<p>^^^
again, lots of wisdom from what Bay is saying. it seems to me that a lot of Asians on here go to schools where there are plenty of other Asians so they never really feel like a minority. </p>
<p>i’m black and go to a decent private school in the midwest that occassionaly sends students to students top schools. out of 1100 students, only 3% are black, 1% latino, and >1% Asian (no Asians in my grade), Indian (only one Indian kid in the whole school right now). the rest is white. like beefs, i am the only minority that is taking AP classes, etc. though i’m friends with almost everyone and was even voted VP of NHS by my peers, it sucks not having more people like me at my school to relate to.</p>
<p>DTdad: Thank you for the eloquent, thought-provoking post… Yours is one of the best defenses of the “holistic” admissions process that I’ve read.</p>
<p>I’m still not entirely convinced that matters like race need to be acknowledged on a contextual level, though. If for no other reason, the policies are beginning to have an adverse effect on the mindsets of some American-born Asian students. I’ve tutored middle- and high-school Asian kids who have been discouraged, feeling like they are trapped between the cultural expectations for an “elite” college and the admissions policies that expect them to perform that much better than their peers of other races. Obviously there’s an argument to be made about how the Asian-American mindset towards colleges could use some change (and sure, some of these kids are using AA as their excuse to give up early and be lazy, but others seem to be legitimiately worried). But I just don’t see how an overtly race-grounded admissions policy is going to lead to more open doors and racial equality. The way the system is publicized now, we have weekly threads on CC where students ask if “being a [insert nationality here] will help or hurt”; we have URMs who seem to feel mistakenly entitled to top-school acceptances based on mediocre scores/grades and their race (HUGE disclaimer here- for every such person I’ve seen, I’ve seen a dozen more hardworking students who’d never try to exploit the system), and we have an entire generation of Asian students who are dislliusioned and bitter (again, perhaps overly so) about the way things are ‘stacked against them.’ And it’s not the sort of sentiment that disappears once students arrive on their diverse campuses…at my school, there are even Facebook groups for ‘token minorities’ and ‘anti-AA Asians.’ I guess my biggest problem with AA is that I’ve never quite understood what tangible benefits it is bringing to the college setting… in some ways it seems to create even more of a divide, rather than foster racial understanding or whatnot. </p>
<p>I actually agree with you about hard work and test scores… I know quite a few people like the friend you describe. I think I just brought that up to refute something Newjack said earlier.</p>
<p>Newjack: I’d like to imagine that the examples those accomplished people set are the kinds which are not specific to, and altogether transcend things like race. But I suppose your comment is true :)</p>
<p>Tyler: I seem to recall that I once asked you to list tangible benefits of AA from your own experience. You claimed that you learned a lot about the cultures and experiences of other racial groups through Affirmative Action. For someone who has made such a claim, you seem astonishingly closed-minded about the Asian cultural experience. I hope you won’t be offended if I point out that the arbitrary insertion of words like “dumb” and “idiotic” isn’t helping your argument.</p>
<p>Edit – Bay: I’ve very often been the only female in my study group, and one of only two or three in a thirty-person class, in a subject area that males are traditionally “better at”. I don’t suppose that’s quite the same… but for what it’s worth, I’ll state firmly that it has never mattered to me. (And if it’s mattered to any of my classmates, they’ve been so kind as to not let me know.)</p>
<p>Uh, when did I ever say that the football players were worth nothing? Please point to the quote where I specifically said that. Can’t do it, can you?</p>
<p>What I am saying is that both public and private schools make political admissions decisions. Some public schools, like UCBerkeley and UCLA, make football a strong priority. Other schools in the same UC system, like UCDavis and UCIrvine, make it less of a priority. In other words, a star football player who is relatively weak academically may actually be more likely to get into Berkeley than into UCDavis, which is rather ironic considering that Berkeley is generally a more selective school. </p>
<p>THAT is a political decision. Note, I didn’t say that there was anything necessarily wrong with it. I am simply pointing out that that is a political decision, nothing more, nothing less. It is no more of a political decision than Ivies choosing students because of race. These are ALL political decisions.</p>
<p>Hence, we are left with the question that I raised before - why are we singling out Ivies for making political decisions, when public schools also make political decisions? If you don’t like political admissions, we should condemn ALL political admissions, including the ones made by public schools.</p>
<p>Even if you want to concentrate specifically on race-based AA, I should point out that the vast majority of public schools still use race-based AA. Only a handful of states have specifically banned race-based AA in its public school, and there is still a running debate about whether schools in those states are still using it on the sly. But nevertheless, the vast majority of public schools still run AA. How should an Asian guy who wants to enter a top-ranked public school like, say, the University of Virginia, feel if he gets rejected because the school would rather take a lower-scoring black applicant? How is that any different than the AA run by the Ivies? </p>
<p>So, again, I completely fail to see why we are singling out the Ivies or singling out the private schools. Pray tell, what exactly are the Ivies doing that many public schools are not?</p>
<p>Want to discuss it further? Sure. How exactly did Jason Kidd get into Berkeley? I believe his SAT score and high school record made him technically ineligible for admissions to any UC, which is supposed to be reserved to only the top 12.5% of all California high school students. Yet Kidd got in. And when he was there, most students intuitively knew that he wasn’t really studying particularly hard, that he was really “majoring in basketball”. </p>
<p>But think about what that means. In order to admit Kidd, Berkeley had to turn down some other applicant who presumably was, if nothing else, at least academically UC-eligible. How do you think that guy felt? </p>
<p>Want a few more examples? How about Kyle Boller, Aaron Rodgers, JJ Arrington? Again, trust me, none of these guys were exactly superstars in the classroom. Yet Berkeley turned down people to admit those guys. Similarly, UCLA has admitted a laundry list of players who weren’t academically strong. How would it feel to be an Asian guy who is academically strong who nonetheless got rejected from UCLA because the school needed to restock its basketball team?</p>
sorry i cant “trust” you. give me links to their “not so superstar” transcripts or proof of your claim. second, the difference between you and me is that you think all “political” decisions that colleges make are wrong, be it accepting a black kid with an 1810 over an asian with a 2100, or accepting Jason Kidd over a better California student. I dont. A lot if not most of the time, there are other circumstances behind that black kid’s 1810. I’ve been to Virginia, specifically Richmond, and when i drove around for a bit, it was obvious that the poorest areas of the city were populated by african americans. Like i said, even if you don’t take test prep courses into account, the quality of an education most definitely correlates with how well someone does on a test. Do you think a black kid in poor Richmond area’s is gonna know the definition of “munificent” for example as readily as a white kid from TJ county. Absolutely not.
As for Jason Kidd and other athletes favored by college in the admissions process. This is what you said</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What exactly does “one less spot” mean? Isn’t any applicant admitted one less spot for the rest of the applicant pool? I hope you don’t mean that these football players have undeservedly gained entrance to a selective insitution because these athletes have worked just as hard or even harder at sports than most kids at academics in selective schools. All-american athletes have to wake up on saturdays and practice, lift weights, enter tournaments, maintain their body build during the offseason and do countless other things at the same time. Berkeley has an endowment of 3.5 billion dollars. Do you honestly think that a huge number like that was in no way influenced by the success of its athletic teams?</p>
<p>This is a false statement. In-state students having a minimum GPA of 3.0 plus appropriate test scores on a sliding scale are eligible for UC admission.</p>
<p>BTW, the UC system also provides for “eligibility by exception” and “eligibility by examination,” in addition to the ^^^above path to admission. These alternative pathways to admission are included on the linked page in post #86.</p>
<p>“Jason Kidd of the New Jersey Nets did poorly in the SATs. I don’t remember the exact SAT score but it was bad enough for him to retake the SAT and get the minimum score (at least). Otherwise, he would not be allowed into Cal Berkeley to play basketball”</p>
<p>As far as Berkeley and Cal athletes in general, consider this:</p>
<p>“Both schools had 16 players who had offers from the other school, so that helped somewhat. What’s noticeable here is that the average GPAs for these common recruits was exactly 2.9,”</p>
<p>Now, you tell me, how many non-athletes do you think are going to be able to get into UCLA or Berkeley with a 2.9 GPA? Be honest. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, when did I ever say that I thought they were wrong. Please point to the quote where I specifically said that I thought they were wrong. You can’t do it because I never said it, so stop trying to put words in my mouth.</p>
<p>What I said is that, whether you think the decision is right or wrong, these are still political decisions. Maybe it’s a right political decision. Maybe it’s a wrong political decision. That’s a matter of opinion. But what is inescapable is that it is a political decision.</p>
<p>I’ll make the example even more stark. Oklahoma State admitted Dexter Manley to play football. Later in his life, after his NFL career, Manley revealed that he didn’t even know how to read. Now, I think that demonstrates quite starkly the nature of the politics behind the admission of Manley by OSU, for OSU determined that, despite his academic shortcomings, the school needed him to play ball. Is that right? Is that wrong? I am not making any determination. I am simply saying that it was political. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course! ** That is precisely my point**. An Asian kid being denied from a school because it would rather admit a black kid is no different from an Asian kid being denied because the school would rather admit a football player. To that Asian kid, it’s the same thing. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, let’s not also forget that they are getting paid full scholarships + stipends for doing what they are doing. They also have a shot at making it to the NFL. Hey, I wouldn’t mind putting in all the time that they put in if I also was able to get paid to go to college, and had a shot (however small) at getting paid millions right out of school. </p>
<p>The point is, we shouldn’t be crying for the football players. They’re not playing for free. They are getting a very sweet deal. Most Berkeley students have to go into debt or get their parents to foot the bill. These players are getting paid to go to Berkeley. Now, I am not saying that they shouldn’t get that. In fact, I am not saying anything one way or another. I am simply saying that we should respect the fact that they are getting compensated for their time. </p>
<p>And besides, look at it this way. Nothing says that a Berkeley football player has to continue to play. If he doesn’t want to put in the practice time, if he doesn’t want to keep in shape, if he doesn’t want to do any of those things you mentioned, fine, he is free to quit the team at any time. He’ll lose his scholarship. But he’ll still be a Berkeley student because they had already admitted him and they’re not going to rescind his admission just because he’s not on the team anymore. Every player has the option to quit the team and just become a regular Berkeley student. The fact that they rarely do that must mean that they believe that putting in all that work you mentioned (in return for being on the team and having a scholarship) is better than not putting in that work. Hence, they’re making a free choice.</p>
<p>Think about it. Where does that sliding scale come from? It comes from a calculation of what it really means to be in that top 12.5% of California high school students. </p>
<p>Perhaps the following blurb will clear things up for you:</p>
<p>“The GPA change was made as part of the University’s efforts to keep the pool of UC-eligible students consistent with the target set out in the California Master Plan for Higher Education. That plan specifies that only the top 12.5 percent of California high school graduates should be considered eligible for UC admission”</p>
why wouldn’t this hypothetical Asian complain about the school accepting a lower-scoring white, or even fellow Asian? how would this person even know that the blacks and latinos that were admitted were less qualified than him without assuming it? it sounds to me that this person is prejudiced if not racist.</p>
<p>also, sakky, using Jason Kidd as an example to prove your point doesn’t really help your case… first of all, i doubt that Kidd was as poor of a student as you’re claiming. second, you do realize that Jason Kidd is an 8-time NBA All-Star? it’s not like UCLA admitted a mediocre basketball player; they admitted one of the greatest basketball players of all time… it’s no different than Harvard/Yale/etc. admitting a virtuoso musician, or are you against that too?</p>
<p>I don’t know. First of all, I’m not sure that Berkeley’s athletic teams, or at least, the money-generating teams have been all that successful. The 2 money sports are football and men’s basketball. Cal’s men’s basketball team has been rather mediocre under Ben Braun, not only not making the NCAA tournament, they didn’t even make the NIT. Cal football hasn’t qualified for the Rose Bowl in nearly 50 years, and hasn’t won the Rose Bowl in 70 years.</p>
<p>To be sure, plenty of Cal’s non-revenue-generating sports, like water polo and rugby, win plenty of titles. But like I said, those sports aren’t exactly money machines. Far from it, in fact. I don’t know too many boosters who are donating money to support the Cal rugby team. </p>
<p>And besides, if you want to talk about endowment, then ask yourself why are Harvard and Yale ranked #1 and 2 according to endowment size when neither of them have played serious championship-caliber sports for decades? MIT is sitting on a $10 billion endowment. How many people have donated money to MIT because of the sports teams? The University of Chicago has a $6 billion endowment. Are sports a big deal there? Hence, it seems to me that a school can grow quite a large endowment without a major sports commitment.</p>
<p>In the previous posts on this thread, it was assumed implicitly that an Asian guy got rejected from an Ivy for a less qualified black. Now, how did that Asian guy know that he was rejected for a less qualified black? </p>
<p>Again, you are simply reinforcing my point. I see no difference between the Ivies running AA and a public school running AA. It’s the same thing. Note, I didn’t say that it was wrong. I simply said that it was the same. Whether it is the same and right, or the same and wrong, is up to you. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For the umpteenth time, I have never said that I am “against” anything. When have I ever said that I was “against” these practices? ** If you disagree, then point to the quote where I specifically said that I opposed these practices. ** Oh, can’t do it? That’s because I never said it. </p>
<p>I am simply demonstrating that these are all the same thing - that these are all political decisions. Maybe the political decisions are right. Maybe they’re wrong. I am not judging whether they are right or wrong. I am simply saying that they are political. </p>
<p>So whether Kidd should have gotten into Cal (he went to Cal, not UCLA) or not is up to you. I didn’t say it was necessarily wrong. I just said that it was a political decision made by Cal.</p>
what is the point of this? it’s not hard to figure out that a student with a 2.9 GPA who has nothing special about him or her won’t get into a top school like UCLA or Berkeley. the student in this hypothetical example is mediocre in all dimensions… i hope you realize that?</p>
<p>
ok, beefs is right not to trust you. you are making a rather convenient omission of detail… Manley was functionally illiterate. there is a pretty significant difference between being completely illiterate and functionally illiterate. also, Dexter Manley went on to become a rather successful football player… two Super Bowl wins… not a big deal or anything though.</p>
<p>
uh… a vast majority of athletes don’t get full scholarships. you are just wrong here. also, “Hey, I wouldn’t mind putting in all the time that they put in if I also was able to get paid to go to college, and had a shot (however small) at getting paid millions right out of school,” i hope you are just joking…
in case you’re not: it’s very difficult to go professional in any sport. you have to be truly exceptional to go pro.</p>
<p>
a lot of athletes do sports because they like them; they didn’t just do them so that they could list them as one of their high school activities. also, it seems to me that you don’t know very many scholar athletes, as shown by the negative stereotypes you have utilized in your posts and your general animosity/lack of understanding towards them. just so you know a majority of recruited athletes use college sports as a means to obtain an education; some use it to obtain once in a lifetime opportunities, like the opportunity to go pro in a sport. in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with eithe scenario.</p>
<p>thanks for posting those articles:
from the JockBio article:
“Golden State coach Don Nelson and UCLA coach Jim Harrick both went on record saying he had the talent to bypass college.” hope you realize that. :)</p>
<p>EDIT:
i think it is more what you have been implying… but w/e.</p>
<p>i didn’t read this massive thread in its entirety, but I don’t think that asians have had it that easy, either. Asians were actually the only race to be straight-out banned from immigrating by the US gov’t (denis kearney, chinese exclusion act that was not repealed until the 1940s, and even then, they were only allowed to immigrate in limited numbers; and later on, gentleman’s agreement with Japan). The asian immigrants that came over were often harassed, terrorized, killed, etc; there was even some court case (US v kim wong ark?) that questioned the citizenship of asian immigarnts. They’ve definitely had their fair share of discrimination.
I’m not asian, by the way. Just thinking.</p>
<p>Irish, Italians, German, Jewish, women, gays, disabled were often “harassed, terrorized, killed, etc,” and discriminated against as well. But they were never enslaved.</p>
<p>Uhh, what do school resources have to do w/ admitting a more geographically diverse student body? (Besides, I am talking about a small, select group of schools – and mid-West schools like Northwestern, UChicago and WUSTL have some of the largest resources/endowments – not to mention state universities such as UMichigan, UWisconsin, etc.)</p>
<p>I am talking about the overly high concentration of Jews at the Ivy Leagues – all of which purportedly take into account geographic diversity. </p>
<p>Almost 45% of Jews live in the NE (for non-adults – that figure rises to 50%).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhh, duh!!! </p>
<p>Re-read what I had written.</p>
<p>Or better yet, let me simplify it for you. </p>
<p>Admissions officers at IL colleges defend taking such a high % of children of black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean b/c they say they are interested in having a cultural diversity (instead of having, say – a “non-descript” black American). </p>
<p>Otoh, these same admissions officers end up selecting Asian-American applicants who tend to come from basically 3 Asian ethnicities (Korean, Chinese and Japanese) – many of whom are “whitewashed” (i.e. – culturally no different from your typical white American).</p>
<p>If these admissions officers were using “cultural diversity” for Asian-Am applicants the SAME way as they do for black applicants – they would be selecting more Asian-Am applicants from other Asian ethnicities (which are underrepresented), as well as selecting more Asian-Am applicants who have stronger cultural ties to their ethnic background.</p>
<p>And why do you think Jewish students dominate the % of whites at the Ivies?
Is it b/c they are inherently smarter than their non-Jewish counterparts, or could it be that they just happen to more studious overall?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhh, I suggest doing some reading/research on this topic (plus, this topic has already been covered here before).</p>
<p>Uhh, what difference would that make to the issue at hand?</p>
<p>And LOL! – for the record, I’m probably the poster-boy of “whitewashed” – whatever that means (grew up w/ primarily white friends/dated white girls – had more black and non-white Hispanic friends than Asian – and in fact, didn’t have a close Asian friend ‘til I got to grad school, was a “jock/frat-boy” in college, etc.)</p>
<p>Gee, could I be “ranting” about this b/c I care about getting more equality into the system – even tho, such reforms would have been against my personal interests (much less that of any future kids of mine)?</p>
<p>Please – is this the best thing you can come up with – pfffft!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>FB players and other athletes (esp. in the “major” sports) will always have a place reserved for them.</p>
<p>Plus, it’s not like there haven’t been a decent no. of Asian FB players at places like USC to Texas A&M to Harvard.</p>
<p>With regard to Harvard – there were about 30 Asian-Am athletes on Harvard’s varsity teams last year (including the top hockey player on both the men’s and women’s teams).</p>
<p>This year, Harvard has 3 Asians on its FB squad (including the starting RB) and has an Asian starter on the men’s BB team.
Athletics doesn’t really play a role in this debate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhh, tyler – before you keep making the same ill-informed posts (that’s what’s laughable) – maybe you should get your facts correct first.</p>
<p>Asian-Ams make up 17-18% of the Ivy League student body. You are thinking about Jewish students who make up nearly 30% of the student body at the Ivies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those groups were all able to become “white” - something that Asians can never do by changing their names, etc.</p>
<p>And unlike African-Americans who are seen as Americans, Asians (particularly AMs) are still seen as the “perpetual foreigner”).</p>
<p>^ No REPORTED Asians make up 18-20% of Ivy student bodies.
A lot of those schools have a 15-20% “unreported” race group. And i think it would be safe to say based on motives and people’s observations of ivy league student bodies that more than half of those who went unreported were Asian students. </p>
<p>You could have just asked me where i got it from before you called my post ill informed and incorrect, of which my post is neither. But its cool, you can take it as a learning experience :]</p>
<p>anyway, the point was that the argument that these other groups that faced “discrimination” should get “free points to college” is completely bogus and founded in ignorance.</p>
Just thinking.</p>