<p>“Where AA becomes truly controversial is when rich blacks who suffered no adverse circumstances are nevertheless admitted over an equally qualified white or (especially) Asian who is poor and suffered through adverse circumstances. Yet that happens repeatedly.”</p>
<p>Does anyone know to what percentage of African Americans this applies ? I know this is not the concern of most others here, but it is mine. I am guessing it is one percent of African American SAT takers, (based on that 80’s (?) research paper about points added for being black mostly applying to those scoring above 650/section) which I’m guessing is about 25 percent of African American 17 to 18 year olds.</p>
<p>I know I should take my question elsewhere, but among those in the African American community trying to “close the gap”, I think it is not the biggest focus. If it should be, anyone got any numbers?</p>
<p>To be fair, I know that even if it affects only a small number of African Americans, the number of non URM it effects can still be huge, and even if it’s not huge, even the smallest numbers are worth a lot of discussion.</p>
<p>but I don’t think the data is available unless you get his book.</p>
<p>I would also like to point out that such a study shouldn’t limit its subject to when the URM is poor, but also when the URM comes from a different background. At my college there are many blacks who are poor, but immigrant poor. First generation from Africa or the Caribbean.</p>
<p>I am oversimplifying here, but if I tied the original post to Sowell’s research, I would conclude that the “easy way” to get into an Ivy is to be one of 700 African Americans scoring 700 or above on the math SAT. </p>
<p>My question is, what are the odds of, or how “easy” is it, to be one of those 700? I understand that the odds are higher for children of well off, educated parents. </p>
<p>We really need to figure out what is going right with those Kids, and I feel certain it’s not just one, or two, a even three things.</p>
<p>One could also ask what is it amongst poor Asians that nevertheless spur them to do so well academically. And not just Asian-Americans, but also Asian-Canadians, Asian-British, Asian-Australians, and the numerous other locales where Asians can be found. For example, historical evidence has demonstrated that Chinese students in Hong Kong during its British colonial period performed better on standardized mathematics exams than the children of the elite white British settlers who ran the Hong Kong colonial bureaucracy, despite the latter clearly being far wealthier and more privileged. {However, for obvious reasons, they performed worse on English examinations.}</p>
<p>Or, perhaps a more targeted answer to your question can be found within certain subsectors of the black population who seem to be performing notably well, namely black immigrants from the West Indies or Africa. </p>
<p>Consider the following quotes:</p>
<p>*Studies published in 2004 indicated that an absolute majority of the black alumni of Harvard were either West Indian or African immigrants, or the children of these immigrants. Somewhat similar findings have emerged in studies of other elite colleges. *</p>
<p>“A more rigorous study, this one of blacks at 28 elite colleges and universities, revealed that black immigrants and their offspring accounted for just over 40% of these schools’ black students. This is more than 4 times their proportion in the black population.”</p>
<p>*West Indian slaves, unlike their American counterparts, were assigned individual plots of land for their own crops, a process that fostered business experience denied to American blacks. A cohesive cultural identity, explains Hilliard, endowed them with “an inbred orientation for success.” According to a recent study, West Indians who have moved to the U.S. retain an ethnic self-awareness and, partly out of a feeling of superiority, tend to socialize mainly among themselves rather than with native American blacks.</p>
<p>The West Indian passion for education, a legacy of British rule, also seems to give them a head start in the U.S. Says Derrick Hoo, who worked to put himself through college and then law school after immigrating to the U.S. from Jamaica in 1961: “When you come here, you’re off to a running start because you have a more solid educational background.” According to Harvard Sociology Professor Orlando Patterson, who traces his ancestry to Jamaica, schooling and university degrees are more highly prized among West Indian immigrants than native-born blacks.</p>
<p>American blacks tend to be skeptical of West Indians’ achievements and resentful of their sometimes haughty attitude. They believe that West Indians are not as likely to be the target of American racism. Says Robert Hill, a Jamaican who is an assistant professor of history at UCLA: “There is a feeling among whites that the West Indians are not part of the black-white quarrel here.” *</p>
<p>"One could also ask what is it amongst poor Asians that nevertheless spur them to do so well academically. </p>
<p>Yes. I believe some feel they have the answer. Witness the “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother” thread.</p>
<p>"Or, perhaps a more targeted answer to your question can be found within certain subsectors of the black population who seem to be performing notably well, namely black immigrants from the West Indies or Africa. "</p>
<p>Good answer! But there is more there to learn. We can’t all be first gen forever! You should hear my husbands theories about who jumped off the slave ship, where and why! I’m not sure he’s far wrong!</p>
<p>Stop me if you’ve heard this. FWIW, mom was West Indian, and said don’t marry one ( I think because of how woman are treated). My dad half native American, and half African American. My husband was born in Jamaica. I got the higher SAT scores and went to an HBCU. He went to an Ivy. We absolutely have different approaches to the importance of positive vs negative reinforcement. </p>
<p>Oh. None of our kids are, or will be in an Ivy. Not that there’s anything wrong with that!</p>
<p>Sakky, you do not understand how the world works. </p>
<h1>1) There is strong institutionalized racism in American society. Therefore, social-economic status is less salient than race–there is just that insidious force which brings down the performance of every NAM, that just isn’t there for whites and Asians who are most honored in our society. The force isn’t measurable, but we must believe it is there regardless, if we are to continue our great society.</h1>
<h1>2) Yes, lots of Asians arise as valedictorians in the worst school districts full of NAMs. The worst school districts are always black and Hispanic, which worries me…but let us forget about that fact for right now. These Asians are given the “Chua” from their parents, so this is what causes their success. The NAMs have no such advantage. Additionally, there is the issue of stereotype threat. The NAMs are told that Asians are smart, therefore they treat Asians in a certain way, which compels them to be smart. Now our super conservative society full of redneck racists republicans like Mccain and Palin give the message that NAMs are dumb. So NAMs become dumb as a result of this institutional oppression.</h1>
<h1>3) Going to income-based AA would hurt NAMs and probably help Asians the most (Asians are clever little bugs who hide their money away among family and offshore accounts so that they can qualify for financial aid…and if income-based AA were to become a reality, then they would benefit from this as well). And besides, who cares if there are poor students on campus or not? Race is much more important. A campus full of whites and Asians from all kinds of SES doesn’t look nearly as great as one that has shades of black and brown, which are beautiful colors. I just want BLACKS and HISPANICS on campus because it shows the world how lovely and multicultural elite colleges are (OK, so a lot of the “Hispanics” that take advantage of the deal are actually “white”, so I propose that every applicant send in a picture and a DNA test so we can determine what “race” they really are). This makes everyone in the world feel happy. Why is it wrong if the son of a black doctor gets in with way lower scores than the Vietnamese boat refuge? The black kid brings blackness to campus, the Vietnamese kid does not. Black people have a unique way of seeing the world that affects every subject from anthropology to physics. Their “black” thoughts foster creative destruction that is necessary for innovation. Thus their presence in the classroom cannot be underestimated. Asians are uncreative and never participate in classroom discussions anyways, even if they do have high test scores, so boohoo for them.</h1>
<p>In conclusion, I believe that Ivy Leagues should continue to discriminate against whites and Asians in favor of blacks and Hispanics for the purpose of diversity (specifically, racial). Diversity is a supremely important ideological concept that we must accept, because as the axiom goes, DIVERSITY IS STRENGTH. Now this isn’t a provable axiom or anything, but we can consider it to be true, because God tells us so.</p>
<hr>
<p>Martin Luther King day is coming up. MLK would have wanted to continue with affirmative action. MLK is like Jesus, he was never wrong (even when he stuck his thing in places it shouldn’t have been). So please consider MLK’s feelings when discussing this touchy subject, OK?</p>
<p>Actually, I’m fairly confident that my understanding of the world is not bad. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wait, so you’re saying that there is strong institutionalized racism in the United States in favor of Asians against whites (as Asians actually perform academically better, on average, than whites}? In favor? Really? American employers - mostly run by whites - are actually trying to discriminate in favor of Asians? US schools - again, mostly run by whites - are deliberately trying to give unfairly high grades to Asians? That some shadowy coterie of (presumably white) power-brokers in the United States are deliberately trying to promote the welfare of Asians over their own people? Why would they do that? </p>
<p>And besides, even if that is true - quite the overarching conspiracy to say the least - that doesn’t explain why Asians are also notably academically successful in Canada, the UK, Australia, South America, and numerous other regions of the world where Asians can be found. Why do Asian students seem to be so disproportionately represented at the top universities in Canada or the UK? Are you saying that the same hidden white-led conspiracy stretches to those countries as well? </p>
<p>Secondly, as I said before, whatever you may say about institutionalized racism in the US, there is even stronger institutionalized “looks-ism” within the US. Barack Obama is President at least partially because he’s a tall handsome man. What if he wasn’t - would he have won as many votes as he did? Like I said, I’d gladly trade looks with Shemar Moore or Jason Taylor (or, yes, Barack Obama) even though I’m not black. Short, fat, and ugly men and (especially) women of any race are discriminated against every day. Furthermore, unattractiveness is also largely genetically determined and passed on. If you’re ugly, fat, and short, you can probably only marry an ugly, fat, short partner, which then means that your children will also be ugly, fat, and short. Yet nobody is proposing to provide AA for them. So why is there AA for race, but not looks? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did they? In reference to the infamous ‘Chua’ piece, Amy Chua is a professor at Yale Law School. I think we can all agree that her children would never attend a terrible school district. But many poor Asians do because they must, and, yes, many of them also suffer from severe family discord and social strife. Most Chinatowns around the country have significant gang problems, being heavily infiltrated with triads which are some of the most notorious criminal organizations in the world. Yet those students perform well in school anyway. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yet isn’t it interesting that that attitude doesn’t seem to affect black immigrants from Africa or the West Indies, who perform notably well academically despite, in the latter case, suffering from a legacy of slavery even more brutal than that of the US. Mortality rates amongst slaves in the West Indies requiring constant replenishment via the slave trade, was far higher in the West Indies than in the US South which, for all its immoral brutality was one of the few regions in the Western hemisphere where the slave population increased via domestic growth. {Note, this is not an endorsement of slavery whatsoever - all forms of slavery are to be condemned - but merely a discussion of historical facts.} </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You seem to discount the fact that most Asians are immigrants from poor countries who arrive with practically nothing. Japan, the one truly rich Asian country - sends relatively few immigrants to the US. The average Asian immigrant came from a country where the average income is far lower than that of the average African-American or Hispanic. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And who’s being the racist now?</p>
<p>But even to take your assertions head-on, if Asians are truly uncreative, then why do we buy so many Japanese products? Most of us probably own either a Nintendo Wii, Sony Playstation, or Japanese-made car, despite the fact that Japan is one of the most culturally homogeneous societies on Earth. South Korea, too, is becoming notably creative despite also a highly homogeneous society, with Samsung now touted as one of the most innovative companies in the world. You say that blacks offer a unique perspective on the world that is necessary for innovation, yet it is surely true that few if any blacks hold high positions at most Japanese or Korean companies, yet they seem to be highly innovative anyway. </p>
<p>Put another way, if they’re so uncreative, maybe the problem is with us, as why do we keep buying their products? Japanese and Korean products certainly ain’t cheap. {I might understand that you would buy Chinese products because they’re cheap, but not Japanese or Korean goods.} </p>
<p>{This would actually be an interesting theoretical question - does the presence of more blacks in fact increase overall organizational innovation or not? But however theoretically interesting it may be, the point is, the answer to that question has never been definitively demonstrated empirically, almost certainly because nobody in academia dares to approach that question for reasons of political correctness. For example, what if somebody actually found that it wasn’t true? Would he really dare to publish it, for fear of being labeled a racist? } </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>MLK was also deeply concerned with issues of poverty, and indeed spent much of the later years of his life promoting the Poor People’s Campaign to build a multiracial coalition to fight for economic justice. I suspect he would have been deeply uncomfortable with a system that boosted the chances of a child of a black doctor over descendants of poor Vietnamese boat people. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then if that’s true, then why not have diversity across the board? Watching the NFL playoffs, I note that I can’t seem to find too many Asian players. Maybe the NFL should force every team to devote certain roster spots to Asians because, as you said, diversity is strength, right? Hence, NFL teams - consisting of mostly white and black players - would become even stronger if they became more diverse, and doesn’t every NFL team want to become stronger? They should also hire more Asian head coaches - I don’t believe a single head coach in the NFL is Asian, and you’d be hard pressed to find many Asian NFL asisstant coaches. </p>
<p>Put another way, why is it perfectly fine for the top universities to implement race-based AA for the purposes of increasing excellence through diversity, but not so for sports leagues? Heck, even the top universities do not implement race-based AA for their own sports teams. Stanford’s student body is nearly 1/3 Asian which would surely be higher if not for Stanford’s strong race-based AA admissions policies that discourage Asians from being admitted. Yet I don’t believe there’s a single Asian on the Stanford football team, and certainly no starters. {And honestly, if the Stanford starting football team was 1/3 Asian, do you really think they would have won the Orange Bowl?} </p>
<p>Was it satire? Does he actually agree with me? Judging from his post history, his theme seems to be entirely self-consistent. </p>
<p>Now, granted, perhaps his entire post history is satirical. Well, if that’s true, then he did fool me and surely fooled plenty of others as well.</p>
<p>"Sure, but you could maintain “first-gen” cultural attitudes regarding the upbringing of children and respect for education. "</p>
<p>I have thought about that, and what it means, and why I can’t wrap my head around it being clear cut and appropriate across the board. Maybe that is my “child psychiatrist” background, but I think my background is also why I become a child psychiatrist. I think my perspective encompasses not just MY kids, but the lives of all the kids I touch. I think the number of kids like mine are too small to even move the statistics. Most kids I am thinking of have lives that are infinitely more complicated. Those lives effect the big picture ten fold. Generation upon generation. I can only pray I have that much impact, and that it is mostly positive.</p>
<p>I think I will be an anthropologist in my next life.</p>
<p>I do not understand why AA is the focus when there are many groups receiving advantages in admission(legacy, athlete, rich daddy, celebrity, politician, and staff). This is very interesting…especially when these other groups occupy the majority of the accepted pool.</p>
<p>Also just as a side note</p>
<p>When I was growing up(100% puerto rican), I was told I was not white. Back then we were told to check off the “other” category. It seems I have become white, since AA is an issue. </p>
<p>When my parents bought their home(late 1960’s), our neighbors signed a petition to stop the sale. They thought we would bring down the value of the neighborhood. Trust me discrimination still exists.</p>
<p>Students (and even some of their parents…so disgusting) petitioned to get a group of URMs to leave my private HS (with posters, FB statuses, threatening phone calls, and slurs) because they don’t contribute to the endowment and are “just used for advertising” (which I found funny because some of the URMs aren’t low-income and have doctor and layer mommies and daddies just like the other students). This is the same HS that the URMs are attending (some with FA) to have a better chance of attending a decent college and doing better things with their life…and yet somehow it’s so hard being white.</p>
<p>Sorry I just had to mention that even if it is out of context lol. Us alums received a message about it this week</p>
<p>Racism is no longer institutionalized, but it still exists in many forms. </p>
<p>But anyways, think of what the point of AA is. Is it meant to be fair? No, it’s designed to help URMs.
Anyways, I’m not sure that race ALONE is a huge factor. I’m not sure that a rich, educated black guy will get a huge boost in admissions. But you know who WILL get it? The poverty-stricken, first gen black guy who had to care for his crackhead mom and 2 sisters while his dad came home every night, drunk, and raped his mom. In Compton.
HE would get a massive boost. AA is about more than race.
In Grutter v. Bollinger, the SCOTUS ruled that AA, as long as it wasnt the “deciding factor” in admissions, was constitutional.</p>
It’s cute though.</p>