<p>And k&s, where in his posts does he say anything about Asians at all?</p>
<p>He is simply trying to say that opponents of affirmative-action keep talking about the SAT and GPA, when really so much more is a part of it.</p>
<p>Sorry, k&s, your "denial" claim also does not fly. My last 2 posts specifically address debate points. As to attacking the "messenger," yes, you're the messenger -- but not a credible, accurate messenger, a messenger who's message is that you like to dump on the nearest person available & like to create victims to endure your rage.</p>
<p>My posts imply nothing of what you say they imply. They state general policies, procedures gleaned from authors who have written books about admissions, posters representing colleges, posters reporting what colleges have told them about what is generally sought. Again, they were responses to accusations brought up by others about how supposedly racist it was for colleges to look for "personal qualities" & for "leadership," and about how asking for such qualities is supposedly anti-Asian bias. I responded by asserting that colleges look for such qualities in all candidates, not more so or less so in Asians. Are you saying that Asians don't have those qualities? Interesting. Because I never said it, never thought it, never implied it, so I'm not sure why you're being defensive & belligerent about it, simultaneously.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So schools that have a student body where whites make up 70%+ are any better (btw, the Asians are still a "minority" at Berkeley at 41% and they are much more diverse than many other groups)?
[/quote]
Of course the point was that when one race monopolizes a school so that there is no room for a substantial number of members of other races, the overall school suffers. If there are 70% whites and that figure still permits a significant number of blacks and Hispanics and Asians, then I think the school can do well. If the same were possible with 70% Asians I think likewise. But that ain’t happening at Berkeley.</p>
<p>At Berkeley, we are seeing a spike in Asians, and virtually no existence of blacks. I don’t like what is happening there because the trend means that even if there are highly qualified blacks applying to the school, the odds are such that the sheer numbers of Asians will swamp them. You are getting less representation of this group, and I suspect it will only worsen. These people are the descendants of a group that has been here since 1619, much longer than any other group except for the English and Native Americans. And unlike any other group anywhere in the country, they were enslaved legally, from 1619 to 1865. From 1865 right up to the 1970’s (in my own lifetime), they have suffered legal discrimination of the worst sort. From the 1970’s to this very night, they have suffered the results of this centuries long treatment in the form of family disintegration, poverty and under-education. Surely, if any group has been integral to what has made America what it is, it is this group. If any group has an important voice in our schools, it is this group. I think when you slaughter this group as Berkeley now does, you basically make yourself ignorant of America.</p>
<p>Now, I am not saying Asians are insignificant. I am not even saying they aren’t as significant as blacks. I am saying that no school can consider itself a top American institution of education containing in its entering classes just three descendants of a group that is so fundamental to its own existence. Asian diversity just does not get us here, and it never can.</p>
<p>Perhaps this whole argument is starting from the wrong premise. Try this one:</p>
<p>Universities seek a racially diverse student body. (No specific number of any specific race, just overall racially diverse).</p>
<p>Therefore, the applicants from each race with the top scores, EC, athletics, connections, etc. will get in. The others will not.</p>
<p>Now, since Asians have higher overall scores, then the Asian admittees will have the highest average scores of all admittees.</p>
<p>^^^ Unfortunately, the implication of this practice is that you will know that members of a certain other minority or two are statistically inferior. </p>
<p>Race-blind admissions eliminates that.</p>
<p>" Unfortunately, the implication of this practice is that you will know that members of a certain other minority or two are statistically inferior."</p>
<p>Maybe that is another problem with this board's line of argument. Perhaps a 200-point statistical difference is really just NOT THAT IMPORTANT as far as most universities are concerned. Maybe a racially diverse student body is much MORE important than a test score statistic.</p>
<p>I'd agree with the idea that the implication is that it implies certain minority groups are inferior were it not for the fact that pretty much every major and real civil rights organization in the country rejects this idea outright.</p>
<p>The implication of the practice has no bearing upon the legitimacy of diversity as a goal. The only difference is that one way you are actually enforcing inferiority. I make this only as an observation; it certainly does not hint at a solution. And I say that because I completely agree that it's a tragedy when an oft-persecuted group is nearly shut out of admissions at prestigious colleges.</p>
<p>You make this as an observation as a person who is not a benificiary of affirmative-action (I presume).</p>
<p>As I said, nearly every civil rights organization in the country flatly rejects your opinion.</p>
<p>They do indeed tend to reject the notion (which is hardly 'my opinion') but they have a clear, vested interest in doing so. It doesn't change the fact. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, I am not offering a solution. Quite the contrary, I am troubled by the situation and do not see an obvious solution.</p>
<p>To add to that: Because I believe there is no obvious "solution", we have to muddle through with the imperfect tools we have at our disposal. Diversity is an important and worthy goal. How unfair for certain groups to be excluded from privilege! But also: how unfair that any member of such a group should automatically be assumed inferior. That is what AA enforces. If it's our best-available tool, we have to continue to use it. But it has its disadvantages.</p>
<p>epiphany</p>
<p>Like I said I'm not trying to change ur way of thinking if u keep thinking that way. in fact if you think wikipedia and other internet sources are infallible and princeton professors and others conduct unscientific study, then i don't need to say anymore.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I saw something that says if your Asian they take 50 points off your SAT, if your white its nothing, if your hispanic you get 170, if your black you get 230, and if your legacy you get 180 points.</p>
<p>Again, you did not support this claim at all – not even in the least. What you did was post a link to a study that extended the Espenshade and Chang study. That study by no means supports the initial assertion. That is why epiphany said “You saw/heard wrong. Pure nonsense.” It is indeed wrong, and pure nonsense.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Drosselmeier
how can that link not support the claim someone made? it almost said the exact same thing in wikipedia.</p>
<p>Michigan did a study too. They compare the SAT and GPA of incoming freshmen accepted. Their standard is 1240 SAT / 1600 and 3.4 gpa. They found that black & hispanic have a 75-84% of acceptants with that stat while white has a 14% chance and asian with a 10%.</p>
<p>Obviously, we know that affirmative action gave black & hispanic advantages and not asian.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I personally don’t like what is happening to UC Berkeley. I don’t like it for the same reason I don’t like what has happened at Howard U (though, of course the history is different and understandable here. Even Howard is now trying to diversify its student body. Which is a fine thing). I think a school that is so overrun by students of one race that it leaves no room for a substantial presence of other races, makes for a pretty dull school. Overall, I think the educational experience at such schools is inferior.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>are you white? what's wrong with the majority of student body is asian or black? as far as i know, there are at least 75% of the colleges in the US with the percentage of white over 50%. And that's considered diversity? If the school is overrun by one race and that makes it pretty dull for the school, then maybe 75%+ of the colleges & universities in this country is dull.</p>
<p>This doesn't have much to do with the last few posts, but i've been following this thread for awhile. But last night, my roommate's boyfriend is applying to transfer, and the first ethnicity he wanted to put down was black (he's white though, so obviously it would have been lying, but it was a joke). It goes to show that just about everyone gets to that part of the application and ponders which one to chose.</p>
<p>Myself, white, decided to put down unclassified because although i am causcasian by skin color, we're not too sure on the family history. Besides, unclassified is much better than saying i'm black or asian when i'm white.</p>
<p>First of all, I'd like to say many people on this forum likes to "debate" while no one really can.
The focus of the discussion changed a lot of times, and I believe we should stay focused. </p>
<p>Many people who replied without any debate knowledge thinks they're debating and making an argument while they're actually talking about stuff that doesn't correlate AT ALL! I don't know if they dodge this in purpose b/c they lost their point or what, or maybe I overestimated the skills of those people.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>the discussion was about race playing a factor in admissions. It's an appearance of things, and it's undisputable. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong, igorant, or doing it on purpose. PERIOD.
However, some people (i don't want to point to who that is, i hope you're smart enough to know it's you) dodged this point completely and jumped to the conclusion how racial diversity is important.
Did we say it's unimportant? we only says colleges look at races to decide its admissions! (first part of this thread) we only said it's DEFINITELY easier for some races to get in than others, and marking asian is a HUGE minus. Please don't start another topic, as many ignorant people like to do.
Everytime when we're discussin how races matters, some ignorant people who doesn't know how to discuss/debate talks about how important racial diversity is. we're not talking about that! We're talking about what is happening, not judging its correctness (or at least, during the first part of first page)</p></li>
<li><p>The discussion then slides to people accusing others of saying various things. Again, in debate, one shouldn't do that. Unless it's "clearly implied", we can't use our own thoughts and put words in others mouth. While the so to speak "con" side of AA almost won the debate, someone came out accusing people of stupid things (ie you implied asians are not well-rounded) which turned out to be a failure, making the battle which the con would have won to lose due to the poor debate knowledge/skills.</p></li>
<li><p>In a discussion, we should trust the experts of the field. Same goes in a debate. In plain, "who are you to speak?" If you can quote a study from another expert that indicates otherwise, we can further the discussion. Otherwise, I don't think anyone is good enough to deny the results of studies of that expert, unless he/she can prove he is even more knowledgable than that of the Princeton professors. Plainly saying "it's biased, they use it just b/c they want to prove AA is wrong" is just ignorant and irrelevent and illogical.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Lastly, please, use some sense of logic, although the few people out there have any true logic.
When debating, we're trying to get closer to the truth, not just mixing all the facts together and making it even more confusing.</p>
<p>oh, by the way,</p>
<p>if you think you're better than the experts, please indicate why.
if not, please go research someone who's better in the field and show his studies indicate otherwise.
Or else, any research that's proved by the authority should be accepted by default in a debate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
how can that link not support the claim someone made? it almost said the exact same thing in wikipedia.
[/quote]
Because the study never said what you were trying to support. It is literally as simple as that.</p>
<p>Everyone knows race matters in colleges that take race into account during the admissions process. This is nothing to even discuss because no one denies it. Race matters to colleges because it matters everywhere else in a person's life. In America, it literally means the difference between being treated one way or another. So colleges must logically take it into account as they review their applicants.</p>
<p>
[quote]
First of all, I'd like to say many people on this forum likes to "debate" while no one really can... </p>
<p>Many people who replied without any debate knowledge thinks they're debating and making an argument while they're actually talking about stuff that doesn't correlate AT ALL! ... Please don't start another topic, as many ignorant people like to do... </p>
<p>In a discussion, we should trust the experts of the field...</p>
<p>Lastly, please, use some sense of logic, although the few people out there have any true logic.</p>
<p>When debating, we're trying to get closer to the truth, not just mixing all the facts together and making it even more confusing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I just wanted to select these gems for the permanent exhibition.
I'm sure you won't mind ;)</p>
<p>I did not make that claim
[quote]
I saw something that says if your Asian they take 50 points off your SAT, if your white its nothing, if your hispanic you get 170, if your black you get 230, and if your legacy you get 180 points.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I just show that there are actually evidence why he/she said that by providing the link. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The data from the study represent admissions disadvantage and advantage in terms of SAT points (on the old 1600-point scale):</p>
<p>Blacks: +230
Hispanics: +185
Asians: </p>
<p>
[quote]
Oherwise, I don't think anyone is good enough to deny the results of studies of that expert, unless he/she can prove he is even more knowledgable than that of the Princeton professors.
[/quote]
The Princeton professors themselves admitted that there were inherent difficulties with their study because of the nature of college admissions. When the press contacted them regarding the recent action against Princeton they reiterated this point, saying that college admissions had more to do with just SAT scores. The problem I have here is with the claim that the Princeton study shows that students SAT scores are getting points added to and subtracted from them. That study simply does not support this. It is merely a simulation of the selectivity force admissions place on groups. Admissions do not in fact select groups, but individuals, but these professors wanted to try to see the effective selection pressure by group and then quantify it on a scale we all know, the SAT scale. Basically, the study tells us what we already know, that some groups have more selection pressure put on them than others because they need it more than others. Whites and Asians hardly need any selection pressure because they are cramming the schools as it is. Other groups need a great deal more pressure. All the students are qualified for the schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I just show that there are actually evidence why he/she said that by providing the link.
[/quote]
But that link is not evidence for this claim.</p>