Princeton answers to Jian Li claims

<p>Wupattr said, "The problem I have with all this is that colleges judge Asians differently because of the existence of that stereotype."</p>

<p>Do you <em>know</em> this? As far as I can tell, the complaint has not been resolved, one way or the other. </p>

<p>If race were completely removed from the equation, might it be possible that colleges would become <em>more</em> white based on the Ivy League/elite definition of the kind of student they want? What would you say if this were to occur? Might it be that many Asians are accepted who <em>don't</em> fit the tradition definition of an Ivy League student, but, because of the goal of diversity, they are now included in relatively strong numbers? If ethnicity were to be removed, why not gender as well? Might that mean that colleges would be dominated by white women? </p>

<p>Until there is proof of discrimination, I think it's wrong for people to assume that Princeton is acting against the best interests of any racial group. President Tilghman is a strong supporter of ethnic, geographical, and academic diversity. What other college president has publicly set a goal to admit more "students with purple hair" - in other words, smart students who don't come across as mainstream and predictable?</p>

<p>From my perspective, Mr. Li doesn't have a chance of proving anything. However, I think it's his right to pursue it. I just hope that, if the OCR finds his complaint baseless, that people will actually accept the decision.</p>

<p>
[quote]

In America, we invest in our citizens by giving them access to our elite universities.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Allah willing, I have seen the light today.</p>

<p>I never knew that certain American citizens were not allowed to attend public schools. I never knew that they were not granted pencils and calculators for standardized tests. I never knew they were not given pens to write essays. I never knew they were not given a supply of oxygen to live.</p>

<p>Allah willing, I have seen the error of supporting investment in public education, a flawed system that gives supplies only to rich whites!</p>

<p>Not. You do realize that you have a double standard, yes? Why is it that some people should be given access to elite universities, and others should be satisfied with "other" institutions? Why can't these "our citizens" also be satisfied with "other" institutions?</p>

<p>Momwaitingfornew- What the effect of a switch to truly race-blind admissions on the demographics of colleges would be, exactly, isn't important. The fact that there would be a difference at all would be solid proof as to how significant (or insignificant) a factor race has been in determining college admissions in the past few decades. Whether or not more Asians are admitted, they will no longer have reason to suspect unfair treatment. We can't sit around waiting for "proof" while colleges have the option of deflecting criticism and accusations of wrongdoing by pointing to their subjective evaluation process. These colleges have a real, plausible option to prove what they are saying. And if race is being used as a factor in determining admissions, I want to know why. Pseudo-regulated racial "diversity" via pseudo-quotas just doesn't cut it for me.</p>

<p>
[quote]

Do weightlifters get points for style from the judges? How do judge give preferential treatment to weightlifters?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Preferential treatment in my hypothetical example could be:</p>

<ol>
<li>Tolerating press-outs (forbidden)</li>
<li>Giving the down signal when the feet are still moving (feet must be still and parallel to each other for three seconds.)</li>
<li>Allowing a jerk when the weights are still oscillating (weights must slow down before the jerk is allowed)</li>
<li>Pretending that a 125 snatch is actually a 137.5 snatch</li>
</ol>

<p>List goes on.</p>

<p>
[quote]

Oh, by the way, while you analyze the development of sports in China, let's talk about the development of women gymnastics. Should we emulate the practice of separating thousands and thousands of toddlers from their parents for the sole pipedream of finding a handful of competitive athletes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>xiggi, I respect you highly. Your SAT tips helped me out quite a bit. Having said that, I'm disappointed that you switched topics.</p>

<p>I never said that China's system was "better." I said that when people are given proper support and training, they can improve without resorting to racial preferences.</p>

<p>No, Wupattr, we don't know anything about what would happen. My possibilities were merely hypothetical. </p>

<p>I'd rather see our universities offering their educational opportunities to a diverse group of people. Is race a part of it? Certainly with AA, it is. But are Asians being discriminating against? I doubt it. Still, we'll see when the report is released.</p>

<p>When affirmative action causes preferential treatment for certain minority groups and potentially puts another minority group at an unfair disadvantage, that minority has plenty of reason to speak up. Pointing out that the complaints are coming primarily from the group being disadvantaged and saying they wouldn't be complaining if they weren't fighting for personal gain is pretty much pointless. Most people today wouldn't criticize Rosa Parks for protesting only because society put her people at a disadvantage. The fact remains. Using race as a factor in college admissions is wrong.</p>

<p>cheers: The link was for the 230 point advantage given to blacks which you were doubting.</p>

<p>The problem with Curmudgeon's football analogy is that college is supposed to be about learning. Once you have HS acheivement and standardized test scores you have pretty much everything (except special circumstances).</p>

<p>The proper sports analogy would be track. Joe Blow runs a 4 minute mile in HS. Do I take a 4:15 miler instead because he shows greater "leadership"?</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>Take either one if you can get them, because both of those are excellent HS times. Only four guys in US history (Ryun, Liquori, Danielson, & Webb) have run sub-4:00 minute miles in high school, so not many college coaches have had to make that choice.</p>

<p>The 4:15 guy with great leadership would also be a fine choice. He will have many college track coaches knocking on his door, including those from top programs. The vast majority of guys who end up on the US Olympic team eight years later did not run 4:00 in HS. Most of them ran in the 4:15 - 4:30 range. So coach, if you are lucky enough to have a 4:15 guy with leadership skills interested in your program, take him! He'll be a fine addition to your team, and you'll look good in the eyes of the public when he thanks you in his interview from the top step of the medals stand at the Olympic trials.</p>

<p>Would you say the same if instead of 4:15 it was 6:15?</p>

<p>^^ a 6:15 guy is not high school track material, much less college track.</p>

<p>On that note, a 6:15 girl is not college track material either!</p>

<p>yeah, but for the sake of diversity let us give him a bump of 2 mins.</p>

<p>He did not have any practice, his parents were invalid in wheel chairs, had no place for him to run and practice, and we never had anyone with his ethnicity expressing interest in track.</p>

<p>The admissions process is clouded in secrecy now because they need to protect the rich white legacy applicants. Before it used to be completely meritocratic but too many jews got in. Now its asian students who would dominate top schools if they were completely meritocratic. Top schools readjust their "holistic admissions" process so the scions of the nation's elite can fly under teh radar of the admissions process.</p>

<p>Thats how most systems work, so I wouldn't get worked up over it.</p>

<p>To carry the track analogy a little further -- if you are a coach and you want to build a successful team, do you seek to enroll every 4:00 - 4:15 miler in the country? Of course not. Once you've got a good stable of milers agreeing to enroll, you stop offering scholarships to milers and start recruiting sprinters, jumpers, and throwers. You're gonna need them too, even if your top sprinter's best sprint time isn't as impressive as your top miler's best mile time. </p>

<p>You can't win with just milers on your squad. In short, a winning track program needs (gasp) diversity.</p>

<p>A winning program doesn't need diversity. It needs funding. Affirmative action for minorities just draws away attention from affirmative action for rich donors.</p>

<p>Not only that, some good runner are also good in other distances or field events. Sometimes a coach is willing to take a slightly slower hurdler who also is a good pole vaulter.</p>

<p>
[quote]

You can't win with just milers on your squad. In short, a winning track program needs (gasp) diversity.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No.</p>

<p>A winning track team does not need "diversity" in the form of race. It needs a complete team that is composed of top competitors in each discipline.</p>

<p>Notice how the phrase "top competitors" is race blind.</p>

<p>Maybe the 6:15 has no shoes, lives in an environment that has no facilities, will be viewed as fleeing a crime scene if seen moving that fast, comes from a society that views running as morally wrong, running in her culture is viewed as deviant or a multitude of other reasons might influence the time of this person. They could, with training, be fully capable of a sub 4:00 mile.</p>

<p>Could. But we already know the other kid is.</p>