<p>I wish you would stop asking “leading” questions. They come off as rather patronizing.</p>
<p>No, I do not think that people who lived in the past were dumber. Rather, I think that Chinese culture–in the past and even now–more highly values “book smarts” over creativity.</p>
<p>I assure you, affirmative action has helped my family zilch. Thus, I am of the opinion that the “stable homes and comfortable culture” of Asian-Americans today can be attributed primarily to Asian culture.</p>
<p>Yet, you benefit from AA being Asian and interestedin the arts. Of course, AA has not helped you at all. And if say, AA helpeed you get into a good LAC like Williams and you, perhaps got a better job bevcause you were more qualified then of course it was your culture not AA’s help at all. If you benefit from AA, you lose a lot of credibility in the argument. An the credibility of the speaker is a bit part of the argument. If a white person was to walk out and talk about ASian culture from spending one week in China- he has very little cred. So do you</p>
<p>The E&C study shows that whites do not displace Asians (by what simple math?); rather, URMs displace Asians.
I don’t quite understand when white people are 3x more likely to get envelopes than Asians and on average have lower scores why they would not be taking Asian seats. Negative action. BUt, I admit that I may not understand the intricacies- so if you wish, an explanation would be great.</p>
<p>Just as homosexuals are not any more or less discriminated against than women–they face DIFFERENT discrimination–there is no “ranking” of discrimination suffering. To create one is, quite simply, viciously racist.</p>
<p>Just as a white woman, admit it, has things easier than a hispanic woman. There is a hierachy of racism- to ignore this would be to ignore realities.
With all due respect,nil</p>
<p>^ Please refer to my extended conversation with Bay. By “my family,” I was not referring to myself and the benefits that I derive today. As I also told him, I do not agree with judgment of people’s credibility based on their personal choices rather than their words and their actions to support those words–as an analogy, I do not condemn politicians who engage in extramarital affairs. That’s their business and if they are professional, their personal business will have no effect on their policymaking.</p>
<p>Can you cite the study where “white people are 3x more likely to get envelopes than Asians and on average have lower scores”? I might be able to read more into its intricacies if I could do so firsthand. For starters, I’d like to know what schools are giving these “envelopes” (acceptance letters, I presume) to what type of student. Elite admissions is very different from the general world of college admissions where the average student TODAY applies to, IIRC, 4 colleges.</p>
<p>There is NO hierarchy of racism. Hierarchies themselves are purely social constructs. A white woman does not suffer from institutional racism because she is white–the woman part is irrelevant because that is a different matter, btw–but an Asian woman and a Hispanic woman both suffer from different, EQUAL forms of institutional racism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry for that. I did not mean it. I think that both systems in China and here are fine. They are different, not necessarily one is better than the other.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I fear I haven’t made myself sufficiently clear. Or maybe it was in one of the FAQ threads where I made myself more explicit. Part of the problem here is the “fallacy of equivocation,” because people can use the term “affirmative action” with multiple, more or less contrary, meanings, and they don’t always check the meanings each participant uses that term for before jumping into the discussion here. </p>
<p>I am very happy for colleges to engage in vigorous, active outreach to bring in applications from high school students who might not otherwise have thought of applying to those colleges. I’m also happy to see colleges provide various incentives (targeted scholarships, specialist academic advisers, etc.) to help enrolled students who seem to come into college with the fewest personal advantages. That could be called “affirmative action,” and if we agree on that use of that term, then I am in favor of affirmative action. One author who uses the term “affirmative action” that way made a policy proposal six years ago that I still think makes a lot of sense. </p>
<p>[BW</a> Online | July 7, 2003 | Needed: Affirmative Action for the Poor](<a href=“Bloomberg Businessweek - Bloomberg”>Bloomberg Businessweek - Bloomberg) </p>
<p>I am very wary of any attempt by any government to classify people into government-established “race” or “ethnicity” categories. There are scholars who appear to have the same point of view, </p>
<p>[Group</a> Classification on National ID Cards - Jim Fussell - 15 Nov 2001](<a href=“http://www.preventgenocide.org/prevent/removing-facilitating-factors/IDcards/]Group”>Group Classification on National ID Cards - Jim Fussell - 15 Nov 2001) </p>
<p>and I note that there is no country on earth that categorizes people just the way that the United States does now, suggesting that the Census Bureau is correct when it says </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Black</a> or African American persons, percent, 2000](<a href=“http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68176.htm]Black”>http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68176.htm) </p>
<p>I can remember when people who immigrated to the United States of America from the country India were called “white” people rather than “Asian” people. I can remember when the category “Pacific Islander” didn’t exist as a separate “race” category from the “Asian” category. And I can remember when the “Hispanic” category of ethnicity didn’t exist at all. </p>
<p>Worse than the sheer arbitrariness of the categories, there is evidence that such categorization is indeed dangerous. There have been civil wars and campaigns of genocide in countries with officially established ethnicity or race categories, such as Lebanon (with a civil war among ethnicities all called “white” in the United States federal rules), Sri Lanka (among “Asians”), Rwanda (among “blacks”), Yugoslavia (which even resulted in a new term for genocide, “ethnic cleansing,” among “whites” and the disintegration of a country), and elsewhere. I would characterize my position as a position of saying that governments ought to be in the business of helping people get along with their neighbors as friendly individuals, making sure that private actors don’t discriminate invidiously because of supposed group membership.</p>
<p>Post 443:
Lots of people file complaints, claims, and lawsuits without understanding the terms they’re using and the principles at work. Just because a lawyer agrees to take such cases does not necessarily give those cases credibility. Doesn’t make them “idiots.” It makes such attempts often misguided and the complainers misinformed.</p>
<p>Post 447:
Categorizing is not stereotyping.</p>
<p>In this thread: Whiny white people.</p>
<p>
Really? Given the number of posts you have made in response to mine over time I would have thought that you would have caught the several posts I made expressing my opinion that racial AA benefits wealthy Caucasians the most. The way I see it, racial AA is wrong on several levels; the most direct being that it is a discriminatory system, but another being that this so-called positive discrimination is being used as a proxy to also incorporate negative discrimination. (An aside - I am using “discriminatory” with a negative connotation. I take no issue with what I’d consider truly positive discrimination, including but not limited to socioeconomic AA.)</p>
<p>Occasionally I do see cogent arguments for the case of “positive” discrimination, and even though I ultimately disagree with it because of its core premises, I do believe non-discriminatory methods ought to be developed because it is clear that there are still racial imbalances at hand that require addressing. Nevertheless, this thread is about Asian students and hence it pertains far more to the topic of negative discrimination. epiphany, continue ignoring E&C, the Duke study, multiple other data sources including the UF applicant/acceptance breakdowns by race, and every other argument that you have so brilliantly counteracted with the simple concept of holistic admissions. </p>
<hr>
<p>For everyone else, I cannot see why anyone can condone a deliberate discrimination of Asian applicants against Caucasian applicants. Let’s refer back to the E&C study; if Asians and Caucasians were not judged at all by race it would be logical to claim that if racial biases were removed, their corresponding representations at elite schools would increase at essentially proportionally equivalent rates. This is not the case; Asian representation would increase by more than 30% the current Asian population whereas Caucasian representation would increase at a negligible rate; perhaps 1 or 2%. This should already begin to raise some eyebrows. </p>
<p>Those of you who have read the study may know that the conclusion of the study stipulates that legacy/athletic advantages, which admittedly pertain more to the Caucasian population than any other group, are nevertheless insignificant in their effects on the percentage increases of any racial group. Now, let’s look at that pesky Duke study. In objective and subjective admissions categories, Asians hold the highest mean score except in the personal character quality, in which they lose out to Caucasians by 5/100ths of a point. In case this hasn’t already been made clear, this debunks the argument that the E&C is wildly inaccurate because of its exclusion of subjective rates. This argument assumes that Asians are of a lesser quality subjectively, an assumption that is directly disproved by the Duke study.</p>
<p>Let’s see; drastically different outcomes in a race-blind simulation, insignificant athletic/legacy biases, and subjective qualifications that as a whole actually tilt towards the Asian side, contrary to popular (ignorant) belief. This effectively leaves two, maybe three possibilities (please offer any that I am missing): 1) Asians are congregating towards the same ECs, 2) Asians are overwhelmingly selecting a small variety of majors, or 3) Asians are being discriminated against Caucasians. Argument 1 and 2 both operate on what are frankly exaggerated and inaccurate stereotypes. Argument 1 also assumes that it is the nature and not the quality of an EC that matters; I don’t think schools will care too much about your arcane EC if you haven’t put a fraction of as much time into it as a more standard but laborious EC. Argument 2 is even more flawed because many colleges do not consider major when evaluating applications. Argument 3 continues to stand.</p>
<p>Should my DS “report” his race? His M+CR score is 1570.</p>
<p>If I said we’re Asian, is that deemed “typical”?<br>
If I said white, is he labeled "spoiled rich kid?<br>
If I said URM, would that be described as “just lucky”?</p>
<p>When is there an ‘advantage’ to list race? When a disadvantage? I just figured facts are facts. </p>
<p>Of course, I know of one kid who said he was Hispanic b/c his family lived in Mexico as ex-pats for 2 months. He got into Harvard. True!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is what racists might say.</p>
<p>Exactly. I wouldn’t say that, mind you. I don’t have any preconceived notion about someone’s race based on a stupid test score. But do others? hence my question: should he list race regardless? Or would not listing a race mean something too?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That not all complaints have merit means that the OCR will dismiss at least some without any additional review. Limited resources means that the OCR can’t follow through on every complaint; some have to be dismissed.</p>
<p>Is that the case here? No. Li’s complaint was not dismissed as frivolous. The OCR didn’t say that Princeton had committed any wrongdoing, but by proceeding further, they acknowledged that at the very least, his complaint was worth looking into.</p>
<p>Espenshade and Chung’s 2005 paper is by no means “definitive.” It does, however, provide evidence that discrimination against Asians in college admissions may exist. You have consistently stated that the paper only shows that Asian admits have higher SAT scores than white admits. But, that’s the thing: they shouldn’t have SAT scores! On average, their SAT scores should be equal to those of white admits. Kidder refers to this as “negative” action and unequivocally denounces it.</p>
<p>Your argument against the article would be so much stronger if you referred to a piece of peer-reviewed research that discredits E&C. But, since there is no such research, you can’t, and thus your case is severely weakened. Rhetoric might sound good, and I’m sure it makes perfect sense to you, but it doesn’t hold a candle to real published research.</p>
<p>Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates and other black scholars think AA does not serve real black people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Top</a> Colleges Take More Blacks, but Which Ones? - The New York Times](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/24/education/24AFFI.final.html]Top”>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/24/education/24AFFI.final.html)</p>
<p>As I was looking at some reviews of Karabel’s “The Chosen”, the following jumped out at me:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is indeed gratifying to see that my position is consistent with mainstream thinking on this topic, tho not necessarily on CC. How did I get lucky? Just reasoning rationally from 1st principle.</p>
<p>For those really interested in this issue, you may want to check the following:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t say I didn’t warn you tho.</p>
<p>“Many argue that it was students like these, disadvantaged by the legacy of Jim Crow laws, segregation and decades of racism, poverty and inferior schools, who were intended as principal beneficiaries of affirmative action in university admissions.”</p>
<p>Gates must not have seen the memo from admission office or visited CC. Where defenders of AA claim that it exists for the sole purpose of diversity.</p>
<p>In this thread: people who have learned from their acquaintances of other “races” not to lump all their acquaintances into inexact race categories. </p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063337931-post72.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063337931-post72.html</a></p>
<p>
Interesting you bring this up because the last time I checked internationals usually face much higher bars for admissions at top schools. It’s as if colleges are interested in international diversity only when it comes in the African sort.</p>
<p>Are they using AA because they want cultural diversity? Or are they doing it for the purpose of raising that “African-American/black” percentage? Seems to me that shallow politics hold their sway even over the supposedly intellectual and elite institutions in American.</p>
<p>^ African nationals are considered in the international pool. However, many African-American students were born in the U.S. to African parents or mixed-blood with such.</p>
<p>From personal experience, I don’t know any high-achieving African-Americans (by which I mean 2200+ SAT, 3.8+ GPA with top rigor, strong ECs, et al that comprise a competitive unhooked Ivy applicant) who have roots in Africa or the Caribbean–which also has a strong cultural focus on education–further than one generation back.</p>
<p>
Only if skin color is the ONLY significant difference between those two groups. I’m not convinced that it is, as I’ve been trying to point out.</p>
<p>
Perhaps that was faulty wording on my behalf, but I did later acknowledge and address the “stereotype EC/major” arguments.</p>