<p>I should’ve read this in his response to my “straw man,” but I did not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LEE BOLLINGER is the President of Columbia. I would be very surprised, shocked even, if Columbia was “less concerned with ‘uplifting’ 'URM’s.” Even setting that aside, I have no reason to believe that Columbia is more “friendly” to Asian applicants. (Or more “hostile,” as Hunt seems to suggest.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How can Asians be at Swarthmore, Amherst, and Williams in “overrepresented” percentages if they don’t apply there? Ditto for every other school I listed.</p>
<p>As I said, to be fair, you did say “HYPSM et al,” but so far, you haven’t demonstrated an inclination to be loose with that “et al” part.</p>
<p>“Ok, I will defer to Shrinkrap’s authority for my “shut-out” comment”</p>
<p>Hey wait! I have no authority! My sister in Durham can’t believe my family/kids didn’t didn’t take advantage of a UC. Ninety percents of the kids in my kids school were “shutout” . He was one of two black students in his class, and he was one of eight or that got in a UC (UCR). I am just fortunate that we “don’t need no stinking UC”! </p>
<p>I just hope I’m helping someone with MY idea of qualified with my votes and tax dollars. I KNOW I am in my work.</p>
<p>Swat, Amherst, and Williams are recognized as really prestigious (top 3 LACs right) even if not national research universities. Also, Swat has an engineering school. That could help. I’m betting et. al is generally top 20ish research Us and other top LACs. Overall, I do question whether the assertion that emphasis on National research Us is correct. LACs are known for teaching science extremely well (I witnessed it at Swat, as I decided to do Discovery Weekend, and then did not apply despite what I saw b/c it was too small and too cold for my comfort). They also place quite well into PhD programs and prof. schools (but mainly PhD programs, and they have also produced lots of public icons/politicians). So apps. to LACs could also possibly be prestige driven (well, no duh) and are not that surprising if the idea is that Asians disproportionately apply to the most prestigious schools.
Anyway: AA, no AA, at top colleges, many people will get screwed in admissions. I don’t think getting screwed for other reasons is worse than getting screwed in a racial context. Either way, admission is denied. If I were denied a top college, I guess I should say: “That racist institution didn’t want my black a**, I wasn’t white enough” or resort to my proposal on international students. lol.</p>
<p>“How can Asians be at Swarthmore, Amherst, and Williams in “overrepresented” percentages if they don’t apply there? Ditto for every other school I listed.”</p>
<p>They could apply to those schools at an incidence higher than their percentage in the population but be even more highly concentrated in apps to HYPSM et al. This is simple math, fabrizio. Asians could (say) form 20% of the applicant pool at Swat AND Asian applicants overall could disproportionately apply to HYPSM et al. One is looking at the % of a given college applicant pool that is Asian, the other is looking at the college choices of Asians as a whole.</p>
<p>True, but they’re “only” recognized as really prestigious for those “in the know.” So the “overrepresentation” of Asians there seems to run counter to Pizzagirl’s belief that Asians have a “HYPSM or bust” mindset and aren’t making “wise” college search and selection decisions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then Asians don’t have a “HYPSM or bust” mindset.</p>
<p>I thought a lot of people knew about at least Amherst and Williams. Also, people could then claim that Asians are disproportionately in “the know” about prestigious schools(Whether LAC or NRU). This can go on and on.</p>
<p>Why would someone being raised in the same home environment and going to the same schools as the previous poster’s son necessarily be more likely to go to a top university if s/he had been born Asian (for example, suppose the previous poster adopted an infant the same age as his/her son, and that adoptee were Asian, and raised in the same home environment and went to the same schools)?</p>
<p>Yes, there certainly is such a thing. It’s strange how the extremes can wrap around and wind up at libertarianism or anarchism.</p>
<p>But what sewhappy described doesn’t fit the definition. He’s describing a libertarian coming from the right side, not the Marxist side. Just saying. His kid’s probably a bit confused, but at least she’s thinking deep thoughts.</p>
<p>Berkeley’s common data set says that the importance of academic factors on admissions is:</p>
<p>Rigor of Secondary school record: Very Important
Class rank: Not Considered
Academic GPA: Very Important
Recommendations: Not Considered
Standardized test scores: Important
Application Essay: Very Important</p>
<p>While the standardized test scores are important, they are not as important as the rigor of secondary school curriculum, academic GPA, and application essay. The common data set information does not distinguish between the various types of standardized test scores that may be used (e.g. SAT versus Subject Tests).</p>
I have no problem with birthright citizenship. My problem is with people who don’t understand the racial history of this country, and then whine about the “unfairness” of helping out groups that were terrifically discriminated against in this country’s history–its recent history, if you were born more than 25 years ago. You can decide for yourself whether you’d rather be accused of ignorance or insensitivity–it’s sometimes hard to tell the difference.</p>
<p>I have to say that this is one of the more measured and thoughtful discussions on a very incendiary topic on CC. A lot of very thoughtful posts that have given me pause.</p>
<p>I’m reminded of a recorded debate between Tim Wise and Dinesh D’Souza. Wise argued that we must have racial preferences to compensate for past wrongs and gave an example of how the past continues to affect the present and the future with real estate. He stated that whites previously had access to low-interest mortgages that blacks did not, and these properties likely get passed down the generations, and if he’s a “good boy,” he’ll get his parents’ home.</p>
<p>D’Souza rebutted beautifully in my (biased) opinion. I paraphrase, “If he feels that he doesn’t deserve the house, why doesn’t he just move out? He could even lease it to a black family at the same rate his grandparents received!”</p>
<p>The same goes for you, Hunt. If you feel responsible for past sins, then take it upon yourself to correct them. Donate to UNCF. Lease your house out to a black family at the rates of two generations back. Whatever you do, don’t act like ANYONE else–from “your group” or “mine”–has any obligation to do the same.</p>
<p>At some point, you have to ask yourself whether your “liberal do gooder” policies have done anything for those whose welfare you claim to care about. As I pointed out a few pages back, we freaked out in the 1960s when 25% of all black children were born out of wedlock. Six years ago, that figure rose to 70%. (In [url=<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13mothers.html]2007[/url”>Out-of-Wedlock Birthrates Are Soaring, U.S. Reports - The New York Times]2007[/url</a>], the national average was 40%.) Of course, I cannot claim that your “liberal do gooder” programs are responsible for that spike, but at the same time, you have to ask yourself why that happened. We’re farther removed from our historical sins and yet “black culture” is more dysfunctional than it ever was.</p>
<p>Maybe, just maybe, you should leave them be. Stop with the paternalism, and let them walk on their own. If they fall, they fall. When they get back up, they’re better off than they were, without your help.</p>
<p>There is a simple term for that philosphy: it’s called “devil take the hindmost.” It’s the viewpoint of, pardon the expression, conservative do-badders. I also very much dislike the idea that nobody has any obligation, either individually or collectively, to help others. I think we have both, and social engineering is part of it. Whether particular measures are effective or not is a different question, and one that can be discussed without personal attacks.</p>
<p>One more point about immigrants–if you move to a country with a large national debt, you will be taxed to help retire that debt, even if you did nothing to create it. That’s just a cost of moving to that country. In my view, the situation is very similar with race in this country–we have a national debt. Figuring out how to pay it is the hard part.</p>
<p>Regardless of what you or I or anyone else feels the right policy would be for college admissions, the tragic part is, Hunt, Asian Americans were also discriminated against in this country’s history.</p>
That’s true, but it’s a very different history. As bad as some of it was, it really can’t compare to generations of slavery and de jure segregation. And the point about more recent black immigrants is even more true of Asians–very few Asians in America today are the descendants of the Asians who suffered that discrimination (except, perhaps, for people of Japanese background).</p>
<p>Nobody has an OBLIGATION to help others; it should VOLUNTARY. I’m not opposed to your leasing your home to a black family at two-generation-ago’s interest rates. Nor am I “above” helping others. To the contrary, the last time someone tripped in front of me, I went up to him and offered my hand. Did I do so because I had an obligation? No, I did so because I chose to do so. In fact, the last time someone panhandled me, it was close to Christmas and instead of giving him cash, I bought him a meal. You could even lobby a “paternalistic” charge at me–I would accept it if you did so. But I didn’t buy him a meal because I felt like I had to; I chose to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very true. But you see, in the context of the national debt, NO ONE is inherently exempt from being taxed to help pay it off. By contrast, in the context of racial preferences, SOME “groups” are exempt from the metaphorical “tax”: the beneficiaries. So I bring up a “conservative do-badder” line: don’t call for raising taxes on others to pay off the debt. Send the Treasury a check from your own pocket.</p>
<p>So then why do Hispanics get preferences? Unlike blacks, they were never enslaved. Like Asians, they were voluntary immigrants. It baffles me why they do other than politics; blacks and Hispanics are more populous than blacks alone, which means more votes for these policies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And yet you justify / rationalize granting preferences to “more recent black immigrants,” who have NO connection to American slaves other than possibly (and perversely) being the descendants of Africans who enslaved other Africans, out of a belief that they will be incorporated or assimilated into black America.</p>
<p>It occurred to me that the elite schools employ AA for a rather cynical reason – to enable them to go on using the SAT. By having a minimally acceptable percentage of all races accounted for, they are not going to get pressured to abandon standardized tests in their selection process.</p>