<p>^^^^ Those ETs mostly look like Asians, thus hurting the chances of similar-looking citizens/residents in the US.</p>
<p>Epiphany. I'd have to agree with you....most of these kids go back to the idea that it is ONLY about race, and forget that there are always mitigating factors and a myriad of other intangibles that make-up each applicant. Perhaps the reason they focus on RACE and are thus being a bit disengenuous in their discussions on AA is that they either belong to the "group" and thus want the to benefit disproportionately from their "stats" (never mind that there are other top schools with low Asian and Southeast Asian enrollement), or use a particular "group" as an example of how it can "hurt" someone who is deserving--while increasing their own chances by exploiting the sentiment. Pretty savy for teenagers.</p>
<p>BTW, did you notice that they still group Southeast Asians with the overall Asian group even as colleges have moved away from doing just that?</p>
<p>"...most of these kids go back to the idea that it is ONLY about race, and forget that there are always mitigating factors and a myriad of other intangibles that make-up each applicant. Perhaps the reason they focus on RACE..."</p>
<p>"BTW, did you notice that they still group Southeast Asians with the overall Asian group even as colleges have moved away from doing just that?"</p>
<p>You appear to have a greater interest in categorizing and even sub-categorizing people based solely on their ethnic background than AA detractors on this thread.</p>
<p>BTW, Southeast Asians are no less inclined to studying for careers in the sciences/engineering/medical fields than East Asians or South Asians. As such, they would fall into Epiphany's general Asian peer group with similar interests.</p>
<p>This brings me to the question: why don't you guys just not give your race on the application form, i'm pretty sure it's almost always optional. Then the bias has to come from something other than race (well, it may not work if your name's something obviously asian, like: lee, kim, chen, patel, or sanjay)</p>
<p>I think it's stupid that everyone here has to state what race they are just to validate their argument, but just so I'm not asked, I'm asian.</p>
<p>Future:</p>
<p>My Mom (who is Asian), and the MAJORITY of my parents friends that comfortably fit into the Asian group, fit those characteristics to a T. Are you Chinese, Japansese or Korean? If you are, then you're situation is a bit unique...if you are Southeast Asian, then colleges will recognize that you may not have had the opportunities of other "kinds" of Asians.</p>
<p>GreenFish:</p>
<p>That is funny, isn't it. Being always behind the ball. And, by the way, the debate tactic you're using doesn't always work.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, DETRACTORS of AA generally do not recognize the socio-economic DIFFERENCES between Southeast Asians and other Asian sub-populations. Thus, it IGNORES the historical, social, and ECONOMIC realities that USUALLY face those that belong to the "category". By MINIMIZING the issues that face Southeast Asians, you DEVALUE them, or ignore their reality, whatever that may be. Thus, the Asians who belong to groups that have not TRADITIONALLY faced much hardship (like the Japanese, Chinses, and Koreans) will be OVERREPRESENTED in and Asian group if COLLEGES did not move away from the SIMPLE classification system that some on this topic have used on CC.</p>
<p>BTW, I'm part-Japansese...and some of my ancestors did work on plantations when they first came to the US. Do I bemoan the fact that I belong to the OVERREPRESENTED group? Do I not, as a human being, recognize oppression when I see it? The answer would be "no" to both.</p>
<p>Also, to talk about race, no matter what side you are on in the debate TENDS to require a shared language. My point about Southeast Asians and Asians...is this: Southeast Asians tend to not "fit" most of the characteristics of the others that makeup the Asian group or cohort. Thus, they need more ENCOURAGEMENT to apply to college. AA, and the boundries that the Supreme Court DEFINED for its practice, is a good way to address that discrpency between the sub-group and the group, as well as the overall Asian group, and other minorities and non minorities. Are you saying the most powerful court in the land got it wrong? And, how did you come to your conclusion? </p>
<p>I know it's daunting to be judged by the context of the college application, but that's life. I make not appologies for being Japanese, NOR do I feel I have a RIGHT to ANY spot in a college. It's a priviledge.</p>
<p>The difference is that most kids are serching for a "hook" or "leg up" in the process, and not "fairness" which is OFTEN defined by those WITH the POWER.</p>
<p>"Unfortunately, DETRACTORS of AA generally do not recognize the socio-economic DIFFERENCES between Southeast Asians and other Asian sub-populations. Thus, it IGNORES the historical, social, and ECONOMIC realities that USUALLY face those that belong to the "category". By MINIMIZING the issues that face Southeast Asians, you DEVALUE them, or ignore their reality, whatever that may be. Thus, the Asians who belong to groups that have not TRADITIONALLY faced much hardship (like the Japanese, Chinses, and Koreans) will be OVERREPRESENTED in and Asian group if COLLEGES did not move away from the SIMPLE classification system that some on this topic have used on CC."</p>
<p>Hold on a minute here. The whole point of AA is to redress past discrimination against certain ethnic groups. As I'm sure you're well aware, the most egregious acts of racism against Asians in American history have almost all been perpetrated against Chinese and Japanese Americans. Chinese Exclusion Acts, Japanese internment, etc. If anything, these two groups would have the best claim to preferences under AA. In which parallel universe are you trying to claim that they have traditionally not faced much hardship?</p>
<p>BTW, did you know that Southeast Asians are overrepresented at the University of California? Even Berkeley, which is leaps and bounds above most of the other UCs in selectivity and has a disproportionately large number of "high achieving" Asians has an overrepresentation of Southeast Asians.</p>
<p>Southeast Asians bear the brunt of Affirmative Action because they don't score high enough to displace the more well-to-do East Asians And South Asians, but they still score much higher than Blacks and Hispanics from similar economic backgrounds. They are the ones displaced when schools must raise the bar for Asian students in the name of diversity. It's no wonder that the one University system where they see the most success in admissions is the one which is not allowed to use Affirmative Action.</p>
<p>Greenfish:</p>
<p>That is EXACTLY why colleges have moved away from Japanese, Chinese, and Korean applicant towards Southeast Asian applicants. And, of course, I understand that they are OVERREPRESNTED becuase Asian groups tend to be VOCAL and take the SIDE with WHITE voters when any threats to their group's POWER or INFLUENCE are percieved to be under attack. Thank goodness it's Southeast Asians that benefit rather than the Japansese, Chinese, and Korean groups that tend to make up most of the "Asian" cohort benefit...or it would mean that the UC system hasn't learned its lesson. I'd also need to point out that Korea was divided by the Russians and Chinese along the 39th parallel, that the Spanish colonized the Phillipines, that Tibet still faces pressure from China, that the Japanese coupled with Hitler in WWII, that Taiwan is feeling the Chinese wrath, that there was Vietnam and Cambodia, and that North Korea recently tested a bomb to intimidate South Korea....I'd have to disagree with you obviously BIASED idea about who is the oppressor. And, I'm well aware of the internment camps...I had family that lived through it, and a few that were sent back to Japan.</p>
<p>I don't for a second believe that Asians do not wield POWER in California. Or that they are somehow less LIKELY to use it to their advantage if it means getting into Cal or UCLA or schools where status is involved.</p>
<p>Again, interesting debate tactic. That is why I used the term GENERALLY because there will ALWAYS be EXCEPTIONS to it, but that does not mean that the process of AA, as the SUPREME COURT recognized, is flawed FATALLY. Social scientist caution using an exception if the OVERALL trend says otherwise. In fact, that the Supreme Court gave society 25 years to even the "playing field", is eveidence of that, as well as those attitudes evidenced in posts on the topic on CC who still feel the way you do.</p>
<p>This is in respnse to a post deleted by Greenfish that asks me what parellel universe I live in:</p>
<p>The parallel universe is World History, American History, East Asian History, Archeology, Religion, and Evolutionary Biology.</p>
<p>One set of Grandparents came from Japan via Hawaii, where the MAJORITY are Asian, so I am VERY aware that Asians can be oppressive to other RACES...so much so that there is a social HIERARCHY to it. Chinese/Japanese/Koreans/Fillipinos...that is the hierarchy, and that mirrors the patter of HISTORIC IMMIGRATION. The groups that DISPLACE the low wage worker in each successive wave falls to the BOTTOM and is usually a social pariah, except within their community. </p>
<p>This PATTERN also can be traced in WORLD HISTORY no matter the country. Those cultures that were displaced had their myths, cities, and inhabitants destroyed or turned into slaves. BTW there are DIFFERENT types of OPPRESSION, that include the SOCIO-ECONOMIC. So, I don't believe I live much in a parallel universe. I only know that there was a large influx of Southeast Asians from about 1968-on, that Southeast Asian and South Asia groups have moved to other states besides California, that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, and that the US punished American citizens for it for starters. What "parallel" universe are you living in? You've got to be jesting, right?!</p>
<p>I SEE that besides POSTING interesting responses to this THREAD, Isleboy also ENJOYS employing headachingly liberal USE of the CAPS option.</p>
<p>Valentina: </p>
<p>Cool that you noticed...at least you read the thread. It sort of mirrors the intesity with which I disagree with some of the logic on AA. ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Cool that you noticed...at least you read the thread. It sort of mirrors the intesity with which I disagree with some of the logic on AA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>NO problem; I MOSTLY agree. ;)</p>
<p>i have a feeling that this thread is an excuse for people who dont like the system and dont get in or whatever</p>
<p>spend some time productivvely and put it in your app. If aisanns get screwed over, so be it and thats not going to change</p>
<p>^^^ Are you hungover? I've never seen the word "aisanns" spelled so "creatively" before.</p>
<p>Oh, and I'm sure that the many "aisanns" who DO spend years cultivating high GPAs, test scores and certain extracurriculars know how to "spend time productivvely" yet still do not get into schools that if they were any other race they would have.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If aisanns get screwed over, so be it and thats not going to change
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's really the best attitude to have about things, actually. Whenever something is unfair and wrong, just let it go and try not to enforce change. I'm sure that mentality gets you really far in life Antarius! You are so good at giving advice!</p>
<p>Actually, difficulty for Asian applicants is due in part to their view of status with respect to college. Making distinctions between those who have been advantaged versus disadvantaged is a good, not a bad thing because it gives context to an applicants situation. </p>
<p>Test scores and grades sometimes do not necessarily reveal innate intelligence, and the better school districts are moving away from AP tests because teacher are teaching to it, at the expence of "real" thinking and analysis.</p>
<p>Assuming that high test scores or grades necessarily correlate to intelligence is a little short-sighted and something that sarcasm or attacking affirmative action cannot hide.</p>
<p>PS--notice that few tackle the inequity of inner city schools and suburban schools? Or talk about how people can be opportunistic when it comes to something they want?</p>
<p>No one has, as of yet, found an argument against or even commented on my post about ommiting race on the application. Does that mean it's so right it can't be denied :).</p>
<p>^^^^ If race and "ethnic names" were ommitted from applications, Asians (including Indians, Pakistanis) would make up the majority of Ivy League universities instead of whites, and there would be even fewer blacks and Hispanics in top colleges than there already are, unless .</p>
<p>Affirmative-action should be economically-based, because there are a lot of VERY poor Asian (and white) kids that are nevertheless high-achieving. And there are many Hispanic and African-Americans who are middle-class or upper-class, going to the same great high schools and having access to the same SAT tutors etc as wealthy white people, who do not actually merit affirmative action the same as a poor black or Hispanic person who have less "accomplished" applications but had to go overcome more obstacles.</p>
<p>Ooops, I think I just offended a bunch of people...</p>
<p>A majority? Absolutely not.</p>
<p>Dudes, I'm not talking about changing anything. I'm just saying that on all the applications that I've done so far, listing your race is optional, and being Asian, I simply ommited that section.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A majority? Absolutely not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe not a majority, but close. Berkeley and Caltech (which is currently ranked within the Top Ten) are already at over 40%. </p>
<p>And think about it: if they could, would the large numbers of highly qualified Asians who enroll at the UCs/Cal Tech or other top non-Ivy League schools pick those over an acceptance at an Ivy League school? How many Asian families, if their kid was accepted based on their academic and extracurricular merit to Harvard, would pick UCLA over Harvard?</p>
<p>I think if Harvard, Yale Princeton etc had ethnicity-blind admissions, acceptance and enrollment of Asians in those schools would be at least twice as much percentage wise as they are now, and the numbers of very bright Asian kids that had to settle for in-state tuition at the UCs or CalTech would be lower.</p>