<p>^
Learning</a> to Stand Out Among the Standouts (washingtonpost.com)</p>
<p>Princeton; 12 percent
Dartmouth; 12 percent
Yale; 13 percent
Columbia; 14 percent
Brown; 14 percent</p>
<p>Granted, these numbers are a couple years out of date, but I doubt the demographics have shifted that dramatically since.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Even if the student was exceptional, he still wouldn't get in, if he just happened to be exceptional in a field that the school doesn't really care about.</p>
<p>I'll give you an example. One of my friend's cousins was a championship chess player. As a high school student, he was nationally ranked in the junior standings at one time. But, by his own admission, he was also not a particularly good student. He was smart, but he also freely admits that while he worked very hard on his chess, he was quite lazy and immature when it came to his schoolwork, and hence had mediocre high school grades. As a result, he didn't get into Berkeley. </p>
<p>But a top high school football or basketball player can get into Berkeley with mediocre grades. That's because Berkeley cares about football/basketball, but not chess. But why? My friend's cousin is ostensibly just as impressive in chess as those athletes are at playing ball. So what's the difference? Why should one get in, but not the other? Why should one type of exceptionalism be any more deserving than other types of exceptionalism? </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course it's a big deal. Lots of people can go on to be successful at whatever field they are in, but that doesn't mean that they deserve admission to a top school ex-ante. What does that have to do with anything? Like, again, my friend's cousin might have potentially become a national or even world chess champion in the future. But Berkeley didn't care about that. Berkeley rejected him. </p>
<p>And besides, I think you should be able to tell that I am only using examples of famous athletes that we all know. As I'm sure we can agree, the vast majority of college football/basketball players will never make it to the pros. Heck, even at a football 'factory school' like Michigan or USC, only at most 25% of the players will ever make it to an NFL roster. What about all those players who don't make it? Of course, that means that they're not famous. </p>
<p>Heck, plenty of players don't even get to start on their college team, but are relegated to be backup players for their entire college years. What about all of them? Should schools be providing preferential admissions to them? </p>
<p>Note, again, I am not stating an opinion one way or another. I am not necessarily saying that it's wrong. I am just putting forth the facts and asking questions. </p>
<p>
[quote]
uh... a vast majority of athletes don't get full scholarships. you are just wrong here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I believe we were talking football. Non-walk-on football players get full scholarships. </p>
<p>
[quote]
"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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am not joking in the least. Forget about the chance of turning pro. I would still put in all the time that football players play just to get a free ride. Heck, I would probably even do it for a partial scholarship. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>On the contrary, I have actually worked with MANY former college athletes. And THEY are the ones who are actually saying these things. One guy, who is actually a good friend of mine, freely admits that the only reason he got into college was to play football. He freely admits that he wasn't a very good student, either in high school or in college. Those are his words, not mine.</p>
<p>Or consider what Jim Harbaugh, current head coach of the Stanford football team, had to say about the University of Michigan, his own alma mater.</p>
<p>"“Michigan is a good school and I got a good education there,” he said, “but the athletic department has ways to get borderline guys in and, when they’re in, they steer them to courses in sports communications. They’re adulated when they’re playing, but when they get out, the people who adulated them won’t hire them.”"</p>
<p>Dickey:</a> Harbaugh can resurrect the Cardinal - Examiner.com</p>
<p>I can come up with a similar laundry list of quotes of college administrators and sportswriters who have discussed the corrosion of college admissions and sports. Hence, it is hardly just me that is saying these types of things. These things have been noted by many people. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Trust me, I am well aware of what happens in college sports. </p>
<p>Ask yourself, why is it that the Cal football and (especially) Cal men's basketball teams have such low graduation rates? Note, it's not because players are just leaving for the pros early. The way the NCAA calculates graduation rates is by excluding those players who leave in good academic standing. Yet the fact remains that only 52% of Cal's football players and only 33% of Cal's basketball players leave Cal in good academic standing. </p>
<p>You tell me what that means. In particular, it should be noted that only a small fraction of Cal athletes make it to the NFL/NBA. So what happens to those athletes who don't leave in good academic standing and who don't make it to the NFL/NBA?</p>
<p>^its actually pretty bad what happens to those that don't make it.</p>
<p>If they were smart they got a degree in education and go on to become high school sport coaches.</p>
<p>If they weren't they end up pulling odd jobs and are basically no better off then if they hadn't gone to college in the first place.</p>
<p>They don't really tell you about that part though, they're really doing a majority of those kids a disservice by admitting them to schools where they aren't able to focus on academics</p>
<p>"Black American scholars such as Henry Louis Gates and Lani Guinier, two Harvard University professors, have said that white educators are skirting long-held missions to resolve historic wrongs against native black Americans by enrolling immigrants who look like them.
In an interview, Guinier said that the chasm has less to do with immigrants and more to do with admissions officers who rely on tests that wealthier students, including black immigrants, can afford to prepare for."</p>
<p>Incidentally, Lani Guinier is bi-racial: Her mother was white and Jewish; her dad was a black immigrant from the Caribbean.</p>
<p>
[quote]
6 percent? I doubt it. Rich or poor, white or black, urban or suburban neighborhoods, Asians tend to be the most studious students and even if its not prep courses, most of these kids(because of parents' culture) tend to work alot harder than their counterparts.
[/quote]
Culture or intelectua of their parents. This has some of truth in it. Most the Asian my generation that I knew from working places, are first generation immigrants who mostly come to US for an advanced degree. They often got the undergraduate degree from their home countries, usually from a top colleges there. And Asia countries are known for their firce competetion in cpllege admission.....</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>LOL! Your posts are getting funnier more irrational as time progresses.</p>
<p>Uhh - you stated 30% - any which way you cut it, it's WRONG.</p>
<p>tyler -
[quote]
Especially when despite making up 6% of graduating high school students they make up 30% of ivy league student bodies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And yeah, Asians w/ last names like Chang, Ngyuen, Kim, Mahajan, Woo, etc. can "really hide". Please.</p>
<p>k&s,</p>
<p>You sound like you need anger management counseling. Sorry, but your posts can really get MEAN.</p>
<p>So perhaps the number is closer to 20-25%. I don't think that negates Tyler's argument.</p>
<p>Bay,</p>
<p>This sort of bickering seems pointless, and I'll try to resist doing more of it after this point. But... I can't imagine I'd react too gracefully either if someone tried shoving blatantly incorrect data at me and THEN smugly told me to take it as a "learning experience." </p>
<p>Especially after those same someones needlessly introduced Asian stereotypes into the thread, and called others "dumb," "idiotic," etc. without provocation.</p>
<p>Maybe, just maybe, you missed it when certain pro-AA posters first did those things. Maybe you'd agree that if k&s 'needs anger management', others need it more. Otherwise, this really takes away from the detached objectivity of your earlier posts...</p>
<p>Ethyrial,</p>
<p>Thank you for pointing out that I have discriminated in singling out k&s's posts. I didn't mean to do that. In past dialogues, s/he has used similar condescending terminology (specifically "uhhhs" and "uhh duhs") and I think I reached my breaking point. (No doubt from hearing those same annoying responses from my own teenagers at home :) ). No ill will intended, but k&s could benefit from readjusting his/her attitude on this board, imho.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No ill will intended, but k&s could benefit from readjusting his/her attitude on this board, imho.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed........</p>
<p>To the poster who listed past grievances against African Americans and Hispanics and then claimed that Asians have never been discriminated against in America like that, I have one thing to say to you: Japanese internment. As an American of Japanese ansestry, I would simply like to point you to that little black mark in American history. Or how about the Chinese Exclusion Act? Or the murder of Vincent Chin? Or any other number of grave injustices perpetrated against Asians in America. How dare you marginalize our suffering and assume that, simply because we are an "overrepresented minority group" that we have not suffered. </p>
<p>BTW, Affirmative Action cannot legally be used for any purpose other than to promote diversity; read Gratz v. Bollinger and Gutter v. Bollinger for the specifics of it, but it is very clear that reparations are forbidden.</p>
<p>Yea, Japanese-Americans were forced to pick cotton and crops under intolerable conditions for 200 years too, huh?</p>
<p>from what i've learned about American history, Asians were allowed to immigrate on their own volition whereas Africans were not. Asians were also given the opportunity to assimilate whereas Africans were not. Africans and Native Americans were always seen as the "other" and were even viewed as sub-human. not really sure if anyone can argue against me on this one...</p>
<p>Beefs: So could you please describe how the past suffering of Hispanics in the USA measures up to slavery? If you are implying that AA is somehow meant as a "reparation," it would seem to exclude your own ethnic group in this sense. </p>
<p>Newjack: How about the Asian Exclusion Act? Chinese Exclusion Act? I am not so sure what you mean by "opportunity to assimilate," but Asians were not always allowed to immigrate freely.</p>
<p>Anyway, it's distasteful and altogether irrelevant to split hairs over which race has been discriminated against most...</p>
<p>I'm jewish, and to this point was not aware that it could help (or hurt) ones application. Does it have any effect whatsoever?</p>
<p>Personally, I'm against AA.</p>
<p>About righting the wrongs of history:
From a moral stand point, should people get punished for their ancestors wrongs? Should a third party get wronged for misdeeds that someone's ancestors carried out in the past just correct that misdeed? Imagine for instance you won the a raffle. Now, I have ultimate authority over the raffle and all of its prizes. What if I refused to give you your just prize because I hurt someone in the past and I wanted to make amends with that someone. Would you be upset? Am I in the right to offer the prize to someone who is not the winner based on events in the past? Of course not. Why is affirmative action, based on the argument that Blacks have suffered injustice in the past, any different?</p>
<p>On opportunities of the different ethnicities:
Some people say that Blacks and Latinos often have fewer opportunities than everyone else simply because they are poorer in general. Thus, affirmative action will help a select few rise from the ghettos and climb the American socioeconomic ladder. Well, what about the poor Whites? The poor Asians? The poor Indians? These groups also have very few opportunities but do they get helped through affirmative action? If the goal is to help the poor escape from the shackles of poverty that society has clamped on, why not base affirmative action on economic status rather than race?</p>
<p>About diversity:
I'm going to assume diversity refers to cultural diversity. Regional and economic diversity directly follows cultural diversity since different regions and different financial status create different cultures. Does it really matter all that much? For the most part, I believe people are xenophobic. They are afraid of people different from them. When you put a group of vastly different people together, they tend to self-segregate into smaller groups of people that are similar to one another. Regardless of their skin color, you tend to be friends with people who are culturally similar to you. If you look throughout history, self-segregation has always been present.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some people say that Blacks and Latinos often have fewer opportunities than everyone else simply because they are poorer in general. Thus, affirmative action will help a select few rise from the ghettos and climb the American socioeconomic ladder. Well, what about the poor Whites? The poor Asians? The poor Indians? These groups also have very few opportunities but do they get helped through affirmative action? If the goal is to help the poor escape from the shackles of poverty that society has clamped on, why not base affirmative action on economic status rather than race?
[/quote]
The sad thing is that AA largely doesn’t help African-Americans (or Hispanics) on the lower rung of the socio-economic scale. The vast majority of black students who gain admittance to the elite schools are black Americans from upper-middle class backgrounds or black immigrants who usually have educated parents.</p>
<p>I don’t think AA should be done away with – it just needs to be revamped a bit to help those who actually need the help (i.e. – those who don’t come from advantageous backgrounds).</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm jewish, and to this point was not aware that it could help (or hurt) ones application. Does it have any effect whatsoever?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Generally, no (looking at the percentages of Jews attending the top universities – for example, at some Ivy League universities, it’s as high as 30%). </p>
<p>And other schools like USC, which, although, already had a student body “overrepresented” by Jews (4% of the student body) – hired a recruiting coordinator to increase the % of the Jewish student body (which presently stand at 6%).</p>
<p>However, there are some schools like Princeton which have often been accused of having an anti-Jewish bias. When Princeton adopted a more holistic approach to admissions a no. of years ago, the % of Jewish applicants admitted declined.</p>
<p>
[quote]
from what i've learned about American history, Asians were allowed to immigrate on their own volition whereas Africans were not. Asians were also given the opportunity to assimilate whereas Africans were not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Otoh, Asians are seen as the “perpetual foreigners” while blacks are seen as being American.</p>
<p>All minority groups have suffered from discrimination, etc. – some groups have it worse in certain areas and other groups have it worse in others.</p>
<p>But if AA is to help African-Americans – **why then is it OK for AA to disproportionately help black immigrants from Africa<a href="who%20never%20suffered%20from%20the%20history%20of%20slavery%20in%20America%20and%20the%20social-economic%20conditions%20which%20arose%20out%20of%20it">/b</a> at the top schools?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe, just maybe, you missed it when certain pro-AA posters first did those things. Maybe you'd agree that if k&s 'needs anger management', others need it more. Otherwise, this really takes away from the detached objectivity of your earlier posts...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Astute point.</p>
<p>LOL!! I hardly need anger management.</p>
<p>I just merely get tired of having to correct the same repetitive and unsubtantiated posts (often w/ factual errors) that certain posters make.</p>
<p>And please - my "comments" are pretty accurate for those types of ridiculous posts (plus, it's not those certain posters have attacked me in a much more personal way on the basis of erroneous assumptions).</p>
<p>I just stumbled on to this forum by google. Some of these were ridiculous posts.</p>