<p>Actually, they tried doing AA with economic factors in California with the UCs. It didn't work. All it does is get a lot of smart immigrant children, like myself, who despite having a family that makes only ~$29,000, still manage to attain a 1480 SAT. Too bad Harvard is need-blind. Sighs...</p>
<p>I hate to sound ignorant concerning affirmative action with respect to asians, but I need someone to address this one issue. An underrepresented minority is a minority whose percentages within a college population is below average. Yet, on nearly every college campus the number of blacks and hispanics outnumber asians nearly 2 to 1 and at some schools 3 to 1. Therefore, aren't asians underrepresented? Also, asians are covered under affirmative action with respect to college admissions and hiring quotas so... don't more asians benefit from the practice than are harmed? Honestly, if a school had a white applicant and an asian applicant with similar qualifications the school would select the asian for the sake of diversity. I know I have digressed off the topic with this post, but I need this explained to me.</p>
<p>^ Huh? Vicks where the heck do u live? In the South? In most urban metropolis areas, Asians have to outperform whites by at least 50-100 points on the SAT to be seen as an equal. (its progress cus it used to be 100-200 points in the 1980's at Harvard)</p>
<p>But now that the SAT ceiling has been lowered, outpeforming whites so that we can be seen on the same level as them is increasingly gettng difficult. Also remember that in California, White males score about 20-30 points higher on the SAT Math than whites in other states. Anyways, SE Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans should get affirmative action.</p>
<p>"Too bad Harvard is need-blind."</p>
<p>The Ivies are need-blind because being not-need-blind usually works the other way. As it stands now at the Ivies, you are accepted regardless of your ability to pay for it. At other non-need-blind schools, qualified students may be rejected because they can't afford it and the school would not be able to meet their need.</p>
<p>I do see your point though, and I do believe that despite their need-blind status, their eyes will open up more to a kid who made a 1450 and has two parents who don't work than a 1500 kid whose parents are wall-street analysts or college professors. There is a slight benefit for the "economically disadvantaged".</p>
<p>I was rebuffing earlier posts that said asians were harmed by affirmative action more than they were helped. An asian applicant is more likely to be accepted than a white applicant with similar ACADEMIC qualifications because of affirmative action. I personally favor a reformed version of affirmative action, but let's face facts, asians benefit just as much as other minorities.</p>
<p>They don't, because in the application pool of major colleges, they're not minorities. Your comment on black+hispanic and Asian population is interesting, because earlier in this thread, a person posted the numbers of black+hispanics and asians in the Ivies. At every single college, Asians outnumbered blacks and hispanics put together.</p>
<p>The Asian applicant pool is significantly more qualified (regarding GPA and test scores) than any of the other groups.</p>
<p>Some particular Asian groups may experience some benefit at some colleges, but not most Asians, or most colleges.</p>
<p>This makes me ,mad. There's all this talk about how asians are superior to every other race on the planet but when you look at what american born asians have done from a historical perspective their great stats pale in comparison. outside of hawaii there are no esteemed asian senators or representatives but there are plenty of whites and more blacks and hispanics than asians. outside of the dot coms and internet based companies there are more white, black, and hispanic ceo's. also, on forbes' list of highest ranked minority companies excluding dot- coms, not one asian company made the top ten. in history books at school, what did asian americans contribute to this country with their far superior skills? sure asians may get into the ivies and have higher sat scores than others, but outside of academia and technology they have contributed very little and history proves it. you can label this post racist like all minorities do when no one agrees with them, but its the truth and sometimes the truth hurts. Looks like all work and no fortitude leaves Ming Lee working a nine to five while the dumber minorities and whites succeed. enjoy toiling away at IBM.</p>
<p>3/27/03 Detroit News: Op Ed: How affirmative action affects minorities:
Experience shows racial preferences take seats from Asian-Americans,
echoing past discrimination against Jewish students
by George Bornstein / Special to The Detroit News
The looming Supreme Court decision on the University of Michigan<br>
Admission cases, with oral arguments on Monday, offers a crucial opportunity
to clarify how colleges and universities practice affirmative action toward
racial and ethnic groups. An important issue is who is harmed by the policy,
if failing to enter an elite university constitutes harm.
As everyone knows, African-Americans and to a lesser extent Latinos
benefit. But as the statistics from California , Texas and other states
that have banned affirmative action in admissions pile up, the answer
to who loses is becoming clear. It is not whites, but Asian-Americans.
A Feb. 2 New York Times article found that in the well-documented cases
of UCLA, University of California Berkeley and the University of Texas at
Austin , abolishing affirmative action caused the number of African-
Americans to decline most and that of Hispanics next-most.
The real surprise is that the percentage of whites hardly budged. At
The University of Texas at Austin , for example, the percentage of white
freshman admitted declined from 67 percent in the class before a
federal court order to 66 percent. Similarly, at Berkeley, whites as a
percentage of the latest freshman class fell a percentage point from the last
year before affirmative action was abolished in California . Indeed, non-
Hispanic whites are actually an "under-represented group" at Berkeley :
They comprise 49 percent of the state's population but only 29 percent of
the freshman class.
The places vacated by African-Americans, Latinos and whites went to
Asian-Americans. At Austin , for example, the percentage of Asians
admitted rose to 71 percent from 68 percent, so they now comprise 18
percent of the first-year students there in a state with an Asian population
of 3 percent.
The Berkeley numbers are more startling. The percentage of Asians-
Americans there jumped six percentage points between the end of
affirmative action and the fall of 2001; Asians now comprise 45 percent
of the freshman class at Berkeley but 12 percent of California 's population.
The lesson is clear. Affirmative action transfers places from Asian-
Americans to African-Americans and Latinos. Yet both supporters and
detractors cast the debate as black vs. white. The true issue is whether
we want or need a policy that systematically restricts the places for
Asian-Americans in our elite universities.
We will never resolve this contentious issue if we continue to frame
the debate in simplistic and misleading terms of white versus black.
Recasting the debate can also help us see why so much of the current
rhetoric supporting affirmative action to include minority groups as
defined today sounds so much like the rhetoric used earlier in the 20th
century to exclude a minority group as defined then -- Jews. Then as
now, university administrators wished to control the racial mix (Jews were
considered and called a "race" then). Otherwise, they feared their
campuses would be "overrun" with members of a small but academically
very high-achieving group.
Until the early 20th century, even the most elite American universities,
such as Harvard, Yale and Princeton , were largely regional campuses.
But faced with a high influx of academically talented Jewish students,
they sought to reduce the numbers of that group. Aware that Jews (and to a
lesser extent Roman Catholics) were concentrated in Northeast cities,
they devised a system of national recruitment to restrict numbers of Jews
while avoiding charges of overt discrimination.
Then as now, a key concept was diversity, only then it meant (in public)
geographic diversity. Then as now, quotas were publicly denied even
while an elaborate system to maintain de facto quotas evolved. Then as now,
administrators argued that other things besides grades and examinations
mattered as much or more -- character, for example, or obstacles overcome.
Then as now, the result was to transfer places that would have gone
disproportionately to members of an academically talented minority
group to members of other groups.
And then as now, the ends were felt to justify the means. Readers can
trace part of this history in Marcia Synnott's wonderful and neglected
book "The Half-Opened Door," which traces discrimination and admissions
at Harvard, Yale, Princeton and other elite schools from 1900-1970.
There is a final "then as now" worth noting: In both cases, administrators
sought to hide their practices. Deans of the Ivy League universities and
related colleges held numerous confidential meetings (fortunately, they
kept meticulous minutes which researchers can now use). Similarly, the
University of Michigan sought to suppress public knowledge of its
practices, and not until forced by Freedom of Information Act requests
from Professor Carl Cohen and others did word seep out of what it was
doing.
At that point, the college of liberal arts changed from its blatantly
illegal chart system of classification to a more subtle one on whose
legality the Supreme Court will shortly rule and the law school devised
somewhat different policies to achieve the same end.
Faced with this situation, what should we do? Some say that if affirmative
action survives it should be in a class-based form. To the extent that
members of minority groups disproportionately cluster at the bottom of
the socioeconomic order, they would benefit disproportionately. But that
would strike most people as fairer than the current racial preferences.
Others might feel that we should get rid of such factors and return to
a system blind not just to race but to all factors other than academic
performance.
Both positions have flaws. But to paraphrase Winston Churchill's
acerbic defense of democracy, either might turn out to be the worst system
we could devise except for all those other systems.
George Bornstein is C.A. Patrides Professor of Literature at the
University of Michigan . Write letters to The Detroit News, 615 W.
Lafayette , Detroit , MI 48226 , or fax to (313) 222-6417 or e-mail to
<a href="mailto:letters@detnews.com">letters@detnews.com</a>.</p>
<p>No fortitude... I wonder if you know what that word means.</p>
<p>notice how each person defends their own ethnic background: the asians say that asians are being screwed over by AA, and the other groups say otherwise. is there ANYONE in here (other than me) that doesnt say things to only benefit their background? personally, i think that AA isnt such a bad thing, and im asian, and i dont feel like im being cheated at all. instead, (sorry to keep using black people as an example) but if a black guy gets into harvard, most people there would automatically assume, oh hes just in cause hes BLACK. just like my classmate got into MIT and he's not exactly "MIT material" and so now we all think that he got in because hes black. so even tho more black people are goin to college, or have a better chance of being admitted, they stillneed to prove themself a great deal in college, they're still being discriminated against. sigh...why is race such an important factor anyway? can you people be more open minded?</p>
<p>I'm white, which you may or may not be able to tell just from my posts... and to sum, I'm in favor of economic but not racial AA. A rich black kid has the same opportunities that a rich asian kid or a rich white kid has.</p>
<p>It's not just black and white so get off of the rich black kid thing. In fact, statistics have proven that white women have benefitted from the implementation of affirmative action more than any minority. It's not solely black and white. However, I do agree with you birdofprey concerning economic AA, but how would an admissions counselor determine whether or not the beggared applicant was qualififed for the respective institution? The low SAT score could be a determinant of the student's actual academic ability, same for GPA......</p>
<p>BoP, but a middle class--or even rich--black kid does not bring the same perspective to the campus community that a middle-class or rich black kid does. Bank it. And that's the a major part of the point of AA. You, as a white kid, do not have people making assumptions about you that are changed when you disprove them. You do not have the pressure of peers and even family getting on your case for "acting white." Black doctors, lawyers, civil servants, office holders, etc. all live with incidents of racial profiling that you wound find outrageous if directed towards you. All of which gives you a different perspectives on issues and the world. I agree that economic diversity, in and of itself, is good for similar reasons. But while necessary it is not sufficient.
Peace.</p>
<p>"You, as a white kid, do not have people making assumptions about you that are changed when you disprove them. You do not have the pressure of peers and even family getting on your case for "acting white." Black doctors, lawyers, civil servants, office holders, etc. all live with incidents of racial profiling that you wound find outrageous if directed towards you. All of which gives you a different perspectives on issues and the world. I agree that economic diversity, in and of itself, is good for similar reasons. But while necessary it is not sufficient." - TheDad</p>
<p>I can see what you're saying. I hadn't thought of it from the viewpoint of a diversity of viewpoints. I was coming from a viewpoint of strictly academic ability.</p>
<p>"However, I do agree with you birdofprey concerning economic AA, but how would an admissions counselor determine whether or not the beggared applicant was qualififed for the respective institution? The low SAT score could be a determinant of the student's actual academic ability, same for GPA......" - vicks</p>
<p>But the exact same logic holds true for the average black, hispanic, or female kid. Using AA is never going to give you complete certainty as to the accuracy of the decisions made. They don't know if the SAT is an accurate predictor or if it's being held down by socioeconomic factors, so it's going to be a gamble either way.</p>
<p>Colleges use AA because they believe that the benefits of using AA are better than the drawbacks of not using it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This makes me ,mad. There's all this talk about how asians are superior to every other race on the planet but when you look at what american born asians have done from a historical perspective their great stats pale in comparison. outside of hawaii there are no esteemed asian senators or representatives but there are plenty of whites and more blacks and hispanics than asians. outside of the dot coms and internet based companies there are more white, black, and hispanic ceo's. also, on forbes' list of highest ranked minority companies excluding dot- coms, not one asian company made the top ten. in history books at school, what did asian americans contribute to this country with their far superior skills? sure asians may get into the ivies and have higher sat scores than others, but outside of academia and technology they have contributed very little and history proves it. you can label this post racist like all minorities do when no one agrees with them, but its the truth and sometimes the truth hurts. Looks like all work and no fortitude leaves Ming Lee working a nine to five while the dumber minorities and whites succeed. enjoy toiling away at IBM.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I'll try to address your rant in a a step by step manner. The reason why asians haven't contributed much to America is because they have been pretty much banned from immigrating to America until the late 1960s. THEN they came, with no knowledge of the language. I say what they'd done in the last forty years has been quite impressive. </p>
<p>Second of all, where is there talk that asians are superior to all the other races on earth. People are just citing on AVERAGE that the median asian is stronger than blacks, hispanics, and whites. This fact is proven by statistics. People are citing the fact not to flaunt the "superior" of asians that you cite, but the simple fact that affirmative action works against asians. </p>
<p>You cite that there are no esteemed asian senators or representatives. Well, you didn't give us much time to work with. First of all, the ban was lifted in 1967? David Wu is a representative from Oregon. And we are only 4% of the nation's population. This is fact, and I bet you'll agree: whites tend to vote for white candidates. Compounded by the fact that most of the asians tend to flock into the medical and engineering field, you won't find many asians in politics. It will change in the next twenty- thirty years though, I assure you.</p>
<p>"outside of the dot coms and internet based companies there are more white, black, and hispanic ceo's."</p>
<p>You pulled this fact out of your ass. There was only one black CEO in the Fortune 500 companies. And he's in big trouble now- might go to jail. If this is true for blacks, I doubt the hispanics are faring much better. Your comment "outside of the dotcoms" indiates that you are acknowledging asian "overrepresentation" in the tech fields. That is because asians tend to flock in high tech fields. There are few asians who want to grow up to be politicians. Alas, many asians are going to the top business schools such as Wharton, Stern, and Sloan. Rest assured, in the future, we will see more asians in top management levels. Give us a chance; we're only 4% of the population (96% of the population>4%), but we're getting there.</p>
<p>"but outside of academia and technology they have contributed very little and history proves it. "</p>
<p>ROFL. What is outside of academia and technology? Sweeping? I've already addressed politics. And this "history" is confined to a 50 year period, which is even lessened due to the fact that most immigrants did not speak English in the first place.</p>
<p>Your post reeks of racism. Admit it. Asians are holding their own in a foreign land and succeeding.</p>
<p>^ Nice post The Dad. I agree with you completely. I just heard about some White parents in Boston who point out Asian kids to their infants and make their infants repeat the word "Chink". </p>
<p>The parents point to Asians, and say to their kid "Chink Chink Chink..."</p>
<p>I hope you can see the long term effects of that, even on this board. </p>
<p>In regards to some of the other racist comments:</p>
<p>Gary Locke is the Governor of Washington. He is Asian American. We have several Asian American congressmen in California. Norman Mineta, the current Secretary of Transportation has an airport named after him. 1/3 of those who died in Pearl Harbor were Japanese Americans. Remember that Native Americans were Asians who immigrated here since 2000 BC to 1400 AD across the Bering Strait. I personally volunteered for many months for John Kerry, and I am still not giving up.</p>
<p>Bird of Prey, since you " hadn't thought of it from the viewpoint of a diversity of viewpoints," do you support AA for the sake of bringing racial and ideological viewpoints onto a campus?</p>
<p>Oh, in our last election we have two new asian representatives from the Houston area voted into the Texan Congress:Hubert Vo and Martha Wong.</p>
<p>If anyone wants to read my paper on the Chinese Exclusion Act, I'm willing to e-mail it. PM me. Lots of sweat and blood w/ that paper; I spent tens of hours copying, researching, and persuing through old newspapers, periodicals, and the Congressional REcord.</p>
<p>actually i didn't pul those facts out of my ass. secondly, you should pay attention to the post. i said of minority owned companies. there are few fortune 500 minority owned companies, but YOU can rest assured that there are more successful hispanic owned, black owned, and of course white owned companies. also stop whining about how you all were banned. blacks endured slavery and segregation and all you asians did was benefit from the civil rights movement. in fact, i'd say that without the blacks (and whites) you all probably would still be hiding in san francisco. and bird of prey, fortitude is what i have and you don't.</p>
<p>you kids just need to shut up</p>