<p>Life isn't perfectly fair. OK. We understand. Neither is AA. But that's not the topic of conversation. If you want to debate that, surely you can find numerous threads on that topic.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you want to debate that, surely you can find numerous threads on that topic.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>MODERATOR'S NOTE TO "To URMs complaining about AA" THREAD: </p>
<p>Repeated requests by multiple members of CC to reduce rather than increase the number of affirmative action threads prompt me to merge this thread with the existing and very active FAQ thread on ethnic self-identification in college admission. This new thread will be merged into the earlier thread, with a redirect. Participants on CC are reminded to express their point of view on this issue politely and factually, with thought about other people's point of view.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A young person goes off to college with a collection of life experiences, influenced by various characteristics of that young person and the young person's family and neighborhood. If that person goes off to a college with a lot of other young people with varied backgrounds, would you expect all of them to change and adapt because of the experience of knowing one another? I would expect that,
[/quote]
I agree, and this is exactly why I support Affirmative Action to be used to create diversity of all types. Also, I think that something that is more powerful, though, is meeting someone you would assume to be different but really they are the same as you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't have to encourage him to seek ethnic diversity, because he seeks that for himself. He would find it very boring to attend a college that includes only people from the majority ethnic group around here--which he is not fully part of.
[/quote]
You're son is different than most applicants, then. Clearly, since a lot of people on CC are against Affirmative Action being used to promote diversity, then I think you can reasonably assume these people do not care much about seeking diversity on their own. Are Asian kids who attend Berkeley really preoccuppied with seeking diversity?</p>
<p>Win8282:
[quote]
Why don't all the URMs who think they can get in by their own merits put themselves as "Race Unknown"?
[/quote]
Everyone gets in on their own merits.</p>
<p>sanjennifer:
[quote]
But some people are given opportunities, waste them and then still manage to get in over those who embraced theirs.
[/quote]
True. But this is irrelevant to the discussion because it is something that everyone, no matter his or her background, does.</p>
<p>FellowCCViewer:
[quote]
and why is it you support AA?
[/quote]
Ultimately it is a discussion between those who value diversity of all types including race, those who value diversity of all types excluding race (and sometimes gender), and those who just don't value diversity at all and think that college should be strictly about "merit," which no one seems able to adequately define.</p>
<p>Everyone:
I believe that Affirmative Action needs to be updated. I think that the change that needs to be made right now is that "East Asian", "Indian-Asian", and "Southeast Asian" need to become separate categories. "East Asian" and "Indian-Asian" need to be viewed as "White," or "non-URM," and "Southeast Asian" viewed as URM like African Americans and Hispanics. Thus, I am saying that the real injustice with Affirmative Action right now is that it is requiring that a minority group have higher qualifications than a majority group, which, when you think about why Affirmative Action was created in the first place, does not make sense. I still think, however, that colleges should make sure to yield enough members of each race so that students of various ethnic backgrounds are forced to interact. This way students will be able to see the similarities and differences between themselves and others. If we continue on this path of promoting diversity, I believe that there will be a day in the near future where we do not have to "force" people to interact with people whom they are different than; instead people will do this naturally and diversity, of all kinds, will happen naturally. Thus, no more need for Affirmative Action.</p>
<p>Newjack88 - why do you assume that increased understanding between racial groups will happen if you just "force" diversity by putting people of different backgrounds on the same campus? I'm just curious here -- have things worked out this way in your own experience? Do you think there are better ways to encourage interaction between people?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Newjack88 - why do you assume that increased understanding between racial groups will happen if you just "force" diversity by putting people of different backgrounds on the same campus?
[/quote]
If it makes you feel better I will use "encourage" instead of "force."</p>
<p>I'm not assuming it. Just look around you. Look at how many interracial marriages there are now. I doubt that such a thing could occur if races had not been encouraged to interact more than they had in the past. Basically, stereotypes and prejudice diminish once people have more contact with one another.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm just curious here -- have things worked out this way in your own experience?
[/quote]
Yes. And, no, this is not about actively sharing your culture and all that BS, this is about merely being around different types of people and realizing that whatever preconceived notions you had about them are unfair and not necessarily true.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you think there are better ways to encourage interaction between people?
[/quote]
Not really. You go to school to learn about various subjects and about life and other people. So, no, I am pretty sure that any schooling environment is the ideal place for such interaction to take place.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Basically, stereotypes and prejudice diminish once people have more contact with one another.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes. And, no, this is not about actively sharing your culture and all that BS, this is about merely being around different types of people and realizing that whatever preconceived notions you had about them are unfair and not necessarily true.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fair enough. In what context? Could you share some specific anecdotes?</p>
<p>Look, let me explain where I'm coming from, using the example of gender-based AA in science/tech. So I'm a female in a field that's male-dominated,
and I've attended various programs where a conscious effort was made to balance the male/female ratio. Sure, there was then a lot of interaction between genders at these programs. Because of the AA push, there was also at times a gap in competency between male and female students who worked on the same research group (of course, sheer competency is more ... obvious in pure sciences than most other undergrad fields).</p>
<p>On the other hand, at my current school, there's no AA in favor of admitting women to the math and science departments. So at this department, the male:female ratio is quite low (notoriously so, actually -- it's greater than 10:1, some years.) But. The handful of women who stay with the department -- people so interested in the subject that they could care less about the "stereotypes" and being immersed in a field dominated by males -- are very much competent. Perhaps even more so than their male classmates on average (some years).</p>
<p>So suppose you were a male in this field. Which would do more to shatter your prejudices towards women in your field -- being on a gender-balanced research team where you had a better background than your female coworkers on average, and consequently had to do the bulk of the work? Or being in a department where the rather smaller number of women in your classes were the people you'd go to for help on your problem sets?</p>
<p>Okay, I've exaggerated the above examples... a little. But I've definitely been in roughly analogous situations. You get the point.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not really. You go to school to learn about various subjects and about life and other people. So, no, I am pretty sure that any schooling environment is the ideal place for such interaction to take place.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry, let me clarify -- do you think there are better ways within the context of university to encourage interaction between people? I contend that using AA as a universal solution is a sloppy way for universities to make it look like they're doing something about encouraging diversity. Once students arrive on campus, though, there's a fair amount of self-segregation -- into social groups, on-campus ECs, even courses of study and majors -- so it's not difficult for a student to arrive on a "diverse" campus and yet not interact with minority groups during their four years, if they choose. On the other hand, ethnic groups seem to mingle much more effectively when there's some further effort from the university once admissions are done -ie. having students of mixed backgrounds room together, or making the 'center for promotion of diversity' (or whatever it's called, we have one of those) a visible force on campus, which hosts many cultural events. Or perhaps even hosting mandatory "diversity" discussions among small student groups of mixed backgrounds (though I can see how this might quickly backfire...) But would you agree that more... active promotion of diversity on the part of a school would go further in breaking down racial barriers than a passive admissions policy?</p>
<p>
[quote]
So suppose you were a male in this field. Which would do more to shatter your prejudices towards women in your field -- being on a gender-balanced research team where you had a better background than your female coworkers on average, and consequently had to do the bulk of the work? Or being in a department where the rather smaller number of women in your classes were the people you'd go to for help on your problem sets?
[/quote]
I think that the first situation does more to shatter the prejudices towards women in the field. First of all, in the first situation, the women who are "less qualified" will benefit immensely from being around women who are "more qualified" than many of the males in the class. </p>
<p>Second, the point of being exposed to people of diverse backgrounds is not to prove that stereotypes are "false;" it is to prove they are unfair. Stereotypes are generalizations with some "truth" to them. If a stereotype is completely false then it is not a stereotype. The stereotype that all African American and Hispanic males are gangsters is not completely untrue, because some are gangsters. However, to assume that someone is a gangster simply because he is an African American or Hispanic is unfair, because not all African American and Hispanic males are gangsters.</p>
<p>In both cases, many males would go in thinking that all females in the science/math department are less qualified than males. In the first case, the males are confronted with the contradiction that, yes, some of the females there are less qualified than males, but some are actually more qualified than males. Because of this contradiction, the males would logically come to the conclusion that their preconceived notions about the qualifications of women were unfair but not false. That they understand that their assumptions are unfair but not false, the males will be able to see that it is more important to focus on the individual rather than the group. Basically, this scenario encourages that people recognize the difference in qualifications between individuals not groups.</p>
<p>However, in the second case all the males will get from the interaction is that their preconceived notions were false for this particular group of women. I will conceed it is possible that they reach the same conclusion as in the first scenario, but it is not as likely.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sorry, let me clarify -- do you think there are better ways within the context of university to encourage interaction between people? I contend that using AA as a universal solution is a sloppy way for universities to make it look like they're doing something about encouraging diversity. Once students arrive on campus, though, there's a fair amount of self-segregation -- into social groups, on-campus ECs, even courses of study and majors -- so it's not difficult for a student to arrive on a "diverse" campus and yet not interact with minority groups during their four years, if they choose. On the other hand, ethnic groups seem to mingle much more effectively when there's some further effort from the university once admissions are done -ie. having students of mixed backgrounds room together, or making the 'center for promotion of diversity' (or whatever it's called, we have one of those) a visible force on campus, which hosts many cultural events. Or perhaps even hosting mandatory "diversity" discussions among small student groups of mixed backgrounds (though I can see how this might quickly backfire...) But would you agree that more... active promotion of diversity on the part of a school would go further in breaking down racial barriers than a passive admissions policy?
[/quote]
I disagree. First of all, it has been said that diversity is mostly beneficial in the classroom setting. Since schools don't segregate classes, they are already actively encouraging change.</p>
<p>Second, the goal is not to make everyone become friends. It's to get people to both tolerate and understand individuals who are different than them. From what I have seen on CC, people hanging out with kids of different backgrounds does not really encourage understanding. I cannot count how many times a kid who is White or Asian has asserted that his or her African American friend has never faced any sort of racism, prejudice, or unfavorable treatment for being African American. (I also cannot count how many times I've heard males assert that sexism does not exist even though they hang out with females all of the time.) So, clearly "hanging out" with people of different backgrounds does not necessarily promote any sense of meaningful understanding.</p>
<p>Third, when people literally feel forced to do anything, they are a lot less likely to be receptive. </p>
<p>I think that the most important thing is that colleges provide students the opportunity to seek diversity. Most students will take advantage of the opportunity-some more so than others, of course-but I do not think that schools like Harvard, etc. have to worry as much about students self-segregating. I would imagine that they choose the students who would be most likely to be receptive to having a diverse student body.</p>
<p>Re: the first situation -- so you contend that it is easier to overturn stereotypes by exposing people to others who... confirm the stereotypes? I'll have to respectfully disagree, though I'd be glad to hear what others have to say on this point. </p>
<p>(As an aside -- perhaps this is why AA is far less prevalent in grad school admissions. I'll concede that competency is rarely so black-and-white in terms of undergrad admissions.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I disagree. First of all, it has been said that diversity is mostly beneficial in the classroom setting. Since schools don't segregate classes, they are already actively encouraging change.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Right. But the problem is that at least some college courses (and probably even majors) are highly self-segregating -- take Harvard's Math 55, which (to quote a past Crimson article) is "45 percent Jewish, 18 percent Asian, 100 percent male." </p>
<p>Of course Math 55 is an exception rather than a rule, but this is definitely true to a lesser extent in several other classes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Second, the goal is not to make everyone become friends. It's to get people to both tolerate and understand individuals who are different than them. From what I have seen on CC, people hanging out with kids of different backgrounds does not really encourage understanding. I cannot count how many times a kid who is White or Asian has asserted that his or her African American friend has never faced any sort of racism, prejudice, or unfavorable treatment for being African American. (I also cannot count how many times I've heard males assert that sexism does not exist even though they hang out with females all of the time.) So, clearly "hanging out" with people of different backgrounds does not necessarily promote any sense of meaningful understanding.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Good point, I hadn't considered that. </p>
<p>But if -- as your above example highlights perfectly -- people in high school who are (supposedly) friends with each other can't cultivate an understanding, what makes you assume that mere acquaintances or strangers brought together by admissions will do any better?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Third, when people literally feel forced to do anything, they are a lot less likely to be receptive.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But this is exactly why there is so much resentment towards AA here on CC and in other places, as you yourself have noted. (Whether or not it's fair for them to think so), there are certainly majority students who see AA as a way to force racial interaction -- at the expense of their arguably "more qualified" siblings and friends from their own ethnic groups. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I think that the most important thing is that colleges provide students the opportunity to seek diversity. Most students will take advantage of the opportunity-some more so than others, of course-but I do not think that schools like Harvard, etc. have to worry as much about students self-segregating. I would imagine that they choose the students who would be most likely to be receptive to having a diverse student body.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What experience are you speaking from? (I have no idea how old you are or what school you're attending/have attended.) I'm speaking as a current student at HYP. Obviously there is a fair amount of cultural mixing, but even here self-segregation is very much a reality (maybe I'll take a photo of the people sitting around the same table at our dining halls sometime). And I contend that AA is not the root cause of much of the social interaction that does go on here (again, the most notable exceptions being when, say, people of very different backgrounds were paired up in the random freshman room draw.) When you're working on a tough problem set at 4am, you just want to be working with the people who can help you get at the solutions, regardless of what race or gender or whatever they're from. But the people most likely to be in a position to do that are the "most competent" ones -- who would've been accepted with or without AA, anyway! Same with, say, the competitive performing arts groups or the sports teams. I guess my point is that, since merit is very much a reality in determining social groups, etc. once a student gets on campus, I'm not sure why it shouldn't be the overarching factor in determining who gets on that campus in the first place. But then I guess we're back where we started.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Re: the first situation -- so you contend that it is easier to overturn stereotypes by exposing people to others who... confirm the stereotypes? I'll have to respectfully disagree, though I'd be glad to hear what others have to say on this point.
[/quote]
That's not entirely what I am saying. You have to be exposed to both. I think that in order to realize why a generalization is unfair you need to know where the generalization came from. I know this is a vague idea so I'll try to explain it.</p>
<p>There are certain institutions in our country that perpetuate stereotypes. For example, our education system undoubtedly perpetuates the stereotype that boys are better than girls at math and science. In my city, for example, the all girls high schools, which have more than adequate financial resources, do not have decent science labs, do not offer a math class higher than AP Calculus AB (which only 10 or so senior take), do not offer a real physics course (they have a "history of physics" course), etc. If it weren't for me being exposed or at least aware of the stereotype that boys are better than girls at math and science, I would not have been able to notice the ways in which our institutions, society, etc. perpetuate that stereotype. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Right. But the problem is that at least some college courses (and probably even majors) are highly self-segregating -- take Harvard's Math 55, which (to quote a past Crimson article) is "45 percent Jewish, 18 percent Asian, 100 percent male."
[/quote]
Just curious, what is the remainder of the class?</p>
<p>Anyways, I don't really know much about the course, but it sounds like something where you are either qualified/prepared to take the course or you are not. I don't think that promoting diversity in that case outweighs the importance of having people who can complete the course. </p>
<p>If it were the case that all of the African Americans, women, poor Whites, or kids from South Dakota were flunking out of Harvard, then I would say that Harvard was being irresponsible in its crusade for diversity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But if -- as your above example highlights perfectly -- people in high school who are (supposedly) friends with each other can't cultivate an understanding, what makes you assume that mere acquaintances or strangers brought together by admissions will do any better?
[/quote]
That's a hard question to answer. I think friends are less likely to talk about their differences, since they could potentially be divisive. My best friend from third grade is White and I don't think we have ever mentioned Affirmative Action in a discussion. However, I don't know you or anyone else on CC yet I'm talking about it with you all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But this is exactly why there is so much resentment towards AA here on CC and in other places, as you yourself have noted. (Whether or not it's fair for them to think so), there are certainly majority students who see AA as a way to force racial interaction -- at the expense of their arguably "more qualified" siblings and friends from their own ethnic groups.
[/quote]
I think that AA "encourages" interaction. I would consider colleges requiring students to attend diversity seminars every month "forced" interaction.</p>
<p>Lastly, I think that a lot of resentment towards AA stems from people's distorted perspective of the college admissions process. People believe that getting admitted to HYP, etc. is a confirmation of their talents or worth when it's not. People fail to realize that the percentile is what matters not the score. People underestimate the importance of being unique (I admit it is ALOT easier for African Americans and Hispanics to be unique). People do not understand certain majors are more competitive than others. Etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What experience are you speaking from? (I have no idea how old you are or what school you're attending/have attended.) I'm speaking as a current student at HYP. Obviously there is a fair amount of cultural mixing, but even here self-segregation is very much a reality (maybe I'll take a photo of the people sitting around the same table at our dining halls sometime). And I contend that AA is not the root cause of much of the social interaction that does go on here (again, the most notable exceptions being when, say, people of very different backgrounds were paired up in the random freshman room draw.)
[/quote]
I'm an African American senior. I've though about "diversity" more than most on CC have. Some of the stuff I'm talking about I have experienced first hand. Other stuff I have observed, read, or reasoned.</p>
<p>LOL, I know that's not very convincing but I think I know enough to at least make people think.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When you're working on a tough problem set at 4am, you just want to be working with the people who can help you get at the solutions, regardless of what race or gender or whatever they're from. But the people most likely to be in a position to do that are the "most competent" ones -- who would've been accepted with or without AA, anyway!
[/quote]
I totally agree with you in that circumstance. But, the problem with that as an example is that you are in field where qualified and not qualified is blatantly obvious. Similarly, in football, it is obvious who is and is not a good wide receiver.</p>
<p>However, this is not the case with HYP, etc. college admissions where most of the applicants are qualified for admission. When you have this scenario it's no longer about finding who is and is not qualified, it's about finding intangibles like uniqueness, etc.</p>
<p>Everyone:
Is it true there are African Americans and Hispanics out there that see AA as an excuse for them to slack off? I'm not talking about that they end up not doing as well on tests, grades, etc. I mean literally slack off as in they don't push themselves. If so, I think I can better understand why so many Asians and Whites on CC are so fed up with AA. That sort of attitude those URMs are demonstrating is very disgraceful.</p>
<p>Hi Newjack, </p>
<p>
[quote]
If it weren't for me being exposed or at least aware of the stereotype that boys are better than girls at math and science, I would not have been able to notice the ways in which our institutions, society, etc. perpetuate that stereotype.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with you here -- but I think being aware of a stereotype by witnessing its root cause (ie. learning about how the all girls' school has poor lab setups) is quite a different matter from learning about a stereotype by seeing it in action (ie. working firsthand with women who are, indeed, less competent at science for whatever reason.) To me the second case is more likely to reinforce one's prejudices, if anything-- in the heat of the moment, right after you've just seen these less-prepared coworkers put their names on a paper you've slaved away on for months, you'd hardly be in a position to internalize any lessons about the varied and diverse backgrounds they hailed from! </p>
<p>
[quote]
Just curious, what is the remainder of the class?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not sure what the rest of the class looks like (and the stats were from a past article -- there's at least one woman in the class this year, afaik.) But I don't think the demographics ever approach, well, what America looks like, whether in race or gender or geography or any other way you choose to weigh it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
That's a hard question to answer. I think friends are less likely to talk about their differences, since they could potentially be divisive. My best friend from third grade is White and I don't think we have ever mentioned Affirmative Action in a discussion. However, I don't know you or anyone else on CC yet I'm talking about it with you all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>True. I think a distinction has to be made though. We're here discussing this of our own volition because we're all interested in the intricacies of the policy, and a web forum is just impersonal enough that we can perhaps be a bit less tactful than we would be elsewhere. But I doubt that these dialogues are too commonplace on even a diverse campus -- both because these issues would still makes for awkward in-person conversation even with strangers, and because, honestly, it's probably something the average college student, even at a top school, has never really thought about.</p>
<p>
[quote]
LOL, I know that's not very convincing but I think I know enough to at least make people think.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I didn't mean to question your credentials or anything, whatever that even means in this context! .. Just curious where you were speaking from when you cited HYP as an example. </p>
<p>
[quote]
However, this is not the case with HYP, etc. college admissions where most of the applicants are qualified for admission. When you have this scenario it's no longer about finding who is and is not qualified, it's about finding intangibles like uniqueness, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The thing about HYP admits is that there are certainly distinctions in qualifications for admission. From the outside it probably looks like some absurd means of splitting hairs, but on the campus there is very much a sort of polarized situation where you have these people in the class who are capable of getting A+s across, like, 10 different departments -- and the people who have trouble scraping by with Cs. I don't mean to imply that this divide is strictly along racial lines -- because it's not; race is just one factor among many, many forms of "hooks" and preferential admissions. (And everything I say after this point is not necessarily related to AA, and certainly not ENTIRELY because of AA.)</p>
<p>But perhaps I should have been clearer all along-- when I say "merit," I'm not necessarily talking about distinctions in the SAT/GPA sense (I've cited test-score stats in past discussions just because they were the most accessible.) I'm talking about the very, very top academic tier of students who have ranked high in numerious national olympiads. Cases like the Asian male with USAMO, USACO, USABO... etc. participation who was recently turned down from MIT (which spawned an interesting AA-ish discussion of its own on the MIT subforum, mostly targeted at gender AA...) or the IMO medalists who are rejected from HYP or the CS Olympiad guy I knew back in high school who was denied admissions to the school I'm attending right now. </p>
<p>I don't know what's going on in the admissions office, but when even tech schools are rejecting multiple students of this caliber (the "they all had horrible essays" excuse seems unlikely), it's hard not to feel a little ... disappointed at the direction that "holistic" admissions is going. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Everyone:
Is it true there are African Americans and Hispanics out there that see AA as an excuse for them to slack off? I'm not talking about that they end up not doing as well on tests, grades, etc. I mean literally slack off as in they don't push themselves. If so, I think I can better understand why so many Asians and Whites on CC are so fed up with AA. That sort of attitude those URMs are demonstrating is very disgraceful.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can't speak for the URM students. I'd guess that many ORMs, perhaps wrongly, see AA as an imperative for URMs to slack off -- and that, this in turn, is widening instead of healing the racial divide. </p>
<p>As a tangent -- there are, ironically, Asian students who see this as an excuse to slack off. I've worked with (younger, middle-school aged) kids who have expressed such self-defeating thoughts as "I'll never get into the college of my choice because everyone knows it's a 100% crapshoot for Asian males, so I might as well not work hard at all." Now I'll be the first to agree that this attitude is "disgraceful"... but perhaps another example of how AA is widening that racial gap.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree with you here -- but I think being aware of a stereotype by witnessing its root cause (ie. learning about how the all girls' school has poor lab setups) is quite a different matter from learning about a stereotype by seeing it in action (ie. working firsthand with women who are, indeed, less competent at science for whatever reason.) To me the second case is more likely to reinforce one's prejudices, if anything-- in the heat of the moment, right after you've just seen these less-prepared coworkers put their names on a paper you've slaved away on for months, you'd hardly be in a position to internalize any lessons about the varied and diverse backgrounds they hailed from!
[/quote]
My thinking though is that if you're not exposed to both, you're encouraged to continue generalizing. Ultimately the purpose behind diversity should be to encourage us to assess individuals as individuals. (I don't think we're there yet as a society, which is why we still need AA.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I didn't mean to question your credentials or anything, whatever that even means in this context! .. Just curious where you were speaking from when you cited HYP as an example.
[/quote]
Oh ok. Well I have a sibling at HYP whom I have visited many times.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't know what's going on in the admissions office, but when even tech schools are rejecting multiple students of this caliber (the "they all had horrible essays" excuse seems unlikely), it's hard not to feel a little ... disappointed at the direction that "holistic" admissions is going.
[/quote]
I think colleges are discouraging the whole "grinder", "workaholic" mentality, though. People don't want the same kind of academic atmosphere that's seen in Japan and China. </p>
<p>Anyways, take the Asian male's case, I have seen other Asian males get in over him with MUCH lower credentials. Is the "unfairness" that if he had been African American, Hispanic, Native American, female, from South Dakota, or etc. that, excluding some divine intervention, he probably would have gotten in?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can't speak for the URM students. I'd guess that many ORMs, perhaps wrongly, see AA as an imperative for URMs to slack off -- and that, this in turn, is widening instead of healing the racial divide.
[/quote]
Well, I think that those kids think that everyone works hard solely to get into HYP, etc. All of the kids from my school that have gone to Stanford, Harvard, etc. just did well because they were actually smart not because they were hard workers. If you think about it, the "grinder", "workaholic" attitude will get you through school but it won't help you in situations when you need to be innovative. Perhaps this is why colleges are discouraging the mentality.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As a tangent -- there are, ironically, Asian students who see this as an excuse to slack off. I've worked with (younger, middle-school aged) kids who have expressed such self-defeating thoughts as "I'll never get into the college of my choice because everyone knows it's a 100% crapshoot for Asian males, so I might as well not work hard at all." Now I'll be the first to agree that this attitude is "disgraceful"... but perhaps another example of how AA is widening that racial gap.
[/quote]
Well that sucks. That reminds me of when I was tutoring at an inner-city after school reading program and one of the African American first graders told me, "I don't need to read; I'll just get a job at Walmart." Honestly, this is not an argument for Affirmative Action. It's mostly an argument to fix inner city public schools that were devasted by the "White flight" caused by integration.</p>
<p>I think we're actually pretty close to agreeing on most points here. Just one thing I want to address though: the Olympiad exams here are quite distinct from the "grinder," "workaholic" mentality -- rather, they require you to both be very intelligent/innovative and then work hard from there. At the 4th stage of the US Math Olympiad (MOP) level we're talking top 50, 60 individual performers out of somewhere on the order of 100,000 already self-selected high-schoolers who elected to try the first stage. These aren't the sorts of odds you can overcome without some amount of talent... in most cases, academic talent far above the norm among students even at top-tier schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is the "unfairness" that if he had been African American, Hispanic, Native American, female, from South Dakota, or etc. that, excluding some divine intervention, he probably would have gotten in?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, I think this is a large part of it. Of course there are Asian males who get in with much lower stats, but at the same time it seems nearly undeniable that a URM applicant (or legacy applicant or whatnot) with such a hook would have been admitted. </p>
<p>I'm not necessarily advocating that MOP or RSI or whatever be taken as a definitive metric for if someone deserves a place at a top school. But I do think that at so high a demonstrated level of academic talent, these are stronger indicators of college success than nearly any other. And when several such individuals slip through the cracks under the "holistic" system, the stories circulate, and eventually become the anecdotal evidence on which resentment towards preferential admissions is built. Just take a look at the MIT board and the 3 or 4 pages of heated AA debate that came up after the aforementioned rejected applicant posted his stats!</p>
<p>Now I don't know how you'd correct for these sorts of things. I guess my worry is just if these sorts of rejections, which seem borderline-absurd to me, will become more frequent in this great age of equality and social engineering. A couple posts back I asked when we stop correcting for past wrongs and for every form of natural circumstance (race, gender, height, IQ, everything) and IsleBoy replied, "I'm not sure...when individual college applicants and their parents stop being competitive..." But when is that day going to come? Maybe there's a happy medium to be reached somewhere. But, having seen AA both from the side of those "hurt" by it (Asians) and those "helped" (women in science -- and based on real-life analogues to the earlier examples I'm convinced the push for gender balance will hurt me somewhere down the line), I'd much rather have a pure meritocracy 50 years down the line than no emphasis on merit at all. Anyway this is probably another discussion in social philosophy that has very little to do with AA, so I'll stop here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah, I think this is a large part of it. Of course there are Asian males who get in with much lower stats, but at the same time it seems nearly undeniable that a URM applicant (or legacy applicant or whatnot) with such a hook would have been admitted.
[/quote]
I can understand that, but it's still ridiculous because college admissions and team selection for a game of pickup basketball are like the only times it's beneficial to be African American or Hispanic.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not necessarily advocating that MOP or RSI or whatever be taken as a definitive metric for if someone deserves a place at a top school. But I do think that at so high a demonstrated level of academic talent, these are stronger indicators of college success than nearly any other. And when several such individuals slip through the cracks under the "holistic" system, the stories circulate, and eventually become the anecdotal evidence on which resentment towards preferential admissions is built. Just take a look at the MIT board and the 3 or 4 pages of heated AA debate that came up after the aforementioned rejected applicant posted his stats!
[/quote]
Yea... I think this has more to do with colleges trying to discourage high school students from becoming uber competitive like students in South Korea and China and Japan.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now I don't know how you'd correct for these sorts of things. I guess my worry is just if these sorts of rejections, which seem borderline-absurd to me, will become more frequent in this great age of equality and social engineering. A couple posts back I asked when we stop correcting for past wrongs and for every form of natural circumstance (race, gender, height, IQ, everything) and IsleBoy replied, "I'm not sure...when individual college applicants and their parents stop being competitive..." But when is that day going to come? Maybe there's a happy medium to be reached somewhere. But, having seen AA both from the side of those "hurt" by it (Asians) and those "helped" (women in science -- and based on real-life analogues to the earlier examples I'm convinced the push for gender balance will hurt me somewhere down the line), I'd much rather have a pure meritocracy 50 years down the line than no emphasis on merit at all. Anyway this is probably another discussion in social philosophy that has very little to do with AA, so I'll stop here.
[/quote]
Yea, I think we pretty much agree.</p>
<p>Unless, Ethyrial has a response, Tokenadult should lock this thread. This is probably like the Affirmative Action thread ending in UNDERSTANDING!!! :)</p>
<p>I'm very encouraged to see how thoughtfully several participants have been discussing these contentious issues recently in this thread. That's the best anyone can ask from a college education--or a high school education that prepares for a college education--that people learn to discuss issues civilly and intelligently, to reach a deeper understanding.</p>
<p>
[quote]
FellowCCViewer - That question can only lead to a flame war, and although this thread is almost certainly headed for that path, don't force it that way. If that is your topic, start (another) thread titled: "Why do you support AA?"
[/quote]
lol i'd rather not...</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I can understand that, but it's still ridiculous because college admissions and team selection for a game of pickup basketball are like the only times it's beneficial to be African American or Hispanic.
[/QUOTE]
Don't forget about a better chance of being hired by firms trying to diversify.</p>
<p>Yet asian americans lose in both ways. They are discriminated against and hurt when it comes to college applications.</p>
<p>Similarly, there is rarely a time when it is beneficial to be short, but there aren't even any measures to increase tolerance of short people.</p>
<p>I agree with you that it is tragic that so much discrimination exists in life, but it is in my opinion wrong to try and correct it through such controversial government enforced measures. The sad reality is that you cannot control people's thoughts. It is a person's right to hate and stereotype. They are free to form whatever opinions they choose to, however misguided they are. Attempting to force tolerance through mandatory diversification is in my opinion a violation of our rights.</p>
<p>Teaching tolerance during a child's early years is probably the best way to combat discrimination. They must learn to be tolerant no matter what kind of people they are surrounded by, and they must learn to avoid forming stereotypes against people they haven't even met. It corrects nothing if a college student defeats false stereotypes because they meet new people in college, as their basic nature will still be discriminatory. Once they leave their sheltered forcibly diversified environment, they will revert back to their old selves.</p>
<p>In order to fix the problems society is plagued with, we should guide people to the right path from the very beginning. College is too late.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Don't forget about a better chance of being hired by firms trying to diversify.
[/quote]
Fair.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yet asian americans lose in both ways. They are discriminated against and hurt when it comes to college applications.
[/quote]
It depends on the field. Also, we should not really discuss employment and Affirmative Action. I doubt any of us are really all that familiar with how it is practiced in the work place.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Similarly, there is rarely a time when it is beneficial to be short, but there aren't even any measures to increase tolerance of short people.
[/quote]
I don't think it's intolerance for short people. Some of that is hard wired (nature). Racism, however, is not a natural occurrence. Anyways, shorter athletic people tend to be better at sports that require a low center of gravity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree with you that it is tragic that so much discrimination exists in life, but it is in my opinion wrong to try and correct it through such controversial government enforced measures.
[/quote]
It's not enforced by the government; it's allowed by the government.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is a person's right to hate and stereotype. They are free to form whatever opinions they choose to, however misguided they are. Attempting to force tolerance through mandatory diversification is in my opinion a violation of our rights.
[/quote]
I disagree here. I think that it is in our interest as a society to discourage hate. Actually, I think it's pretty clear that that is the case. What good does conflict caused by hate do? Also, hate is different than ignorance. Most of the conflict surrounding Affirmative Action is related to ignorance.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Teaching tolerance during a child's early years is probably the best way to combat discrimination. They must learn to be tolerant no matter what kind of people they are surrounded by, and they must learn to avoid forming stereotypes against people they haven't even met.
[/quote]
Tolerance is not the goal, understanding is. How you reach understanding is through genuine interaction.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It corrects nothing if a college student defeats false stereotypes because they meet new people in college, as their basic nature will still be discriminatory. Once they leave their sheltered forcibly diversified environment, they will revert back to their old selves.
[/quote]
I disagree. Most people who graduate from college talk about how their college experience changed their life. If you come out of college the same person you were when you went in, you probably having some psychologically wrong with you that prevented you from maturing past your high school years.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In order to fix the problems society is plagued with, we should guide people to the right path from the very beginning. College is too late.
[/quote]
Realistically, college is the best time. There are too many barriers (legal, financial, geographical, etc.) preventing K-12 schools from creating diverse student bodies. It's just more practical to do it in college. Plus, most people are more mature in college and are more likely to benefit from the diversity around them.</p>
<p>Just a quick thanks to most on this thread, for steering this discussion in a different direction. </p>
<p>And, I apologize if I somehow contributed to the flame wars. I vowed I would not post here until things had calmed a bit, and I'm glad to see that it has.</p>
<p>Again, thank you to some posters (I believe you know who you are) for being reasonable & smart--despite our differences. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I disagree here. I think that it is in our interest as a society to discourage hate. Actually, I think it's pretty clear that that is the case. What good does conflict caused by hate do? Also, hate is different than ignorance. Most of the conflict surrounding Affirmative Action is related to ignorance.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is a person's right to hate and stereotype. The Constitution does not say, "You can neither hate nor stereotype." Society can discourage hate. That has no bearing on whether or not people have the right to hate and stereotype.</p>