Asian or Not?

Applying to College
41

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>
[quote]
I disagree. The more asians deny being asian in college admissions, the tougher the competition for them will become. Because once again, colleges don't want gross over representation of any race (they can't really account for jews), when they begin to notice the percentage of asians on campus get to out of proportion, the less they're going to pursue asians in admissions, it just becomes a vicious cycle that only hurts the generations coming under you.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Is it OK to discriminate against Asians because they are "over-represented?" Is it OK to cap their enrollment because you think the ideal college environment exactly models the ethnic percentages of America?</p>

<p>If we use the racial preferentialists' socialist dream as the definition of "correct representation," then the percentage of Asians on campus is already "out of proportion" in most research universities.</p>

<p>It would be hard, not to mention absolutely racist, for admissions officers to decide that they should cap Asian enrollment because its on-paper percentage is decreasing while the magnitude of black-haired / fair-skinned students steadily "increases." (How can they tell?)</p>

<p>Somehow, Tyler, I get the feeling that you wouldn't have a problem with that. But, if you do, then please tell me.</p>

<p>You say that ...no top college considers having 40% asians, even if they are the most academically qualified, ideal. What's wrong with having a 40% Asian student body? Not "diverse" enough for you? Not "realistic" enough for you? I would like to know your answer.</p>

<p>Also, Tyler, "Cal" is not one school. Riverside, a campus in the UC system, has a student body that is 8% Black. Bakersfield, a campus in CSU, is 11% Black. East Bay, another campus in CSU, is 18% Black.</p>

<p>So much for "only like 2% and 4%." There are other schools in the system.</p>

<p>It is because of the ideology you support that Asians are doubting whether they should check the box or not.</p>

42

<p>I never said for me, i said for colleges, don't try to make this into a personal issue.</p>

<p>If you're dream school isn't the school that these top colleges are trying to build, then don't go there. They aren't for you.</p>

<p>and i said 2% and 4% because the above poster only mentioned cal Berkley and UCLA. </p>

<p>And all i said was that when asians take on that ideology, it only hurts the asians that don't want to lie. And the thought of changing your name just to do better in admissions at to schools, thats over the edge. All you're doing is fufilling the stereotype that asians only care about getting into the very top tier colleges and stop at nothing to do so.</p>

<p>And equal representation isn't racial preference in any way. It's simply that some colleges want a student body that reflects the diverse population in order to spread higher education. That's not selfish or racist when you take a moment to look beyond yourself and get the big picture.</p>

<p>Once again, the undebatable point is that because these are private institutions, if they want to shape a class and have equal representation be one of it's qualities, they have EVERY right in the world to do so. If you're dream school doesn't include equal representation, then find another school.</p>

43

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>I would like to know your answer, not what you think the college wants. You have not stated that you disapprove of capping Asian enrollment based on their "over-representation."</p>

<p>
[quote]

And the thought of changing your name just to do better in admissions at to schools, thats over the edge. All you're doing is fufilling the stereotype that asians only care about getting into the very top tier colleges and stop at nothing to do so.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Was it "over the edge" when Issur Danielovitch Demsky changed his name to Kirk Douglas? How about when Natalie Hershlag became Natalie Portman? What do you think about Ram</p>

44

<p>Forget about checking off boxes. Write a great essay about being your very own melting pot - Finnish, Greek, Italian and Korean! You must be celebrating holidays every weekend. How cool is that!</p>

45

<p>k&s</p>

<p>You say that "Asian-americans make up 30% of the highest qualified applicants" but this is impossible to say unless you focus on just one area- for instance test scores. </p>

<p>It is well known that colleges look for more than just test scores. So the more qualified student could have lower test scores but other aspects make him more qualified. </p>

<p>Personally I don't think there is a overrepresentation of Asians in the top colleges. I do think that to push for any more would be asking for too much.</p>

46

<p>don't even think about changing your name - it doesn't work. The application requires you to put previous names. (Sorry - I used to want too as well. I always liked the names Keyshawn and Tyrone, but I gues I'm stuck with what I have.)</p>

47

<p>TehRahk,</p>

<p>
[quote]

Personally I don't think there is a overrepresentation of Asians in the top colleges. I do think that to push for any more would be asking for too much.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Thanks, TehRahk, for not buying into the "too many" belief.</p>

<p>I admit that I am interested in preventing racial discrimination in admissions, especially against Asian students. Therefore, I support race-blind admissions. If that increases Asian admissions, great. If that decreases Asian admissions, so be it. If that leaves Asian admissions untouched, that's fine as well.</p>

<p>I'm for equality of opportunity. That is, I believe everyone should play by the same rules. Some people claim to support equality of opportunity, but in reality, they support equality of result. To them, "opportunity" could mean capping Asian enrollment to nationwide percentage levels in order to help "under-represented" minorities. Such a policy is far too socialist and perverse for my taste.</p>

<p>Sadly, it seems that all too many people believe that there are "too many" Asians, as evidenced by the way they use the term "over-represented." That is not a neutral adjective. It doesn't even make sense. It's impossible to be over-represented. Under this logic, the over-representation of strong athletes in Olympic weightlifting is a problem that can be corrected by booting out top-level athletes in favor of weaker ones.</p>

<p>Of course, that makes zero sense. Just like "over-representation" in admissions.</p>

<p>fast27, I was unaware that the application asked for previous names. I don't recall ever seeing one "previous name" field.</p>

<p>Even then, I'm only interested in changing my last name. I was born here with an American first name.</p>

48

<p>
[quote]
I'm for equality of opportunity.

[/quote]

Equality of opportunity would start at providing every kid with the same toys, giving every kid the opportunity to attend private schools and yeah, all kids would have to grow up in the same neighborhoods (at least the same income level). Most of a child's personality, intelligence and intellectual curiosity are shaped before it can actively and intentionally impact and contribute to them (let's say before middle school). </p>

<p>Obviously, there is no equality of opportunity at that level. Much of that inequality comes from personal choices (e.g. a stay-at-home mom can spend more time with her kids than a working mom) but another big part is determined by historical developments. Though I don't have any numbers on this I would assume that Hispanics as a group earn less than whites as a group and thus Hispanic kids grow up with less opportunities than white kids on average. I think in the long run affirmative action in the college admission process helps establishing the equality of opportunity you seek.</p>

49

<p>The issue isn't specifically that, B@r!um--affirmative action never works in the way it is described.</p>

<p>It's very hard to apply it correctly--affirmative action, at one point when Asians were considered URMs in the same way as Black and Hispanic now, benefited many of the children of skilled and rich (in social/human/monetary capital) Chinese, and especially Japanese immigrants.</p>

<p>The Southeast Asian population, and the not already socioeconomically powerful East Asian groups still didn't get those spots.</p>

<p>Now, it's even worse for those groups, since they supposedly fall under a category that is overrepresented when their admissions ratios are extremely low anyhow.</p>

<p>The other problem with the current system is that whenever "affirmative action" spots are created, they cut into the spots of other minorities--almost never white. Am I saying we should now cap white admissions or cut heavily into it? Well, if you want to practice affirmative action the way it is preached, yes, but you'll never get things to be perfect.</p>

<p>Not all "white" applicants are the privileged and powerful either. You'll be knocking those applicants out of the running by using the overly inclusive and ill-defined category of "race".</p>

<p>That's why I personally don't like affirmative action. It's great in theory, but you'll never actually achieve "equality" under it because there's no way to actually advance the true disadvantaged on the basis of just "race". Any other criteria to "equalize" admissions also come with their own problems that end up making the true equalizing effect almost negligible--the only way to really get the effect that we're looking for is to put more money and focus into education in general (including, but not limited to higher education), but that's politically unpopular.</p>

50

<p>NOOOO this is not an affirmative action thread. The word affirmative action is banned in this thread lol. The moment we talk about affirmative action is the moment nobody is open to anything.</p>

<p>Back to the main point, whether or not he should check the asian box.</p>

<p>yes he should. He can leave it blank if he wants i guess but it won't benefit him much. And changing your name it over the top. </p>

<p>and my point was that colleges have the right to seek equal representation for the purpose of spreading higher education. And if equal representation LOOKS BETTER on paper, than obviously other people like a university with equal representation as well. To let the scales tip too far would only decrease a colleges prestige, (what if Harvard was 60% asian, 37% white, 3% everything else, they wouldn't have that same Harvard environment that they're famous for in the public eye).</p>

51

<p>b@r!um,</p>

<p>As long as no one is barred from admission due to non-academic factors, that is, everyone has a chance, then there exists equality of opportunity.</p>

<p>For example, before Brown, students were not allowed to enter certain schools because of their skin color. They were barred from attending for a factor that is irrelevant to academic participation. They didn't even have a chance to compete. There was no equality of opportunity then.</p>

<p>
[quote]

I think in the long run affirmative action in the college admission process helps establishing the equality of opportunity you seek.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think affirmative action as currently practiced inhibits equality of opportunity by artificially increasing the numbers of some groups in universities.</p>

<p>As the Inside Higher Education article, "Too Asian?" mentioned, there is a bias against Asians in admissions which may affect their having an equal chance. This should not be ignored because of Asians' supposed representation far beyond their nationwide numbers. Bias is bias, and it should never be justified or explained away. More and more Asian students are refraining from checking the box for fear that it would hurt them.</p>

<p>What's a good way to end this fear? Just remove the race box.</p>

52

<p>Allorion, I did not mean to indicate that colleges don't practice pure "affirmative action" based solely on race. How often do the terms first-generation, low-income, disadvantaged, ... come up on CC?
Right now we are simply seeing an open market regulating itself. If we don't like the outcome, we would have to change the parameters which would most likely result in a more socialistic market.</p>

<p>I don't think you can complain about the amount of money allocated to education in the US (though the distribution of it is problematic). Many other countries (like Germany) spend less money for education overall and for higher education in particular. I googled a bit about the budget of public university and the first hit was the University of Washington. For the next two years its operating budget provided by the state will be $807 million. That is about $10K per student per year. German universities only get $8K per student on average and don't charge any tuition (and the purchasing power of $8K in Germany is significantly less than in WA). So why do U of W and most other public universities need to charge thousands of tuition per year?</p>

53

<p>
[quote]
and my point was that colleges have the right to seek equal representation for the purpose of spreading higher education. And if equal representation LOOKS BETTER on paper, than obviously other people like a university with equal representation as well. To let the scales tip too far would only decrease a colleges prestige, (what if Harvard was 60% asian, 37% white, 3% everything else, they wouldn't have that same Harvard environment that they're famous for in the public eye).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>How does a university spread higher education by imposing caps on racial groups? Such an artificial and socialist policy has the effect of excluding people from higher education. (Besides, quotas have been deemed illegal by the Supreme Court. The quota train departed long ago, but the "diversity" one is still here. I advise you to update your rhetoric.)</p>

<p>According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2005, our nation was 74.67% White, 12.12% Black, 4.46% Asian, and 5.99% Other.</p>

<p>If you define equal representation as equal to the Census data, then you would truly be excluding people from higher education. Once a university is 12.12% Black, any additional prospective Black student would be barred from attending. Doesn't sound good to me.</p>

<p>If you define equal representation as 20% White, 20% Black, 20% Asian, and 20% Other, you would still be excluding people from higher education. Once a campus reached 20% White, all remaining White candidates would be rejected. Sounds terrible.</p>

<p>No matter how you define it, equal representation cannot result in the spread of higher education. It can only result in stifling its spread.</p>

<p>To let the "scales tip too far" would not decrease the prestige of a university. Berkeley hasn't gotten any worse since Proposition 209. For that matter, the entire UC and CSU systems haven't gotten worse since 1996.</p>

<p>The people who feel that "equal representation" is what we need cause some students to think twice about the simple act of bubbling in a box and cause others to check the wrong boxes. They are not helping these students at all.</p>

<p>By the way, you haven't answered my question as to whether Issur Danielovitch Demsky went "over the top" when he changed his name to Kirk Douglas. Did he, or did he not?</p>

54

<p>Well, I think it depends how much you respect the quota system. If you respect it at all, put down "other". If you have no respect for it, and only care about your kid's status, then "Korean, Italian, Greek, and Finnish", with an Italian last name sounds pretty Hispanic to me.</p>

55

<p>
[quote]
What's a good way to end this fear? Just remove the race box.

[/quote]

I agree.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think affirmative action as currently practiced inhibits equality of opportunity by artificially increasing the numbers of some groups in universities.

[/quote]
That's exactly the point of why it is supposed to work (I don't know how it will turn out in 10 or 50 years), by providing better opportunities for <em>groups</em> that are currently disadvantaged. The idea is that the playing ground will be leveled 20 years down the road. Whether it's fair to supposedly "advantaged" <em>groups</em> is another question. It's certainly not more unfair than saying "I am sorry that you are poor and that your parents have been poor and that your grandparents were poor too, but if you don't have time to study because you need to work for 40 hours a week or babysit your 5 younger siblings that's your problem not mine." Why is it generally perceived to be REALLY unfair to take privileges away from someone but ok not to give someone a privilege in the first place? The sad truth is that everything that is given to one person has to be taken away from another. I am as sorry for every <em>individual</em> who is disadvantaged by the current system as I am happy for everyone who is rightfully helped by it.</p>

56

<p>Bigwaterjar,</p>

<p>The user AdOfficer wrote a post a few months back denouncing "disingenuous" methods of marking the race box.</p>

<p>If I recall correctly, he gave an example of a student whose grandmother came to the United States from Colombia. However, the grandmother herself was the child of Polish immigrants. Because she was not a mix of Spanish and Native American, AdOfficer viewed the student's decision to mark Hispanic as devious.</p>

<p>That student had every right to mark Hispanic, which is a culture. There are White Hispanics, Black Hispanics, and Mixed Hispanics. That grandmother probably spoke fluent Spanish and had a good grasp of Colombian culture. It's not disingenuous for her granddaughter to claim Hispanic heritage.</p>

<p>If people refer to Hispanic as a race, what they are really thinking of is a cross between Spanish and Native American, known in our history textbooks as mestizo.</p>

<p>In the case of terrygreg's son, he should not mark Hispanic because he has Italian heritage. Although Italian and Spanish are similar languages, Italian folks aren't Hispanic. Since Italy never held any claims in South America, they also are not Latino.</p>

<p>The name might sound "Hispanic," but unless it's of Spanish origin, it's not Hispanic.</p>

57

<p>b@r!ium,</p>

<p>I think compromises should made if a solution is to be sought.</p>

<p>I feel that socioeconomic affirmative action is acceptable because poverty does not discriminate.</p>

<p>For example, some (keyword) applications really don't differentiate among the different Asian groups. I recall seeing one scholarship application that basically grouped all Asians, including Pacific Islanders and Southeast Asians, together. Ironically, this was a minority scholarship, and some Asian groups are truly minorities on campuses (e.g. Hmong).</p>

<p>Under the current system, if a Hmong student checks the Asian box, he could be grouped along with the East Asian students and treated as such even though he is very much a minority. Since Hmong Americans are on average economically disadvantaged compared to other Americans, why should they be punished for being Asian? No offense to admissions officers, but unless the student emphasizes his distinct Asian heritage, I doubt the readers would distinguish him from the "boring Asians."</p>

58

<p>No Affirmative Action Discussion.</p>

<p>-and you're dodging the point fabrizio. Equal representation spreads higher education equally among all racial groups which leads to equal opportunity. That's really as simple as it gets. and asians aren't being barred from attending obviously, you're just trying to deal with extremes. But if Harvard didn't think that 40% African American students in it's class was an good reflection of society, then it has every right to build a more represented class. </p>

<p>Nobody said anything about capping asian enrollment, they just try not to let the proportion get out of control. Its not like the colleges go "ok! we're at 12.2% no more blacks!".</p>

<p>My personal opinion on what I want is irrelevant. All i'm saying is that colleges are JUSTIFIED and have every right to strive for a class of equal representation. If a race box helps the university achieve this, then they have the right to do so. If you don't like it don't apply to a school with a race box. Why would you want to attend a university that "discriminates" in your mind?</p>

<p>Unfortunately because their are a lot of academically strong asian students, competition for them is going to be tough because they can't all fit at HYPS.
Every other minority group has it so much worse than asians, so the fact that THIS is the issue that's causing so much uproar is laughable. (especially because Asians are representing about 5X their volume in the population).</p>

<p>and btw on a side note: the whole reason the UC system recently adapted a holistic approach is to practice under the table AA in order to get its african american population up. <em>thats the only time i'm mentioning AA</em></p>

59

<p>Well as I said before everyone is for EQUALITY when it will benefit their own kind. Everyone needs to stand for everyone. I don't think anyone has the right to complain unless they've fought for someone else.</p>

60

<p>It's ridiculous how people use racial caps and having race affect one's admissions as "equal opportunity" or "equality." How is it REMOTELY equal that a person should not be given a spot at the college SIMPLY BECAUSE of the color of his skin?</p>

<p>Is that fair? Is that equality? NO
Is that racial discrimination? Yes</p>

<p>Why must we use race in determining one's admissions to college? Didn't MLK say that we shouldn't be judged by the color of our skin but rather by the content of our character? Go ahead and put in social-economic factors in college admissions for those that had "unfair advantages" but why in the world would you include one's race.</p>