<p>
</p>
<p>Disclaimer: I love American and Chinese history as well as the Western Canon.</p>
<p>Having said that, I think [this</a> XKCD comic](<a href=“http://xkcd.com/451/]this”>xkcd: Impostor) answers your thoughts in a nice if comic way.</p>
<p>xkcd as CC support! 
I love it.</p>
<p>epiphany - fabrizio and monstor have said all that I would have said in response to your post. I, for one, do not believe in the absurd racism that you attribute to the diversity of voices in one side of this debate. Even if you were to provide supporting quotes, which I somehow doubt as I’ve read the entire thread and don’t recall saying anything remotely like that–you cannot take the opinions of one person and assume that everyone on the same “side” (in the most general sense) agrees. I similarly would not attribute your statements to Hunt or Bay, who are on your “side.”</p>
<p>Post 360:
I see. I’m both “irrational” and “obstinate” because I don’t agree with monstor’s favorite theories, suppositions, assumptions, people, etc.</p>
<p>(Don’t think I’m the one being irrational.)</p>
<p>While we’re on the subject, I think the XKCD comic about subject “pureness” is awesome (you know…the one with the mathematician standing all the way at the right).
<a href=“http://xkcd.com/435/[/url]”>http://xkcd.com/435/</a>
But seriously, there are no “best” majors.</p>
<p>
Believe me; I am far from close-minded when it comes to hearing opposing opinions. Heck, before I even came onto CC I was a mild supporter of racial affirmative action; granted this was before I really looked into it. The thing is that my major assumptions are that the studies I’ve referenced are by in-large true and that “stereotype” arguments and “Asian dominance” arguments are greatly exaggerated (the latter is merely based on the assumption of the validity of the Espenshade study). Similarly based on my trust of the Espenshade study (which I will quote):
My final assumption is that one has to go with the simplest and most logical hypothesis until a better hypothesis arises or until the initial hypothesis is disproved. It looks like my deadly assumptions continue to point in the same direction.</p>
<p>Your assumptions? These studies are not useful and Asians and almost exclusively Asians are racist. Now tell me, where does my final assumption that you are being obstinate on this issue falter?</p>
<p>^^^ While I would not choose the same adjectives as monstor, I believe s/he was referring to what you “pick up about the superrior[sic]-than-thou voices on the thread.” You provided no support for your claims of equivalency, which might well lead readers to believe you irrational (the opposite of rational, based on reason and sound judgment). Frankly, if post #355 is illustrative of your judgment skills, I am disappointed, because you display otherwise perfectly sound reasoning in other threads. For example:</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=epiphany]
What I find not helpful about threads like these is their overbroad generalizations.
[/quote]
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063352892-post40.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063352892-post40.html</a></p>
<p>Actually I was referring to I think what is now 3 threads of “playful” disagreement with epiphany on this very issue when I used those adjectives. :-P</p>
<p>The question that I’d like to pose is this: If there were three students, Asian, African American, and white who hypothetically had identical grades and EC’s, how many people out there would say that the African American would have the easiest chance getting in and the Asian having the hardest?</p>
<p>Mike, I would not agree that “Asians have the hardest (time).” There’s has been no demonstration of that. Nor does the E&C demonstrate that. The E&C study demonstrated test result discrepancies between accepted Asian students and accepted others. Nowhere do the Elites say that one score or a score differential “qualifies” one more for entrance than another score. Everything is taken in context and compared. (A student of any race with outstanding scores and an unchallenging program, even if all A’s, obviously is not valued as much.) There’s no such thing as a stand-alone (or stand-“above”) value of a score.</p>
<p>I would say that Asians and whites have an equally difficult time being admitted, assuming all the variables you state, unless there is a particularly large volume of one group’s applications. That group will “suffer” the most in results, because of the U’s desire for a balanced class on all measures. But as I have said many times, ultimately they will never sacrifice excellence for balance as a stand-alone value. They have to weigh: will this larger admission number of this one group or region or gender or whatever, yield a more excellent class in this particular case?</p>
<p>
The E&C stipulates that the removal of racial biases would significantly increase Asian representation at top schools while Caucasian representation would essentially remain stagnant. These conclusions are based from the data collected. Are we to suggest that these conclusions are incorrect simply because test scores are not necessarily indicative of higher qualifications? On an individual to individual basis you have a point but we are measuring trends here. Context is irrelevant because in order to even look that deep into a score you have to consider the score itself first as a starting point; once again, we are looking at the broad picture.</p>
<p>"what is an “easy or fluffy major.”</p>
<p>A major that has no earning potential. If you read my post, I wrote that I have the data for 09 class at one of those 7 schools. I don’t want to spend time to please you - you will dismiss it anyway.</p>
<p>Why is it worst stereotype? Because it offends you? How do you think Asians feel when you all lump them as science nerds, violin playing geeks? yeah they are in band but they play woodwinds not brass. Yeah they play tennis but not baseball.</p>
<p>First, scores are not the only quantifiable reason people are admitted to college- E.cs, well-roundedness and good essays matter also. So, no, you cannot say that because Asians have higher scores on the SAT- they would be more highly reprsented at elite colleges. That’s like considering factor X without factor Y. Next. as epiphany said- if more asians apply to ivies then they will suffer similarly as if more hispanic people applied to ivies the other hispanics wil suffer. Ivies want a balanced class and frankly so do students. A college full of white men wasn’t really expanding the social horizons of the students. That’s why Asians,Hispanics and Black people were allowed to be admitted.
Diversity is good; because it increases the chance that HYPMSCs will find the next world leader. And that leader may be asian or black or hispanic but if the university uses AA to accept all demographics of inteligent students then University A increases its chance of finding the next leader.</p>
<p>^ Which group is too numerous in these current figures? </p>
<p>[College</a> Search - Harvard College - At a Glance](<a href=“College Search - BigFuture | College Board”>College Search - BigFuture | College Board) </p>
<p>(Scroll down to see ethnicity and race percentages.)</p>
<p>As I have said previously, though perhaps not in this thread, I applaud the admirable goal of diversity. But diversity must be achieved without violating the law. Even colleges purport to believe in the principle of nondiscrimination; I’ve yet to come across one that doesn’t say, quite explicitly, that it does not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, disability, et al. So, the question becomes one of whether Asians are “suffering” in the application pool to a greater extent than they would IF they were not Asian. University A must settle for increasing its chance of finding the next world leader by legal means.</p>
<p>I would suspect Simba that the engineering students you think so highly of would find those “easy, fluffy” majors quite difficult. Different strengths, doesn’t mean Classics would be any easier for your son than engineering would be for my daughter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmmm, glad you clarified that. Easy or fluffy equals poor, Engineering/science or whatever you definition of non-fluff equals money. Okay, I get it. Sad, but I get it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That interpretation is not borne out of Espenshade and Chung’s 2005 results. All the oft-cited “score differentials” were based on a non-legacy non-athlete white applicant as the benchmark. Espenshade and Chung found that being Asian is worth the equivalent of fifty fewer SAT points. That in no way suggests “an equally difficult time.”</p>
<p>The recent Espenshade study discussed in the opening post found that “Whites were three times as likely to get fat envelopes as Asians [with similar grades, scores, athletic qualifications, and family history].” Again, how does that suggest an “equally difficult time”?</p>
<p>Lastly, even academic critics of Espenshade and Chung’s 2005 paper do not dispute that Asians have a harder time than equally qualified whites. Jerry Kang, Frank Wu, and William Kidder’s chief criticism of Espenshade and Chung centers around a conceptual issue: to them, there is a difference between “negative” action (ie. treating Asians worse than equally qualified whites) and “affirmative” action (ie. giving preference to protected minorities). They claim that it is “negative” action that has a detrimental effect on Asian enrollment, not “affirmative” action.</p>
<p>Once again I am confused by the push for RACIAL diversity. Can anyone elaborate what makes racial diversity more valuable than international, socioeconomic, or location (city vs. rural, state by state, etc) diversity, keeping in mind that these latter three are more often than not the main determinants of cultural diversity? I am for diversity myself but I want to see the right kind of diversity being reached. So please, I am interested in hearing somebody make the case for racial diversity over these other three which can be reasonably achieved without following arguably racist procedures.</p>
<p>^ And before someone brings up historical remedies again, by law the ONLY legal rationale for affirmative action is to increase diversity.</p>
<p>I think race based affirmative action should be replaced with socio-economic based affirmative action. (the poor kid gets in before the rich kid)</p>
<p>If the poor kid gets in before the rich kid, but the poor kid can’t pay the tuition, either the college foots the bill or the kid declines. Otherwise a good idea.</p>