<p>^
Wow, that is wrong in so many ways. Get out of here, you racist!</p>
<p>@Tyler09: What race and age are you?</p>
<p>^^Statistically there has to be some crazy asians, I mean there are like billions of asian ppl. In fact aren't Asians (as in asia the continent) like the largest group in the entire world? So there has to be at least a few crazy asians. But I think he was joking.</p>
<p>Tyler09 is black, and appllied this year so prolly 18 or 17, I am not a stalker I just saw him in the results thread on the Stanford EA board.</p>
<p>Not trying to be racist here, but it seems like all the Asians are the ones against Affirmative Action, and all the URMs are the ones for it in this debate. Just my observation. I think it is safe to say that we are all biased.</p>
<p>thanks saugus. What a deep and uniquely interesting observation.</p>
<p>Goodness. What would we do without you?</p>
<p>Seriously.</p>
<p>"jroc92" will almost certainly be admitted to Princeton. He has a good EC resume, and a passable GPA/test scores. The pool of qualified AA applicants is very small, and the top schools will be fighting over someone with his credentials. Why is the pool so small?</p>
<p>Because most AA high school students attend poor inner city schools and come from one-parent households. Add to that a HS drop-out rate of around 50%, and you'll come to understand why "jroc92" will get into Princeton and most (if not all) of his top choices.</p>
<p>Affirmative Action certainly has good intentions. But personally, I am not a fan of Affirmative Action because it cannot reverse 12 years of lousy public schooling and in many cases, a missing parent for these students. It's really a poor substitute for fixing lousy inner public schools and does little to level the playing field for UAM students, many of whom start college woefully unprepared for the academic work AND have to carry the extra burden of being classified as Affirmative Action admits.</p>
<p>And let's face it. Affirmative Action ultimately harms Asian Americans more than any other group because it reduces the number of entry slots for more qualified candidates that don't have other hooks, like athletics and legacy.</p>
<p>My 2 cents. Thanks for listening.</p>
<p>I agree with Ernie H.</p>
<p>Princeton's Class of 2012 is 16.7% Asian.</p>
<p>What's far more outrageous is that that number does not include me.</p>
<p>Also, lol @ 7.6% Hispanic and African Amercian constituencies: AA quotas, anyone?</p>
<p>If you look at it superficially you could dismiss everyone's argument as biased, but I don't believe that's the case. It is very likely that minority students have a better perspective on what it means to be black in our education systems, and the way that that can affect the achievement of black students as a whole. Additionally, I have met several Asians who are staunch supporters of AA (keep in mind that AA isn't exactly a topic you discuss often with people). Some common traits of those Asians are that they have attended programs or had experiences in which they were surrounded by a diverse group of highly intellectual people, TASP for example, and they realized the value that comes with it. As far as caucasians that I know, typically 50% of are pro-AA to and extent in college admissions but very few are for AA in hiring (I am strongly against AA in hiring, but for AA in job recruitment). A trend tends to be that the further away whites and asians are from the admissions process, or if they only want to attend states schools that will likely accept them no matter what, the more they tend to support AA. </p>
<p>Also, many African Americans strongly disagree with AA. Debate for example believes it creates a bias against the accomplishments of black students. That is a legitimate argument. I personally don't have that problem because I believe in using admission to a university to validate your achievement with respect to others. </p>
<p>So if somebody has an argument behind their belief on this issue, it is counterproductive to completely dismiss it to "you like it cuz it helps you, I hate it cuz it don't help me!"</p>
<p>
[quote=]
Really political ideology is NOT dependent on intelligence, why are there so many liberals at the top schools. </p>
<p>Perhaps I think it may be that conservatives tend to avoid Ivy League schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i have to disagree....to some extent, political ideology is dependent on intelligence. in order to see this, though, one must make a distinction between fiscal conservatism and social conservatism. fiscal conservatives are still underrepresented at elite colleges, but there are usually a critical mass of them....well, at least there are at harvard. however, there are very few social conservatives. my interpretation of this is that as one becomes more educated, one becomes less able to intellectually justify socially conservative ideas that discriminate....what really is the rational reason for not allowing gay people to marry, etc. in my opinion, a lot of socially conservative ideas are based in fear that stems from ignorance, which is remedied when one is exposed to lots of different types of people, which, incidentally, is the reason we need affirmative action.</p>
<p>i realize that the case i actually made is for why education level correlates with social liberalism rather than intelligence. certainly, the near-hegemony of liberal social ideology at elite schools is partially responsible for producing so many socially liberal graduates, but there is no way that it is entirely responsible. the vast majority of intelligent people i have encountered over the years have been socially liberal.</p>
<p>Found this over at the Columbia forum.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"you like it cuz it helps you, I hate it cuz it don't help me!"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How about: "you like it cuz it helps you, I hate it cuz it hurtz me!"</p>
<p>students tend to be liberal. They think the government should help the poor, hungry, unemployed, etc. When they start working and see how much money they earned that gets taken from their paycheck and gets squandered by their government they tend to become less liberal. When they see the efficiencies of free market and competition they often reconsider. Most people (many exceptions, of course) become more conservative as they "develope" more experience.</p>
<p>% of 20 year olds who are liberal is >>> than 40 year olds-now and 20 years ago.</p>
<p>Anyone who believes that conservative v liberal beliefs is based on intellect is very naive.</p>
<p>There are VERY bright people on both side of the aisle (and not so bright, as well).</p>
<p>Academia tends to attract more liberals, but is the engineer professor who studies engineering smarter than those who put the robot on Mars? Many examples abound. Intellect has no correlation with political leanings.</p>
<p>^
you're talking about fiscal conservatism, and i was talking about social conservatism.</p>
<p>I think that the intellect is the same. There is a very weak (if any) correlation between intelligence and liberal v. conservative philosophy. Either fiscal or social. There are many ways to improve society and different ways to approach them. To conclude that liberal approaches are proposed by smarter people than conservative approaches (or vice versa) reflects a lack of appreciation for multiple solutions to problems and their interactions. We may disagree strongly on different approaches to how society should be structured and/or what policies should be followed, but that doesn't make one approach smarter than the other. </p>
<p>Affirmative action (where this thread began) is an example. We may disagree greatly about AA, but I can see benefits and detriments to both sides. That doesn't make a conservative approach (with its good and bad) any less intelligent than the liberal approach (with its good and bad). Let's disagree, have a heated (and hopefully intelligent) discussion, but that doesn't make either side smarter than the other.</p>
<p>Just my opinion, for what it's worth.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are many ways to improve society and different ways to approach them.
[/quote]
I agree Aardvark, different viewpoints can be valid at the same time. Pro-AA and anti-AA are both looking to solve the same problem, oftentimes same with pro-choice and pro-life (I believe, as a pro-choicer, that abortion is wrong and should be diminished as well). When it comes to these, I don't believe education would necessarily affect political ideology. However, I do believe when it comes to certain ideas, such as gay marriage and stricter application of freedom of religion (no time set aside where everyone prays in public schools) - there is a correlation between education/exposure to different people and liberalism. Intellect, I agree cannot measure how liberal a person will be, because intellect measures learning, and not life. I think a lot of what you get further up in education (that leads to certain facets of liberalism) is tolerance of different viewpoints and understanding, as mazatl said, the lack of reasoning behind imposing religious strictures on people who should be free to choose their own religion.</p>
<p>I do not believe one side is "better" than the other. I have many friends who are conservative and who I understand put their religion first because it is so important to them - ie deep beliefs that abortion is killing a soul, and cannot vote for choice on the issue. Many of them would not change their opinion (about religious issues) upon attending a LAC. But most kids I know are not that decisive; we haven't seen enough of life to make are decisions that steadfastly. So meeting people who see the world differently can have a huge effect on an individual's ideology when it comes to giving those people with different viewpoints freedom as well.</p>
<p>Mazatl, what you (and several other people) seem to believe is that liberalism stems from intellectualism bc there are more liberals at the top schools. But one of the basics of statistics is that correlation does not equal causation. </p>
<p>Many of the top schools are located in liberal areas, as a result more people apply. Then you can not underestimate the fact that population density has an important role in liberalism.
I am very against gay marriage adamantly and for a while harbor negative views of homosexuals, but later after meeting with and working with gay people I changed my views. This is what population density does to people, in areas such as New York or LA or any other liberal place you see a high population density, because when people are in a close proximity they tend to meet people who have different views.
People are the same regardless of their beliefs or orientation or what have you, so you see that liberals or conservatives are exactly alike so you can not logically had views against them. So people in places with a high population density often times are more accepting of differences. </p>
<p>Also statistically it is the people who live in high population density areas that tend to attend top schools. So by logical extension there are more liberals at top schools, although it has absolutely nothing to do with them being liberals.</p>
<p>But moreover, the arguement that the top schools reflect the most intelligent populace is fundamentally flawed. Many intelligent people do not even apply to Ivies. </p>
<p>Take for instance my area in Texas, aside from HYP and maybe Stanford noone really cares about top schools. Some of the most intelligent people here are just as content to go to the University of Texas. And if you want to work in Texas, a UT degree will probably help ALOT more than a Harvard degree, bc UT grads are prevalent in the top rungs of wealth and power in Texas.</p>
<p>Also I am a strong social conservative because of my religious views and I find it really offensive when people insult religious people's beliefs.
For Christians opposing abortion and gay marriage are expressions of faith, in the exact same way that giving to the poor is expression of faith. To say that having an opinion on an issue based on faith is dumb or what have you, would be the same as telling a Muslim person that it is dumb for them not to eat pork or that it is dumb for them to pray five times a day. Either way you slice it up, insulting people's religion or practice thereof is really ignorant.</p>
<p>^You very well know that nobody insulted your belief because you are conscious of the fact that religion, by nature, does not extend from intellect. So I don't know who you were addressing.</p>
<p>I definitely did not insult religion (but I assume you are talking about me b/c I am the only one who brought it up).
[quote]
I do not believe one side is "better" than the other. I have many friends who are conservative and who I understand put their religion first because it is so important to them.
[/quote]
I merely brought this up to show that just because I believe that a few facets of liberalism (which you agree on in your post) correlate with education at Ivies does not mean that I believe liberalism is better. People are different and meant to be unique. I meant my regard towards my best friends' beliefs in all sincerity - I am sorry if it came off the wrong way to you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For Christians opposing abortion and gay marriage are expressions of faith, in the exact same way that giving to the poor is expression of faith.
[/quote]
This is very true for some Christians, and I respect that. But please do not make generalizations. Being Christian is not about political ideology, it is about a relationship with Jesus Christ and God. Many different people are Christian and not necessarily socially conservative.</p>
<p>Does anyone plan on answering jroc92's question? Why don't you guys start your own thread and title it "In continuation of jroc92's thread--affirmative action"</p>
<p>I was not adressing my comments at either of you, but rather at what mazatl had said. It is just that it always seems that when people speak of social conservative ideals in a deragatory way they mention religion, which is why I find it offensive. I am certianly more Christian than conservative (I am economically a little liberal), so if offends me. </p>
<p>Oh I realize that one can be a liberal and a Christian (as evidenced by my US History teacher who is a devout Baptist and the daughter of a minister), so in a lot of respects I would like if politics and religion where seperated. That way people could insult each others political ideologies and I wouldn't mind it one bit.</p>