<p>-I thought that I have answered it in my previous post. Here is repeat: they go to state schools on full tuition / full ride scholsrships and had greatest opportunities/experiences there, well beyond their own/families anticipations. They join tons of others overqualified students who have chosen to go to state for various personal reasons and who would have been successful applicatns to elite schools (some of them may have actually applied to elite schools, got in with huge Merit awards, but decided to go to state anyway for ceratain reasons - one example is my own D.)</p>
<p>Some of these numbers are very interesting. For example, U. of Michigan has 14% Asians, U. of Wisconsin Madison has 6%, and UNC-CH has 8%. These, and other numbers raise this question: if you are an Asian student who wants to maximize your chances of admissions to a selective school, is it a better strategy to aim at schools which appear to be less popular among Asians (i.e., Vanderbilt), or at schools where there are a lot of Asians (i.e., Hopkins)? Is Brown or Columbia a better shot? It bears some thinking about.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If Vanderbilt is “only” 6% Asian while its peers have three or even four times the percentage, the latter seems more likely, though if true I do not know why it is true. At least it’s a counterexample that rank isn’t everything for Asians.</p>
<p>actually, one of the major reason why vandy surpassed emory in ranking this last 1-3 years is because they changed the way they calculate the ranking (i think they added a scoring from high school counselors… vandy is more known than emory…sports?). in the past, emory has almost always ranked higher than vandy.
also, emory is very good for premed because they have lots of resources like hospitals that they own and cancer research institute. many asians want to do premed so that could be the reason why there is more asians at emory.<br>
i dont know about vandy’s business program but i know that emory’s is very good which explains high % of internationals (which i say about 50% is asian)</p>
<p>^ Ummm Atlanta= Asians</p>
<p>Nashville= Whites</p>
<p>fab,
I didn’t have the fortitude to comb through the study that you quoted in numerous posts, above, and I assume that in some way it concludes that diversity doesn’t benefit everyone, but I don’t think you answered my question.</p>
<p>If the US Supreme Ct’s decision is so flawed, so egregiously wrong with its obvious “joke” rationale of the benefits of diversity, why has it been allowed to stand for what, over 30 years? (The justices are different now, too.)</p>
<p>If you are right in your opinions, then the whining is even more offensive. It is like complaining about the stink of the garbage in the kitchen, but refusing to get up off the sofa to take it out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, bingo. But the point is, we’re not talking about “Asians who want to maximize their chance of admissions to a selective school” - in which case they would apply to the Vanderbilts of the world who welcome Asian applicants, or maybe the Grinnells or Macalesters or midwestern LAC’s. </p>
<p>What happens, instead, is that many Asians define the end goal as admission to a VERY SELECT GROUP OF SCHOOLS (HYPSM, maybe the rest of the Ivies) and then they are Surprised! Anew! that they have a hard time getting in the same few schools. Well, duh. </p>
<p>People who zag when everyone else zigs are the smart ones.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s been allowed to stand because the Supreme Court’s polarization on the issue has not changed since Bakke. Then as now, you have four in favor, four against, and one in the middle. The Justice in the middle decides the fate of racial preferences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As has already been mentioned to you, the PEOPLE are “get[ting] up off the sofa to take [the stink] out.” Civil rights initiatives passed in California, Washington, Michigan, Nebraska, and Arizona.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess all those Jews who applied to HYP back in the 1930s weren’t smart, right Pizzagirl?</p>
<p>Seriously, to see if a racial preference proponent’s comment against Asians makes sense, just replace “Asian” with “Jew” and change the time from the 2010s to the 1930s. If you feel the same, then it makes sense. If you feel offended, then it doesn’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which tells us that either five of the Justices are stupid/ignorant/prejudiced against Whites and Asians, or the issue is not as clear-cut as you would have people believe. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The ones who whine about HYPSM et al., are apparently still sitting on the sofa.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wrote, ‘I think “diversity” as a compelling state interest was an absolute joke, a point expressed more articulately by Justices Scalia and Thomas in their respective dissents. I also think that “critical mass” is an even bigger joke. I commend Bollinger’s attorney for convincing Justice O’Connor that “critical mass” isn’t a quota when it so obviously is.’</p>
<p>None of that requires viewing the issue as clear-cut. You asked me, in essence, why Bakke has never been overturned. I replied that the Court remains deadlocked over it.</p>
<p>I add that your side has a tendency to flirt with danger when it comes to courting The One Justice in the middle. Both Grutter and Gratz upheld Bakke but in curiously different ways. Grutter upheld the “diversity” rationale whereas Bakke reaffirmed that quotas are not legitimate.</p>
<p>Four years later, the Court again upheld the “diversity” rationale of Bakke in Parents Involved. But Parents Involved was no win for your side. Yes, Justice Kennedy refused to sign on to III-B of Chief Justice Robert’s opinion, which would have overturned Grutter and by extension, Bakke. But in his concurring opinion, he wrote,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Court isn’t deadlocked. It has clearly ruled in Grutter that diversity is a compelling state interest (at least for 25 years). That was in 2003, so it’s pretty unlikely that they’re going to overturn that anytime soon. While I, too, think it’s a sham, it gives clear instructions to colleges on how to get racial diversity without falling afoul of the law–ironically, the more vague about what their admissions criteria actually are, the safer they will be.</p>
<p>
I really think it’s unfair for you to pretend that these are the same. Do you really think that the patterns you see–even if they are real–are a result of animus against Asians that is similar to anti-Semitism? Harvard wanted to limit the number of Jews not just because they took seats away from the majority group, but because Jews were seen as undesirable. I realize that some folks are sensitive about any criticism of any Asian person (see the discussions of Amy Chua, and the really vituperative ones about the Chinese Olympic gymnasts), but I simply don’t believe that there is an anti-Asian strain in America anything like the anti-Semitic strain of the past.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Four in favor, four against, and one in the middle. Seems pretty deadlocked to me as far as an odd number of Justices permits. And *Grutter<a href=“2003”>/i</a> was almost overturned in *Parents Involved<a href=“2007”>/i</a>. While Justice Kennedy expressed his dissatisfaction with how the school districts behaved, he was unwilling to join in the Chief Justice’s opinion that “diversity” is a joke. To the contrary, Justice Kennedy believes in the value of diversity, but I am of the opinion that his definition is not the same as the pro-racial preference side’s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It may not be, but it doesn’t have to be. Your side is replete with folks who are quick to argue that we must have racial preferences or else all our schools will be overrun by Asians. They never say anything past that, but their implication is clear: such a thing will happen, and it will be undesirable. If you expunge these people from your side, I’d be more sympathetic.</p>
<p>You can criticize Asians at an individual and even at a “group” level. All I ask is that you step back and replace “Asian” with “Jew” and 2011 with 1931. If you feel the same way, go right ahead. If replacing it raises concerns, you might want to think about it a little more.</p>
<p>
Your rhetoric makes it difficult to discuss this with you. I don’t have a “side,” but obviously, you do. But if you really think there is an anti-Asian animus that is like anti-Semitism, why don’t you just say so? If you don’t think there is that kind of animus, please stop suggesting that there is.</p>
<p>A deadlocked Supreme Court is one that generates only a plurality opinion or something like that. The Grutter decision was signed by five justices, and it’s binding precedent, at least until they change it.</p>
<p>Edit ^^^ Never mind. :)</p>
<p>
I always thought “deadlocked” meant a court could not reach a decision. To me, “closely divided” is the accurate term.</p>
<p>I think the Supreme Court can only be deadlocked under rare circumstances, such as when the court is incomplete or when a Justices recuses him or her self.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you deny the existence and prevalence of those remarks? What do they mean to you?</p>
<p>Edit</p>
<p>Correction on use of the term “deadlocked” duly noted. Thank you.</p>
<p>I think it’s fair to say that the Supreme Court may be deadlocked on what principles should govern a case, and that sometimes they end up with a compromise decision that doesn’t really embody any of the competing principles very well. (Roe v. Wade is another example of this.) Grutter is probably a case like that. It’s hard to come up with a really principled explanation for the specifics of the decision, but as a compromise between competing principles it makes more sense.</p>
<p>But, fabrizio, aren’t you yourself arguing that those schools will be overrun by Asians if criteria were applied fairly? And who is it, exactly, that has said that this would be a bad thing? I’ve said that it doesn’t matter to me–and I don’t think it would happen anyway. I’m willing to believe that there are people who think it would be a bad thing (indeed, I’ve seen some students on CC, including Asian students, who have said that they wouldn’t want to go to a majority-Asian college. But that’s not because they don’t like Asians.)</p>
<p>Again, I think you have to distinguish the idea that a national college should, more or less, reflect the diversity of the nation. People may well think that should be, more or less, proportional to the population, in terms of race, gender, and geography. You might think that’s a bad idea, but it doesn’t reflect prejudice against any particular group.</p>
<p>But I will certainly admit that I think it would be a bad thing if top colleges couldn’t enroll black and Hispanic students at some reasonable level. But that’s not because I don’t like white and Asian students.</p>
<p>But if you think somebody is limiting the number of Asians because they don’t like Asians, you’re going to have to prove it. So far, I see no proof at all of that proposition.</p>