<p>Prejudiced hack? Let me laugh at your silly comment. I have no prejudice whatsoever but have enough objectivity to recognize the racists, the cheats, and the connivers. Regarding helping others, I believe to have helped more people in each of the more of 500 weeks I have been here than you have in your entire time here. Please point me to any of your HELP that could undo your pontificating hateful and racial superiority hogwash. </p>
<p>To highlight the stupidity of your comment, you remain oblivious to the fact that the overwhelming majority of the people I have helped happen to be from YOUR racial group. How many do you have, my dear all-talk but no action friend. While you waste your time rehashing idle rhetoric, I simply help people increase GPA and test scores and navigating arcane scholarships applications. People who happen to come from many different countries and economic backgrounds. </p>
<p>Even if you were right, what have you accomplished in your yearlong crusade? Nothing, absolutely nothing. </p>
<p>Do not kid yourself in believing that your contributions have not been a whole stack of nothingness. A pathetic stack of nothing, nada, zilch!</p>
<p>Kerkolus, in the quoted thread I decried the poor reading comprehension of a few people. Do not fall in the same trap. Nor rely on straw men arguments, such as quoting “all Asians” when the original statements never addressed an entire race.</p>
<p>So your “help” is relying on a reputation you first obtained over ten years ago while ignoring that for years now, you have called Asians, “highly selfish grade grubbing drones” who make “little contributions to [their] schools” and “abandon the activities that padded their resumes as soon as their prizes were collected”? Great help, xiggi. Truly, you are capable of viewing people with astonishing objectivity. Not.</p>
<p>Edit</p>
<p>This is just a variation of “I’m not racist against blacks because I have black friends.” xiggi is essentially saying that since he has helped so many Asians, he has the right to say as vile and vicious things about Asians as he pleases. Nonsense.</p>
<p>You mistake me. I am not sure where your patronizing attitude comes from. For all you know, I could be a bitter 40 year old Asian man that sits behind a keyboard venting about the fact I was spurned by my favorite Ivy. </p>
<p>I did not use straw men arguments. As long as you say that most Asians are like this, my point is still valid. Asians may care more about grades than others and care more about social advancement, but why should they be attacked for it? This does not produce the empty-soul human beings you like the describe <em>most</em> (happy?) Asians. It produces driven people that ultimately contribute to the progress of society. I have no idea what you have against violin wizards.</p>
<p>Further, stop with the academic arrogance. People continually characterize higher education as a place where students go to be enlightened. As I read through the thread fab linked me to, I saw one post in particular that said that Asians simply go to class to compete while most other students go to learn. Let me tell you, that is complete “hogwash”. Most everyone goes to college to become successful professionals. Where do you think the whole “go to a good college for a good job” mantra came along? Everyone is in class to compete, nothing else. EVERYONE is gunning for the work placements.</p>
<p>My point was that it is completely OK for Asians to pursue social advancement because that is the number one goal of everyone in society anyway, not just Asians. Asians are just better at it, so they get more attention.</p>
<p>Let me use an analogy to help you understand. Life is like a race. The ones that run the fastest and work the hardest finish earlier and get better prizes. Asians work hard to get to the end result. Crying about how Asians are “test-taking drones” and discounting the hard work they put into it as the product of being greedy and soulless is like saying Usain Bolt is a heartless person for not letting Tyson Gay win the Olympics. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.</p>
<p>Talk to any white, black, red, blue, or green college student out there and ask him/her to say to you with a straight face that they are there primarily to learn. They will probably start giggling in the middle of their sentence. Those that believe that Asians are the only ones that only care about the prize at the end of the tunnel are narrow-minded.</p>
<p>Honestly, Xiggi, I’m not sure whether you’re a ■■■■■ or just lazy. You reply to posts and don’t even offer rationalizations; instead, you just resort to ad hominem attacks on Fab or perceived logical fallacies.</p>
<p>Haha, hasn’t your rhetoric been all about Asians versus the world. When will you recognize that it is your “grouping” that fails to recognize that not all Asians are equal. I make plenty of differences between what you call caricatures and the overall subgroups. I view people as individuals and, therefore, have always rejected your outlandish claims of discrimination. </p>
<p>But let’s not move that easily on your attack on the nature of my help. It is not based on any reputation acquired a decade ago. It is based on what I did then and have continued to do. What is your reputation based on? What have YOU done? For your community or for anyone, for that matter.</p>
<p>Attack my posts all you want. Words and hollow rhetoric is all you ever had. And that is why you have been confined to this little thread. Think about it!</p>
<p>I did not use straw men arguments. As long as you say that most Asians are like this, my point is still valid. <<<</p>
<p>Well, are you a forty year old person or a teenager? Unless your dad bought a test prep book two decades ago, my money is on you being a young person. Can’t make up stories.</p>
<p>Think about your last sentence. Again, the straw men argument is the All Asians stuff … that I never discussed. Try to reconcile your own argument with the facts.</p>
<p>Do you really now? Gee, I would think that someone who views people as individuals wouldn’t make a claim like “most generalizations about Asians are really accurate” and then aggressively defend that claim when called out. I’d also think that someone who allegedly differentiates among Asians would describe Asians more specifically when he’s making those claims.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So what you “continue to do” is “help” Asians in one area of CC while simultaneously caricaturing them as “highly selfish grade grubbing drones” who make “little contributions to their schools” and “abandon the activities that padded their resumes as soon as their prizes were collected” in another area of CC.</p>
<p>That’s great help, xiggi. Give yourself a pat on the back for being functionally equivalent to people who say they aren’t racist against blacks because they have black friends.</p>
<p>Fabrizio, you really are a bore. Despite being an expert at cutting and pasting ad nauseam, you also are an expert in failing to accept the nuances of one’s argument. For instance, did you happen to miss the last post in the thread you quoted?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>or more to the point:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And one more of the many posts that are repetitive</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now, are you still pretending that I only address Asians as one homogoneous group? Or the pure hogwash that I wrote about “all asians.”</p>
<p>As far as my help, while I cannot blame for not knowing exactly what I do, I believe that you should be more careful in criticizing something you really do not have a clue about. In a way, it would be nice to read what YOU have done here, in addition to posting the same diatribes ad nauseam. Diatribes that serve NO purpose whatsoever, except throwing oil on a fire that should not be lit in the first place. </p>
<p>Part of what you --and that you do not know-- is reassure applicants that it is not needed to ace the SAT and build a resume that ends looking exactly like your classmates IF it comes at the expense of foregoing GROUP activities and REAL leadership positions. What good is an application essay that can ONLY discuss the merits of making it to semi in the Intel competition or being the first violonist. </p>
<p>In the end, my friend, we all decide and evaluate what works better in terms of helping the younger persons who face a challienging process. You think that writing about the “obvious” discrimination and advocating for a race neutral admission is helpful. I, on the other hand, prefer to look beyong the handicap, and advocate for students to make changes in the manner they present themselves, and help understand that their parents who admire the Chua techniques are lunatics. </p>
<p>In the end, hundreds upon hundreds of successful applicants might think that it paid to listen to a message of hope works better as open to join a group deeply invested in jeremiades. </p>
<p>If the price to pay is the occasional poke at the negatives, so be it. </p>
<p>And, with this, I am done here. Step back on your soapbox, and waste more of your energy and time. And hope someone will actually do something contructive for the people you pretend to help and support.</p>
<p>" I, on the other hand, prefer to look beyong the handicap, and advocate for students to make changes in the manner they present themselves, and help understand that their parents who admire the Chua techniques are lunatics."</p>
<p>Before California banned affirmative action, UC-Berkeley’s population of Asians was about 15% or so. Once California banned it, Asians rose to 40%. This basically shows that Asians were only rejected on the basis of race. Once race was factored out, Asians were found to be superior applicants in every regard: extracurriculars, grades, and passion. Your charge that most Asians are rejected because they are drones is idiotic. In fact, according to these admissions statistics, Asians demonstrate the most passion, drive, and potential. As a whole, Asians WANT to be there. Once the race consideration was dropped, suddenly the adcoms were able to see past the stereotypes and realize that Asians are actually not robots but actual human beings that want to make a difference through their applications.</p>
<p>You told me to consider the facts, and there they are. Asians ARE passionate learners. “Changes in the manner” that Asians “present themselves” will not improve admissions because we already are exactly what colleges are looking for. Your quote reminds me of what Booker T. Washington would say to his fellow Blacks: to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps”, without giving any sort of true path to better results. Just be patient and work hard and our time will come. If that is truly your view, you’re right: we have nothing more left to discuss. You are a racist, plain and simple.</p>
<p>Hey thanks for helping me out, xiggi. One thing I really “like” about your diatribes is that you always make sure to leave something to cover your butt when you get called out for passing prejudice as “truth,” like this:</p>
<p>I find it amusing that you got so defensive and felt the need to play up your “bona fides.” The only reason you “help” Asians, to the extent you do anything at all these days except pass off your rants as “truth,” is so you can feel that you have the right to say anything you want about Asians, no matter how vile or vicious.</p>
<p>It’s good that you’re the “outspoken” face of the defenders of racial preferences. I hope that everyone new to the discussion can see that hatred and prejudice motivates the supporters of racial preferences, not the opponents.</p>
<p>Kerkolus, after a few years of college that might help you understand the facts a whole lot better, you might be forced to conclude that the admissions policies are far from being a model for other schools. </p>
<p>It is not up to me to correct your misinterpretations about the UC admissions policies, and point to the exact admissions’ algorithms. Algorithms that have been known to reward the **elementary school ** level knowledge of a foreign language.</p>
<p>If you think that, for one second, I care to cover my butt --as opposed to look at the many facets of a complex problem-- so be it! </p>
<p>And feel free to continue to question my “providing” help to all --without prejudice or preferences. In the end, nothing changes the simple fact that YOU have not offered a rebuttal that consists of describing what YOU have done. All you do is question what you are unable to understand. </p>
<p>Again, go back on your small soapbox and continue to engage in idle debates – as THIS thread offers a tangible proof. </p>
<p>Were you to spend 1/10 of your energy on constructive actions, you might make a difference. Try it and you might discover some joy and contentment in your life, as opposed to be … you!</p>
<p>Is there any other issue that people of xiggi’s political persuasion treat this way: “oh, when you’re older, you’ll see that I’m right”? Not that I can think of. But again, it’s a good thing that they’re so arrogant. Since 2003, xiggi’s side has lost</p>
<ol>
<li>Parents Involved,</li>
<li>Ricci v. DeStefano, and</li>
<li>Fisher</li>
</ol>
<p>When you think you’re right, and everybody who doesn’t agree with you is either a naive kid or an idiot, you lose the ability to actually think through the issue. Axioms become facts, and actual facts that contradict the axioms are discarded as being politically motivated lies.</p>
<p>And this is why xiggi’s side will lose Schuette as well, even though xiggi laughably (desperately?) predicted that Schuette was never going to make it to the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>I think these are exactly what other top colleges look for, minus the race. And if only race is the factor, then your whole argument collapses. If you are too lazy to click on the link or read, let me summarize what they look for:</p>
<ol>
<li>Strong academics</li>
<li><em>Intangible qualities</em> like character and leadership</li>
<li>Ability to contribute to the community of the campus</li>
<li>Standardized tests</li>
<li>Participation in outside enrichment</li>
<li>Other achievements</li>
</ol>
<p>If Asians are being selected, that would be that they are not only hard-workers and test takers but also have good intangible qualities. But what does Berkeley know about its own admissions? </p>
<p>What I read on that page echos what many of the other top Ivy League schools look for in a candidate. So according to the results and what Berkeley looks for and the skyrocketing of Asian admissions, it looks like your characterization of Asians as largely drones is completely false. Freed from the wool of race that covered their eyes, adcoms suddenly found Asians to be better applicants overall that exhibited traits like leadership and integrity. It would follow that Ivy Leagues would come to the same conclusions as well.</p>
<p>There are no algorithms. Point systems were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. And Asians are already bilingual by nature so even if they rewarded points for elementary knowledge of a foreign language, it wouldn’t help. Picking out one small part of UC’s admissions process and construing it to represent the whole is another one of those fallacies (kettle? pot?). As a whole, UC’s admissions are just as good as anyone’s in the country. The number of successful Berkeley alumni attest to that.</p>
<p>I don’t need college to “understand the facts better”. Anybody, even children, can make the connections that are necessary to understand the facts and issues and eventually come to the conclusion that what you’re saying is ridiculously false. Asians as a whole are passionate and inspired, as seen from the facts. Painting Asians as drones is not just a bad opinion; it is blatantly false.</p>
<p>Let me outline your argument Xiggi: you are saying that Asians are actually worse candidates for schools and apparently Berkeley has bad admissions practices and so cannot catch it. The Ivies, to you presumably, have better practices that are there to filter out resume builders and soulless drones.</p>
<p>Taking your logic a step further, Asians are inferior candidates that would be filtered out anyways at the top schools. Asians, due to their lack of character, will be filtered out regardless of whether they consider race. You understand the implications of this, don’t you? This means that, according to your logic, race preferences are no longer needed to keep Asians down because they keep themselves down.</p>
<p>We both know that that is not true. If race preferences were banned across the country, Asian populations at all the Ivies would jump 20 percentage points. All on the basis of their well-roundedness (because that’s what is needed that that level).</p>
<p>Take a step back. Breathe. You walked into this trap and are watching yourself being torn to shreds. If you argued that URMs need preferential treatment to help them attain a better collective status, you might have a fighting chance. But once you decided to go on the offensive, you became the ‘away’ team. And suddenly attempting to win became much more difficult. Stay on home field, my man. It’s a lot easier to win there.</p>
<p>In a way, you’re undermining your own argument. Shameful for a person of your wisdom. Maybe you could go back to college and understand the facts a little better.</p>
<p>This is not WOW, or whatever the 1997 generation of Charlies now plays!</p>
<p>By the way, have you ever seen an admission scorecard used by one of the UC schools? Are you sure that the “point” system has been banned by the SCOTUS?</p>
<p>Xiggi, I’ve noticed that not once have you actually tried to refute any of my arguments. You just pick on a small insignificant portion of a post and resort of ad hominem attacks or even worse, blatant insults. Are you a ■■■■■?</p>
<p>Kerkolus, you might consider toning down the rhetoric if you hope to see a reply to your arguments. And consider being more careful tossing the ■■■■■ and ad hominem card around. I’ve been here long enough to understand how a forum like this works.</p>