<p>Challenging “the system” often requires some sacrifice.</p>
<p>Asian =/= Nerdy engineering loser
White =/= Versatile perfect well-rounded person
URM =/= Freeloading underqualified idiot
Black and Hispanic =/= Lazy stupid athlete</p>
<p>I just had to point that out because a lot of the people who supported AA insisted that Asians are all one-dimensional and exactly the same, which is why they deserve to be rejected from elite colleges. I’m Asian and I play volleyball, basketball, and lacrosse [White sports! Oh no!], and I’m generally good as a novice at other sports. I also do not plan to major in science or engineering, because unbelievably, my interests are not based on my race! What a shocker!</p>
<p>And please, stop supporting your arguments with stereotypes of races. It’s not cool. I’m sure admissions officers attempt to avoid these evil blacks/Hispanics/URMs that you speak of, and I’m certain that they don’t burn with love for all white applicants. They have an academic reputation to keep up; they aren’t going to sully their university with the worst people they can find.</p>
<p>I kind of support AA and kind of hate it. I like that black, Hispanic, and URM people might have better futures and less of a disproportionate poverty level in this country. However, I do not like the fact that AA has nothing to do with your financial background. From the way I see it, if you’re a rich black person and score poorly, as opposed to a poor Asian person who scores highly, then why should the black person still be given preference? But I don’t think that people should actually be penalized for being rich–it’s just that AA-supported minorities should only get the AA boost if they have a bad financial situation. (Because really, wasn’t that the purpose? We don’t do affirmative action to help black people just because they’re black. I thought that a huge part of it was that they wanted to help bring impoverished black people out of the lower class, to balance the economic levels of different races. So aiding black people who are already rich would defeat the purpose.) But this would probably be too complicated, so I don’t really know what we should do.
And, of course, I dislike AA because it does lower my chances, though I am not the stereotypical Asian.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the study is irrelevant, then the person who did not dismiss Li’s complaint as trivial either erred in judgment or is an idiot (or both) since the study was a key piece of evidence in the complaint. Moreover, the two academics who approved the paper also either erred in judgment or are idiots (or both). Generally, irrelevant research isn’t fit for publication.</p>
<p>An invective against their paper would be much more convincing if it referred to a peer-reviewed paper that trashed the study. Fact of the matter is, though, there are no such papers out there, not even after four years.</p>
<p>Bay: How did you know? and Keilexandra your passionate arguments do become weaker when you personally are beneficiary of Affirmative Action.</p>
<p>Bay - I do not believe that only the privileged and/or well-off are entitled to challenge the system without unduly hurting themselves. I have chosen my arena–debate, and writing, because I believe in the power of language. Let it have substantial or little effect, as it may.</p>
<p>I also do not subscribe strength to argument according to the speaker’s personal experiences or inherent qualifications. There is a difference between inherent (race, gender) and earned (PHD) qualifications. (Side note: This is one of my pet peeves in anti-racism discussion, not specifically re: affirmative action. People of color do not necessarily have more brilliant words about racism than white people. Sometimes, oftentimes, but not necessarily. That, too, is a privilege–the privilege of expounding unpopular opinions about anti-racism and being treated as a non-novice, non-idiot by anti-racism activists–that I have used but do not support.)</p>
<p>If my arguments are weakened because I benefited from AA–which I absolutely do, in parts of my particular situation–are all URMs required to not disclose their race on college applications in order to validly speak against affirmative action? I know several in this category (most support a race-blind socioeconomic affirmative action, as I do).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And you should point that out and I agree with you. I also doubt highly that the Elite U’s categorize in such a stereotyped way. As I have pointed out for probably 4 yrs now, on AA threads, there was a time in very recent history that Duke began rejecting “BWRK’s” (bright, well-rounded kids) because they were virtually indistinguishable among themselves. In that case they (BWRK’s) happened to be overwhelmingly white. They weren’t being rejected because of racial categorization; they were rejected for too much similarity with too many other applicants. Too many nerdy engineering types of multiple races are likely to get rejected from top schools – too many of anything. (I’ve certainly met plenty of white young men, for example, this year and last year, who fit that term and are socially awkward to say the least.)</p>
<p>It’s also not true that social awkwardness in any individual of any background is an auto-reject from an Elite. Plenty, plenty of those also get accepted to Elites. Nerdy engineer is a needed category; just not in multiples of 1000.</p>
<p>Well-rounded of any race is also not a formulaic admit, nor is it owned by any racial background.</p>
<p>You speak of categories. The elites do indeed admit by category and will penalize applicants if they are one of a huge group, e.g. BWRKs–and if this group happens to be overwhelmingly white, so be it, SO LONG as Asian or Hispanic or black or Native BWRKs are not given any advantage over white BWRKs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have not followed all your posts closely. What do you mean by AA?</p>
<p>AA = racial affirmative action, with preferences or privileges granted exclusively to someone of a specific race. As an “untypical” Asian interested in the humanities and in rural LACs, I have benefited from pre-application diversity recruitment visits and expect to benefit at least slightly in admissions at a school like Grinnell–a rural Midwestern LAC.</p>
<p>I see. In my mind AA means something else. Are you pro or against AA? Sorry if this question is asked before. Your posts are usually long and the messages are just buried.</p>
<p>
I don’t understand how one counterexample refutes the “stereotype.” If it’s a cultural norm for Asians to play the violin, swim or play tennis, and be interested in math and science, that doesn’t mean that ALL Asians will share those activities. I also don’t know why you equate being interested in engineering with being a “loser.” What I’ve tried to point out is that no college is going to fill itself up with engineers, math majors, or violinists. If (and I repeat If) there is an ethnic group that is less spread out over potential majors and ECs than another ethnic group, that will have an effect on admissions. Why would that be surprising?</p>
<p>ewho - I am against AA, as previously defined. However, I am open to outreach events (e.g. a diversity open house that includes and only funds travel for low-income students) and I fully support socioeconomic affirmative action although I doubt that it will happen any time soon, if ever.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If they want their viewpoints to be taken seriously, I would say so.</p>
<p>Tokenadult is an example of a vehement opponent of AA who strongly advocates that everyone not identify their race on applications. That is a consistent position, imo.</p>
<p>^ Yeah, but our names easily give away our ethnic origins.</p>
<p>^^ Then we shall agree to disagree on this point, for I take anyone seriously as long as their words are comprehensible (OK, subconscious points off for poor style/grammar/capitalization and punctuation) and their opinions rational. I’ve been known to try debating people with irrational opinions, as well, but that usually doesn’t get very far.</p>
<p>Keilexandra, why do you think AA was placed in the first place? In China, the best national universities admit students from different provinces in a similar way like AA. Your father probably would have never gone to college if they were only interested in the people in big cities.</p>
<p>^ Nope. My father did not attend one of “the best national universities”; he attended the Chinese equivalent of a mediocre state U, then was awarded a PHD fellowship to a mediocre state U in Canada. He entered junior high and onward on the sole basis of test results–a selection process that I do not advocate.</p>
<p>In any case, geographic “affirmative action” is also practiced in the U.S., and is not a form of illegal discrimination. Cf. “protected attributes” in civil rights legislation.</p>
<p>Why do I think AA came into being? Twofold: 1) to compensate for historical discrimination, and 2) to increase diversity. FYI, courts have ruled that only Reason #2 is a valid rationale for affirmative action.</p>
<p>
Why? they practiced this for more than thousands of years. Do you think that they did something unwisely, and not intelligently enough to correct the mistake?</p>
<p>^ It is a process that selects for highly book-smart people. I think this has stagnated China’s creative and innovative spirit–not that innovation hasn’t flourished there regardless, but I think the overwhelming focus on quantitatively-measured “intelligence” shortchanges those who don’t fit into cultural expectations. The pre-college environment in China, in both city and countryside, is also VERY high-pressure and high-stakes. I find that unhealthy; it does produce results, but I wonder how the results might differ with a more holistic cultural view on achievement.</p>
<p>
Even you realized that. Why did they not realize that? Do you think that people lived in the past were not as smart as we are right now?</p>