I wish I weren't Asian

College Confidential Community
441

<p>fab,
Several yrs. ago, I had a similar reaction to yours, regarding the term "holistic." My reactionary reaction was to assume that both the term & the approach/policy were apologetic & compensatory, avoiding accountability for admissions decisions. I know that my opinion was more linked to having seen <em>early</em> AA operate, with its varied results, indicating that some decisions were excellent, some very poor, and some that sunk due to lack of <em>appropriate</em> (not exceptional) campus support.</p>

<p>Fast forward many years. Interestingly, I believe that even the mixed history of early AA actually had a very favorable result in the long run. Its mixed success caused college administrators to scrutinize the process, to delve into the "why," and to discover commonalities in the successes of AA students, along with tracking success overall in admitted students across the board.</p>

<p>That investigation, coupled with solid (& more current) knowledge of educational theory married with practice/outcomes, has led to much more accurate predictability & better tools to assess potential for challenging college curriculum.</p>

<p>Let me give you a non-AA example of how "holistic" works:
A couple of recent cases include students I am quite familiar with, so much so that I was able to provide appropriate college lists for them & to predict accurately where they would be accepted & denied. Both these students are Caucasian Anglo. Both got 800's on the SAT Verbal; both had a very ill-conceived math curriculum in high school, which ignored a key element of the SAT Quantitative Reasoning section. One student was rich, the other poor. The rich student, who could afford private SAT tutoring, raised her score slightly on the Math, but not significantly. The poor student raised her own score by only 10 points with individual study. In the end, nothing could really compensate for the poor math curriculum, because the topic ignored was a major sub-topic in the Quantitative section of the test, and one doesn't cram for that successfully. This is despite the fact that both students are clearly, and by every other measure -- including measures way beyond the high school curriculum -- brilliant. Those measures included national academic awards in their respective fields of interest.</p>

<p>Both students are humanities oriented, but both performed better in AP science & math classes than many of the science & math oriented students in those classes, and at a very challenging & competitive school. That included capturing the class prize in one of those subjects. One of the 2 students performed better on a national math test than classmates who earned 800 on the SAT Quantitative.</p>

<p>Their extracurriculars were phenomenal AND atypical. (The latter may be even more important than the former.)</p>

<p>The Ivies grabbed them, including HYP, where they are now. What the Elites cared about, and do care about today, is the intellectual ability to handle that U's curriculum -- which will include quantitative analysis, ability to conceptualize, and great verbal facility. They had all of that. They just didn't have a bleepin' 800 Math score. </p>

<p>And there are opposite examples. There are ESL immigrants who get 800's on the Math, 600's on the Verbal or CR, due to language challenges, but who have demonstrated in other ways & by other measures an upward trend in language facility, an ability to tackle concepts in what to them is a foreign language, etc. Some of those students are equally valued by Elite colleges.</p>

<p>And there are many different examples of African-American and Hispanic students whose <em>entire</em> package demonstrates the necessary foundation for & fluency with higher concepts, despite the fact that a score on one section of one test might be considered "sub-par." Some of those examples are on CC Results threads. There's one very recent example I can think of which clearly demonstrates how "holistic" works, & why this student got in.</p>

<p>The test for excellence & the test for potential (which still remain the primary measures for Elite admissions) extends far beyond the SAT. The colleges have learned that, and that is why it has become a relative piece of information even for non-URM's.</p>

442

<p>Just to put this in clearer perspective:
"holistic" is not limited to, or even primarily aimed at, URM's. It is activated for every applicant. A non-URM student with a 2400, 4.XXX but whose other aspects are not as impressive as those of competing applicants, may receive a rejection or waitlist, as he/she is being looked at holistically. The fact that the Ivies reject or W/L half of all perfect scorers each year (which include at the least Caucasians & Asians, both) is evidence of the holistic approach.</p>

443

<p>
[quote]
i feel like asians, despite there abilities, are not, how you would say, intellectuals.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My (white) kids have a lot of Asian friends, so I know what you're getting at, but I see it in a different way. </p>

<p>Among the white kids I know, there is often a feeling that having intellectual interests is a prerequisite for doing extremely well in school. Students who have the ability to take the most challenging possible courses and earn top grades but who do not have the inclination to do so because their interests lie in other directions often feel quite comfortable pursuing those interests and settling for more modest academic accomplishments. Their parents and community don't seriously object to this. </p>

<p>Among Asian kids, on the other hand, having intellectual interests is not regarded as a prerequisite for top academic achievements. Those who have the ability to do well are expected by their parents and community to do well, regardless of whether they are truly intellectual. And many of these kids do indeed take the hardest possible courses and work hard to earn top grades in those courses, even though they don't particularly enjoy it. That's what their culture tells them to do. </p>

<p>The result of this cultural difference is simple: There are a lot of kids who have the ability to be top students but who are not naturally intellectual. If these kids happen to be Asian, a large proportion of them will be top students. If they happen to be white, many will not be top students. I think this is why you see a lot more high-achieving-but-nonintellectual Asians than whites.</p>

444

<p>fab, with regard to your last point in post #440:</p>

<p>I think this is possibly another misunderstood aspect of admissions priorities. Drosselmeier is talking about the aspect of context & environment, which AdOfficer & many college reps & college websites also discuss. Because you and D have "gotten into it" in the realm of slavery/post-slavery, effects of slavery, & initial reasoning behind AA in the first place, you may conclude that context has mainly to do with some social reward for triumphing over otherwise defeating social pressures ("downward," as he says). I could be wrong about your association of these 2 ideas. </p>

<p>Poor whites, as he mentioned, may have downward economic pressures but not downward racial pressures, which complicate the drive to succeed. Yet even poor whites are "rewarded" for context disparities, WHEN their achievement in this context is exceptional. This is because in both such examples, the student has shown tenacity of drive, which is an important predictor of success in college & beyond. </p>

<p>I must also tell you that there was a study done a couple of years ago about ELC students at U.C., separated socioeconomically. The ELC students who went to high-rent, well-funded public schools and were not URM's, did poorly, overall, at U.C. They put in, by their own admission, & by their transcripts, as little effort as possible, to get by with "C's." On the other hand, the ELC acceptees who were from poor backgrounds (which included some Southeast Asian students, btw) continued to perform in college at the outstanding level they had performed in high school; there was no change in drive for the latter group.</p>

<p>That is all a separate issue from issues Drosselmeier & AdOfficer have discussed about the importance of race as inclusive feature in the decision to admit for a balanced class, but is nevertheless an important issue, as the colleges see it & have experienced it.</p>

445

<p>Come on!!!! I can not believe what you people who argue about not to stereotype "URM" are saying. "Asian kids become top students by working hard and white kids become top students by being smart". Only the GPA and standard test scores do not make someone a top student any more. A top student has to be active in many other school related functions. My D may have hold the record of # of bonus questions answered in a state quiz bowl match. Only hard work without "intellectual" will not afford that kind of performance when quick thinking wins. </p>

<p>Also, do you know who invented compass, gun powder, paper making etc? How can you say that Asians are less innovative? </p>

<p>Another also, I see many on this BBS using "I know this..." type of arugement. You all should know, there are exceptions to all rules.</p>

446

<p>
[quote]
SarahLitke - there is nothing wrong about asians. but they are very science and math oriented. I am not a racist, and please dont label me as so, but i feel like asians, despite there abilities, are not, how you would say, intellectuals. i find thats asians lack creativity opposed to thier western counterparts. how many socrates and platos are in asian history? yes, there are some but not many. Asisans lack certain things. there view of the world is based more on numbers. i know this is a dumb stereotype, agian im not a rasict, this is just what i feel. i am pretty sure i have some credence in what i stated.</p>

<p>Marian - The result of this cultural difference is simple: There are a lot of kids who have the ability to be top students but who are not naturally intellectual. If these kids happen to be Asian, a large proportion of them will be top students. If they happen to be white, many will not be top students. I think this is why you see a lot more high-achieving-but-nonintellectual Asians than whites.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>These two statements (and there are many more in this thread) are indicative of the problem Asian-Americans face with regard to admissions.</p>

<p>These generalities of Asians "lacking creativity" and being "nonintellectual" are nothing but simplistic stereotypes based on IGNORANCE.</p>

<p>SarahLitke - while you may not be a racist - you, otoh, definitely have prejudiced views towards Asians and frankly (like many) are pretty ignorant with regard to really knowing anything about Asians.</p>

<p>If your generalities hold true - Asia would be devoid of any culture - no art, music, dance, etc. - which clearly isn't the case.</p>

<p>The same goes for Asian-Ams. If Asians are so devoid of creativity as you say - how come there is a long list of Asian-Am fashion designers? </p>

<p>Derek Lam, Anna Sui, David Chu (Nautica), Vivienne Tam, Jeffrey Chow, Vera Wang, Peter Som, Doo-ri Chung, Jean Yu, Eugenia Kim, Josie Natori, etc. (and these are just those who have made a name for themselves in the fashion industry).</p>

<p>Btw, not only does FIT have a 14% Asian student body - 40% of Parsons School of Design's fashion dept. is Asian.</p>

<p>How about Asian-Am architects/designers? </p>

<p>Minoru Yamasaki (who designed the WTC Twin Towers), IM Pei, Maya Lin (Vietnam Memorial), George Nakashima (father of the American craft movement), Noguchi Isamu, PH Tuan, Billie Tsien, George Suyama, Jay Deguchi, etc.</p>

<p>Or others such as Nam June Paik who was the originator of the medium of video art?</p>

<p>As for thinking that there aren't many Asian philosophers and thinkers - I forgive your ignorance since you had a Western-based education . However, I did as well, but I, otoh, wasn't so foolhardy to make ignorant assumptions and took the time to educate myself on these matters.</p>

<p>
[quote]
epiphany - The fact that the Ivies reject or W/L half of all perfect scorers each year (which include at the least Caucasians & Asians, both) is evidence of the holistic approach.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The problem with this "holistic" argument is that it doesn't apply equally to whites and Asian-Ams, or more specifically, to Jews and Asians.</p>

<p>The argument that many have used to "explain" the lower overall nos. of Asians in the student body (as compared to Jews) in the Ivy League has been that of Asian applicants having "limited interests" or Asians not being as "well-rounded" as their [white] counterparts (basically implying that Asians aren't white enough).</p>

<p>As I had stated before, the applicant pool of "whitewashed" Asians (who act, think, socialize, etc. "white" and hence, are "well-rounded") is, at the very least, the same size of that of the Jewish applicant pool and yet, the % of Jews at Ivy League colleges is significantly higher.</p>

<p>No one has yet come up with a plausible explanation for that.</p>

447

<p>epiphany,</p>

<p>With respect to your post (442), I don't have a problem with that. If a competitive student cannot distinguish himself from the applicant pool, then he is not entitled to admission.</p>

<p>What he is entitled to, however, is a fair appraisal. Comments like "not another boring Asian" are unfair and unacceptable.</p>

<p>If a student were singled out as "not another boring candidate," that would be much better. His race had nothing to do with it; he simply did not stand out. But, if the words are "not another boring Asian," hey - I have problems with that. Big problems.</p>

<p>I disagreed with Drosselmeier's use of the phrase "built-in downward pressures." If I recall correctly, he used it to mean that Blacks are basically born with feelings of inferiority. I don't buy that for a picosecond. I do, however, acknowledge that discrimination still exists. And, I absolutely fail to comprehend how racial preferences combat existing discrimination.</p>

<p>It appears that a significant number of racial preference supporters fear that campuses will become less diverse if race-blind policies were used.</p>

<p>All you're telling me is that there currently aren't enough qualified "under-represented minority" candidates.</p>

<p>This is a problem. Why are most of you so adamant against finding ways to actually increase the number of strong applicants?</p>

<p>Stupid question, I already knew the answers. For some, abandoning racial preferences means losing control of redemption. For others, abandoning racial preferences means accepting responsibility (with proper help and support) of solving intrasocietal problems.</p>

448

<p>"All you're telling me is that there currently aren't enough qualified "under-represented minority" candidates."</p>

<p>Nope. Never said that. And none of my examples showed that.</p>

<p>"Why are most of you so adamant against finding ways to actually increase the number of strong applicants?"</p>

<p>Why are you so adamant against acknowledging the strength of the Accepted pool at America's Elite U's? </p>

<p>You have linked "qualified" to "numbers." The U's do not do that. They are in a much better position to determine qualification than you are. In the overall picture of a candidate, scores are not as much of a indicator of prior success or future promise as you believe. </p>

<p>Those with more experience in life, regarding the arc of learning, the scope of the intellect, the determiners of ability: these are the ones most capable of making <em>usually</em> the best decisions for the U. Holistic does not mean rationalization. It means looking at all the components of intellectualism, by no means limited to a score.</p>

449

<p>marian wrote:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Among Asian kids, on the other hand, having intellectual interests is not regarded as a prerequisite for top academic achievements. Those who have the ability to do well are expected by their parents and community to do well, regardless of whether they are truly intellectual. And many of these kids do indeed take the hardest possible courses and work hard to earn top grades in those courses, even though they don't particularly enjoy it. That's what their culture tells them to do.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>in are adcoms being truthful thread post # 64 Laserdad writes:</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=285843%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=285843&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
We are immigrants to this country and we know no one at any universities. The only thing that we have for my D and S to get into good schools are 100% solid numbers. We let our kids know that very early and we work with them everyday. Everytime they got a A- in something in the quater, we talk to them. If needed, we would schedule a conference with their teachers to seek help. Solid grades and test scores do not fall from sky (to most of the populations). Last time I checked, my D's grades were 4 A+ and 3 As in a very competitive HS (99.2% of the graduates go to colleges). And we had a good talk with my S who had only 2 A+ and the rest of As.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>in the parents forum thread Where do we start, post 24 laser writes:
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=284628&page=2%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=284628&page=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
BTW, we have been using the USnews's national ranking to pick our targets and we have not done any research on these LAC. Our understanding is that - only those who can't get into a national university go to a LAC

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In the same thread on post # 34 he writes:</p>

<p>
[quote]
One other factors in selecting only top name universities is the peer pressure. Most of the Chinese we know send their kids to these universities. If my DD does not get in one of them, I would "lose face".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Would his statements be considered antecdotal or are his statements and actions an important part of his culture? Are his expectation for his children a singlular case or are these expectations some what normative in asian culture?</p>

450

<p>"Why are most of you so adamant against finding ways to actually increase the number of strong applicants?"</p>

<p>Fab, it's not because people are adamantly opposed but because some of us have seen the societal/political attempts to do this fail over and over. More money on schools? Extra funding had little effect. No Child Left Behind? Still no improvement - and some districts even resorted to cheating to artificially boost their numbers. More teachers? The best teachers continued to take jobs where the students came from situations that made achievement easy, or in schools where the racial make-up was most similar to their own, so, if the pool of minority educators are small, then it's difficult to staff minority schools.</p>

<p>The problem is both societal and cultural, and you cannot change that with better funding. The key is identifying the most intelligent and ambitious minority students, giving them an excellent education, and letting them change things by example. AA has worked, however imperfectly, by increasing the chances for smart URMs to succeed. I've seen this progress over my lifetime, and it has been remarkable, even though there's a long way to go. Making sure that talented URMs are given a chance to learn beside their non-URM peers builds a stronger future for all. The college-educated URMs are the ones who will gradually reduce the need for AA.</p>

<p>While I don't agree with Drosselmeier's assertion that AA is directly linked to reparation for slavery, I agree with him in principle: blacks and Latinos face extraordinary expectations that they will fail. It's implied in many of the posts on this thread. Asians, on the other hand, face extraordinary expectations that they will succeed -- and that pressure is also implied in many posts. Both are unfair stereotypes; however, one is a negative view of the race, and the other is positive. Students (and people in general) are more likely to succeed when others believe that they will. The reverse is also true. So, tell me, which group has overcome greater hardship to be able to compete at the elite level? I'm not saying that some applicants have worked harder academically than others (although that may be true), but that some have overcome psychological and societal barriers, even if they are middle class, in addition to academic challenges. And that's not even taking into consideration those URMs living in poverty, in single parent households with completely absent second parents, and in situations where the parents have no idea how to study themselves and therefore cannot offer guidance to their children. (This last is why first generation college students get special consideration.) </p>

<p>It's a complicated issue with no clear solutions. If the solutions <em>were</em> clear, we would have solved things long ago.</p>

451

<p>
[quote]
If you think he'd get lost in a race-blind system (because there are "tens of thousands" of qualified Whites and Asians), then that tells me that you think there aren't enough students who are as qualified as he is.

[/quote]
There could be plenty of students as qualified as he is, but not relative to the number of whites and Asians who apply. There could be plenty who are at your level, but not relative to whites and Asians, and so on down the line.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Programs like AVID do not target the student you mentioned. I would guess that he's very motivated and chooses to take challenging coursework of his own accord. AVID focuses on students who normally shy away from advanced coursework. Similar programs can increase the number of strong, competitive students from "under-represented" groups.

[/quote]
The problem with these sorts of programs is that they fail to address the issues that suppress black academic motivation. The kid has to already express a commitment to academics to qualify. AVID is needed, but it alone is only part of a solution. I think we also need a solution for the high scoring, highly motivated blacks so that they don’t get lost in college admissions. They show the kids in AVID what it is all about.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I didn't really like that statement. I've never said that Asians are "better." Several, and I mean several, people have straw manned me, but never have I made such remarks. I note that you used the word 'possibly,' but the statement as a whole is very afrocentric.

[/quote]
Well please try to understand that I didn’t mean it this way at all. It is hard for me to be Afrocentric (which idea I reject) here as I admit we blacks suffer far fewer high scorers than Asians, though our population dwarfs that of the Asians. So obviously I meant something else. The point I am trying to make is that even if a black kid is actually smarter, better, than most Asians quantitatively, there is still a good chance he will get lost in a race-blind process because there are just so many more Asians and whites who score as he did. I am saying a straight numbers based system will have an innately detrimental effect on black representation at elite colleges because the odds are stacked against blacks and for Asians and others. I think this has already happened at Berkeley.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Drosselmeier, your last paragraph opens the door for all sorts of discrimination. Should I pick an atheist because I think he has respect for science? Or, should I pick a fundamentalist Christian because I know he is "committed"? Should I pick a person who has Algerian ancestry because I know he will be perseverant? You see where I'm getting at. Where does the line stop?

[/quote]
We aren’t really dealing with views here, which surely can be discriminated against. Though we have a constitutional right to believe as we wish, this right does not mean we may express our opinions and not have them influence our selection for a college. We still can suffer the consequences for our opinions in society. Our right only means our government cannot punish or suppress us for our beliefs opinions. If you are building a class, you must and do discriminate on the basis of ideas and beliefs. A student may have great stats, but if it turns out he hates Jews and cannot handle having them as classmates and professors, well, schools with Jewish students and professors ought to discriminate against that view. Views can be rejected.</p>

452

<p>
[quote]
While I don't agree with Drosselmeier's assertion that AA is directly linked to reparation for slavery


[/quote]
I don’t think AA actually is linked to reparations. I think it should be. Here is where I am coming from. I am saying that our country is going to pay the full price of slavery and all that came after it. I am saying this is like an economic or even physical law. You hit someone, that person is gonna feel angry against you until you do something to relieve the anger. As long as the anger exists, it creates an imbalance, a claim against you that eventually will be resolved in some way. This applies to all relationships. In the case of blacks, we are going to pay whether we wish to or not.</p>

<p>So, we have a choice. We can either keep paying as we are now, letting the price get tougher and tougher as time passes and the claims remain unresolved, or we can actually “repair” the sense of loss and fulfill the claims the wounded people in our country have against us. I believe the civilized thing to do is to take the latter approach.</p>

<p>And it really doesn’t have to cost that much. Here is the idea:</p>

<p>I think every American has a duty to fix the legitimate problems in our country. I think blacks have a duty to forgive the claims they have against the country and that they need to work deliberately toward embracing the idea that they are not African, not foreign, but are natives. Shoot. We are the only people in this country created here without any ties to a specific ancient homeland. This is it for us, and the sooner we learn to celebrate this uniqueness, the better we will be. But I think we cannot get to this point with a population that remains so suppressed by the effects of history. I think through education, we can build a culture that grows enough of a sense of identity that is detached just enough from the oppression of the past, that the whole culture will be willing to forgive the past and move on. An awful thing, for example, happened to the Japanese during WWII. It is something we should remember. But Japanese seem able to move beyond it because they are not suffering the direct effects of it. Blacks are still suffering the effects. If we relieve those effects, just enough, I believe they will be able to forgive the claim. I am looking at AA and thinking it could help here. Many scholars already think it was responsible for building the black middle class. It could help further adjust the culture so that over time blacks will begin to sense a duty to the country to release their historic claim and accept it openly, warts and all.</p>

<p>Now, maybe I am wrong about all this. I have questions about many of the effects of AA, for example. I am just saying I think AA could in part be a fit mechanism to bring about the repairs millions of us already sense are needed.</p>

453

<p>epiphany,</p>

<p>Indeed, you've never explicitly stated that. I applaud your carefulness.</p>

<p>As far as none of your examples showing that, however, I disagree.</p>

<p>Your decision to break down the numbers of the 90% qualified pool into groups that are overwhelmingly White and Asian demonstrates that.</p>

<p>Your fear that campuses won't be diverse (ie. will have fewer Blacks and Hispanics) under race-blind policies demonstrates that. This is the more damning of the two.</p>

<p>The accepted pool is strong, I do not contest that. Since we both agree, why not abandon racial preferences? I've stated that the good students (90% are qualified) automatically bring diversity, but you disagree and assert that without intervention, the numbers will be heavily skewed in favor of Whites and Asians.</p>

<p>Um, doesn't that translate into plain English as "there currently aren't enough qualified 'under-represented' minority candidates"?</p>

<p>I will applaud another thing. You're honest enough to recognize that you can't support both racial preferences and aggressive outreach. One parent has comically defended her support of racial preferences by stating that she can simulanteously support aggressive outreach. It's impossible because the former assumes that the beneficiary groups can't make it on their own, but the latter forces them to.</p>

<p>Yeah, admissions officers most definitely are in a better position to determine qualified. You actually don’t have to make such comments because I do not challenge them and they are obvious facts (me = high school senior, AdOfficer = admissions officer at a university).</p>

<p>I acknowledge your experience, but I cannot agree with your support of racial preferences (or "balance" if you like).</p>

<p>It does not surprise me that comments like "not another boring Asian" don't bother you. After all, you're not Asian and don't really consider our complaints as justified.</p>

454

<p>sybbie719,</p>

<p>You selected comments from a Chinese immigrant. Not only do your last two questions assume that he speaks for all Chinese Americans in this nation, but they also assume that he speaks for all Asian Americans in this nation.</p>

<p>You are aware about how, <em>gasp</em>, diverse a continent Asia is, yes?</p>

<p>You are aware that there are cultural differences between Malays and Chinese, yes?</p>

<p>You are aware that there are language differences between Kazakhs and Filipinos, yes?</p>

<p>You are aware that most Uzbeks are Muslim while most Thais are Buddhist, yes?</p>

<p>I mean, what kind of point are you trying to make?</p>

<p>Asians, like any other group, should be neither discriminated for nor against.</p>

<p>If admissions officers deride an applicant as “not another boring student,” then at the very least his race didn’t come into play against him (c.f. “not another boring Asian”).</p>

455

<p>"You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named Bush, Dick, and Colon. Need I say more?" - Chris Rock</p>

456

<p>fab,
You need to seriously stop extrapolating inappropriately from what posters do not say. Because they do not explicitly say things, does not give you permission to infer that they are actually saying them, or that they agree with positions they have not specifically denied, refuted, or condemned. And you need to rather extrapolate appropriately from previous statements they <em>have</em> made, which would support or refute some of your statements. (And sorry for these double split infinitives.)</p>

<p>For example, much earlier I was extremely clear about condemning stereotyping, of any group, anywhere, by anyone. Search for those posts. You are way off base to say the following:</p>

<p>"It does not surprise me that comments like "not another boring Asian" don't bother you. After all, you're not Asian and don't really consider our complaints as justified."</p>

<p>I don't address the repetition of the same phrases (by you) over & over, because to me they are not at the heart of the foundational arguments here. Nor was I the author/speaker of such a statement. You keep bringing up this phrase & the "textureless math grind" one as if they're representative of admissions committees in general. They are not. You bring up these phrases rather than deal directly (often) with the arguments presented to you -- by me and often by others. You simply go off on your own tangent. It's a red herring. This is not the heart of the issue.</p>

<p>Also, you have misunderstood my positions in other ways. I most definitely support both inclusion & aggressive outreach, & I continue to call your use of "preferences" inappropriate (inaccurate). That implies an absolute, when it's relative & flexible, depending on whether there is even a huge imbalance of applications in the first place. Drosselmeir is well aware of my outreach attempts, & I consider myself an advocate in that dept, in all my educational roles.</p>

<p>Your posts most definitely, to me, imply that you know better who & who is not more qualified (theoretically).</p>

<p>I don't "fear" less diversity. I'm merely approving of the Elites' increasingly successful efforts at achieving diversity within excellence, & only excellence.</p>

<p>I don't think I'm being "careful" in my wording. That implies I'm being coy or avoiding the core arguments. I merely disagree with some of the categories & definitions you throw out, then insist that others align themselves with those views.</p>

457

<p>Momwaitingfornew,</p>

<p>I do not believe that just throwing money at schools will solve the problem. I don’t claim to know just how bad some schools in this nation are. But, if they lack modern textbooks, get them new(er) ones. If they lack challenging classes, train teachers to teach AP. If they lack sufficient guidance programs, train counselors to help their students better. I certainly agree with you that aimless funding does nothing.</p>

<p>It just occurred to me that both you and Drosselmeier have a similar view. You both seem to support “finding the ‘talented tenth’ and sending them to the elites.” Forgive me if I grossly misstate your views (I don’t think I am), but neither of you seems to be interested in making the remaining 90% stronger.</p>

<p>It’s my belief that the existing ‘talented tenth’ can be admitted to a very large number of colleges on their lists exclusively by their high school accomplishments. Their race need not be factored in at all because they’re already <em>that</em> good.</p>

<p>It’s also my belief that existing racial preference policies do next to nothing to helping the remaining 90%. Hence, I support finding ways that can actually help this large group of people.</p>

<p>Positive or not, it’s still a stereotype. And, it has been recorded that this stereotype is affecting Asians in elite admissions. We have been typecast as quiet, shy, hard-working people who like (or were forced to like) math and science. The person who is none of these is the exception that proves the rule. This is why I want my race to count neither for me or against me. I don’t want someone to pay fake lip service to my ethnic group (as one parent has in another thread). At the same time, I don’t want someone branding me as “this guy just tried to be different, he doesn’t really like history.”</p>

<p>It is a complicated issue, but there is a clear solution. Abolish racial preferences. Send a clear message to “under-represented” minorities. Not only can they meet high standards, but they must if are to succeed. This doesn’t mean that they won’t receive help. It just means that help no longer includes preferential treatment based on race.</p>

458

<p>epiphany,</p>

<p>How else am I going to explain your fear that without racial preferences, campuses will become less diverse? Really, how else?</p>

<p>You’ve stated that even within a 90% qualified pool, diversity is not “automatic.” So, if the 90% qualified pool won’t naturally produce satisfactory diversity, then doesn’t that mean you’d have to dip into the remaining 10%?</p>

<p>You say I’m off base for making that comment. Well, do you view our complaints as justified? Do you feel that I’m selfish when I say that my race should be fairly treated?</p>

<p>Statements like “not another boring Asian” or “textureless math grind” are important to me because they are evidence of bias against Asians made by admissions officers. It’s quite related to the whole issue of racial preferences. Not a tangent by any definition.</p>

<p>We may define it differently, but inclusion is just another politically correct and amorphous term that means “racial preferences.” Aggressive outreach, however, is not.</p>

<p>I definitely agree with Dr. Shelby Steele that it is impossible to simultaneously support racial preferences and aggressive outreach.</p>

459

<p>Fab,</p>

<p>You know that you can take any one of your statements and replace the word asian with black, white, or hispanic but it seems that you have no problem painting URMs using broad strokes, but you don't want those same broad stokes applied to asians. But like everyone else her, I am not going to get into a word for word posting with you because your diatribe has gone on for the better part of these 456 posts. </p>

<p>You are entrenched in a mindset all your own (and a pretty culturally encapsulated one at that), and no matter what any one states, or facts that others present, you are still going to think what you want. That is one of the great things about being 17, you know everything and anyone saying anything to the contrary, doesn't know what they are talking about and yo're not open to hear it. The great thing is hopefully you will live a little while longer with a little luck you'll out grow this.</p>

460

<p>lol
i can honestly say i read only like 5 of these 40 million posts so i can't fairly enter this discussion
i just wanted to say this title about made me pee my pants
where i come from if you're NOT asian or pacific islander-you're a flippin weirdo
it was just so weird to hear someone wish they weren't normal (in my world at least)
anyhow...you guys could argue this to death; wherever you go there's going to be racists and wherever you go there's going to be someone to argue they're not racists and standing right next to them are people who are asking the both of them to stop arguing and there's probably a guy next to him who says it is worth arguing about for the sake of human dignity. but by the time you figure out how many people are there and *** they're arguing about-what's the point...why not go play soccer or eat ice cream or something.
arguing just adds fuel to the flame, so just chill :)</p>