<p>If Harvard and UNC Chapel Hill are subject of a discrimination lawsuit given that those institutions have 20%+ Asian American enrollment, then a lawsuit against Washington and Lee would seem to be a slam dunk given that W&L has less than 5% Asian American enrollment and 85%+ White enrollment. </p>
<p>W&L is going to have a difficult time explaining why 35% of White applicants are accepted and less than 10% of Asian Americans applicants are admitted. </p>
<p>You know what Asians should do? Leave the race box unchecked. It is illegal to guess at race based on other personal information. I doubt adcoms would be so blatantly wiling to break the law.</p>
<p>Just wondering why the discussion is allowed here,but not on the other threadsl?</p>
<p>GAMom this is kind of like the smoke room for Race issue. Every time race is discussed it eventually is left here where others generally can’t even find it. Whatever race issue anyone has will die quickly here.</p>
<p>GAMom this is kind of like the smoke room for Race issue. Every time race is discussed it eventually is left here where others generally can’t even find it. Whatever race issue anyone has will die quickly here.</p>
<p>Probably to keep it confined and easier to participate or … ignore. Also, I think it was meant to give Fabrizio a pedestal for his lectures, or send him to the corner! A matter of opinion! :)</p>
<p>Ah yes Fabrizio…would love to run into him in a pub down the road here in GA.</p>
<p>It speaks volumes that after eight years, xiggi still can’t reproduce my arguments or my side’s arguments more generally on the spot whereas I can easily do that for his. Indeed, it’s not a true discussion when one side refuses to understand the other side’s arguments and is instead content to merely create and knock down straw men. And just so we’re clear, I’m talking about xiggi’s side, as he admits that while my reproduction lacks, ahem, “nuance,” it is nonetheless accurate and contains no straw men.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, xiggi cannot do anything but arrogantly claim that he “knows” my arguments before running away…and then coming back with his trademark snark devoid of substance.</p>
<p>Haha, Fab, speak about snark. I wish you might see how silly your narrative is considering I posted the OP of the Harvard lawsuit in the PF and generated 500 posts of discussion. It remained void of tedious argumentation until the way end. </p>
<p>That’s true, it was a good discussion until the last few pages.</p>
<p>What is my narrative, xiggi? State it with your own words, [just</a> as I stated your narrative with my own words](<a href=“"Race" in College Admission FAQ & Discussion 11 - #1128 by fabrizio - Applying to College - College Confidential Forums”>"Race" in College Admission FAQ & Discussion 11 - #1128 by fabrizio - Applying to College - College Confidential Forums).</p>
<p>Fabrizio, you are a bore!</p>
<p>THIS was the narrative I referred to.<br>
</p>
<p>Not very hard to figure out as it was your last post. If Cliffs’ Notes are needed, it was an answer to your usual post and the fact that were a discussion in the Parents’ Forum which I started and on one issue that is dear to your heart. Hence, the silliness of your comment. I should note that the PF conversation went well despite your absence and the resulting absence of pablum. </p>
<p>Perhaps you should go and read that thread and then look at what I wrote in post 1131. I suggest you consider revising your conversational style if … dialogues is what you seek. </p>
<p>I suppose when your bluffs get called, everyone’s a bore. xiggi, it only took me two minutes to “recite” your side’s position. If you’re even half as confident as you make yourself out to be, it’ll take you less than two minutes to “recite” my position, and certainly much less than it took you to write nonsense like the following:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In fairness, you have to say that so you can give yourself an escape and avoid proving what’s patently obvious: despite your arrogant insistence otherwise, you in fact cannot “recite” my position. Of course, I have to mention how rich it is for you to say that when your conversational style consists of nothing more than accusing me of being a racial supremacist and then running away. Hit and run is the way to a 12/12 essay on the SAT, folks!</p>
<p>You still do not get it! But that is OK as it simply confirms what I wrote so many times. Again, go and read the thread in the PF and Post 1131. That is all I have to add at this time as I have no interest in honoring your tantrums with more replies. </p>
<p>Thanks for proving my point, xiggi: you CANNOT “recite” my arguments. [I</a> can and have recited yours](<a href=“"Race" in College Admission FAQ & Discussion 11 - #1128 by fabrizio - Applying to College - College Confidential Forums”>"Race" in College Admission FAQ & Discussion 11 - #1128 by fabrizio - Applying to College - College Confidential Forums). You can only say “look at post 1131.” Well, what did you say there?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh, is that a “recitation” of my arguments? No. It’s a bluff. Did you really think I wouldn’t call it, xiggi? I’ve discussed this issue with you and people who share your views for eight years. I know for a fact that almost none of you ever bothered to actually even begin to try to understand the arguments of people who disagree with you. It’s so much easier to grotesquely misrepresent our positions and dismiss them as racism.</p>
<p>Now run away. That’s all you’re good at. (Well, that and calling me a racial supremacist before you run away.)</p>
<p>I don’t know about that. The PF was full of anti-Asian sentiment ranging from characterization of Asian students as test-taking robots, mocking stereotypes of Asians majoring in STEM and proposed renaming of prestigious schools to HarvardTech and YaleTech should more Asians end up there. I’m surprised someone didn’t just called them “ChingChongTech.” But then…this would completely remove the opportunity to claim that it was all in jest or that it was just tongue-in-cheek. </p>
<p>The lawsuit currently filed indicated that Harvard’s qualified applicant pool was 46% Asian for roughly the last decade. So a yield of 17% becomes mighty suspicious. </p>
<p>I believe anti-Asian discriminatory practices have long existed but aside from these beliefs, what are some of the real long-term consequences? In my field: a projected physician shortage has been made even worse. Data from the AAMC have indicated that Affirmative Action practices have allowed academically weak URMs to take up seats over high scoring Asians…and due to the rigors of medical school, URM dropout rates border 9-10 times the dropout rates of Asians and Whites. This translates to roughly 3000 less U.S. educated physicians in the past 20 years. I posted the data links on the PF forum. So when the lack of quality healthcare hits full-swing, the search for a diverse student body within medical schools via Affirmative Action has contributed largely to the shortage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it is not a bluff. The point you have been missing is that was an example of the futility of such discussions. Did you miss the point about having done those silly exchanges of cut/paste ad nauseam? My post was not about “being able” to recite the arguments presented over the past years, but about the silliness to do so. As usual, you jumped on the exact opposite of what I was saying. If you conclude that I would be unable to dig in the past and cut/paste copious amounts of your litanies, so be it. I really do NOT care! </p>
<p>In the meantime, here is what is … new. I have told you for years that this is NOT the place to rage your campaign, and done this many times. I have told you that there is a better place to do so. Again, go read what was my reaction to the lawsuit filed … it is easy to find, as it is the first post. In one of my last posts, I also described how I would be happy to accept the results of the decision, and make necessary amends in my positions. Others, however, are obviously NOT prepared to do, and have already hedged their bets in preparation of an unsatisfying result. </p>
<p>And probably will continue to cling to incomplete statements such as “The lawsuit currently filed indicated that Harvard’s qualified applicant pool was 46% Asian for roughly the last decade” and purport that such statements are … true. Fwiw, the lawsuits alleges that “Harvard’s qualified applicant pool was 46% Asian for roughly the last decade” but most unbiased observers will note that the definition of what constitutes a “qualified” applicant is as narrow and self-serving as it could be. </p>
<p>Again, I welcome this lawsuit as it might bring a degree of closure to most reasonable people. I am not holding my bated breath that such group will include many of the people who have developed the nasty habit of misquoting and reading the writings of others with lacking critical reading skills. </p>
<p>Now, you can have the last word you also cling to. No doubt it will be as repetitive and self-serving as ever. </p>
<p>I suppose a person espousing discriminatory practices can view the fight and plight of those being discriminated against as being self-serving and repetitive when the victims want things changed. Of course it is self-serving by the victims…as in, they no longer wish to be victims. And of course it is going to be repetitive until things change.</p>
<p>The one thing we agree on is that we both welcome the lawsuit but wish that it were worded and crafted better. I’m all for full transparency, otherwise, it becomes another kangaroo proceeding.</p>
<p>As for your ideation of what constitutes “reasonable people,” it needs work. That is why I brought up the OJ trial in the PF. The courts found him not guilty but reasonable people did not quickly buy the verdict as fact or evidence that OJ was truly innocent. On the contrary, most reasonable people think he got away with murder. Similarly, reasonable people will suspect that Harvard got away with discriminatory practices should the lawsuit fail due to legal wrangling and technicalities.</p>
<p>Back so soon, xiggi? Whatever happened to “no interest in honoring your ‘tantrums’ with more replies”? Oh, you realize that we aren’t we so different: “you can have the last word you also cling to.” So you do have some intellectual honesty. Kudos.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So yes, it is a bluff. You cannot, in fact, do what you implied you could do; you cannot “recite most arguments presented relentlessly by” me, your “dear friend.” So you do the next best thing: always give yourself a way out. What is this nonsense about cutting and pasting? You think I copied and pasted from your previous posts when I “recited” your arguments? No, xiggi, why would I have to do that? I’ve discussed this with you and people who share your views for eight years; it would reflect pretty poorly on me if I couldn’t “recite” your arguments in two minutes. And indeed, it reflects very poorly on you that you are unable to “recite” my arguments and can only try to weasel your way out by claiming that you can “cut and paste” from my posting history.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? OK, admit that BAMN’s arguments in Schuette were a complete joke. You can’t “recite” my arguments, but if you’re “happy to accept the results” of a decision you thought would never happen to begin with because you actually thought the “goose was cooked,” surely you can admit that BAMN brought a terribly stupid case to the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>xiggi you do realize that the vast majority of sentiment on your PF thread was that the Harvard case was going to lose because there was little to no evidence of discrimination against Asians.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl thinks that because there is a greater percentage of Asians at a Harvard than the general population that’s indicative of No Discrimination.</p>
<p>Sally305 and others think that 200 to 300 point differences in SAT scores at the top end are the same so selecting those with lesser scores than Asians is OK even though she and others believe that there is no additional benefit of going to Harvard over any other top school.</p>
<p>GAMom says she knows what discrimination is against Blacks but seems to have no problems with the data that suggests that Asians applicants are discriminated at Harvard.</p>
<p>Oldfort stated that he doesn’t discriminate against Asians in hiring and that Asian hires don’t change the dynamics of a workplace, but that somehow if Asians dominate a Dorm life, the dynamics of a Dorm life changes.</p>
<p>And as mavant pointed out, there were those who thought that increasing the Asian enrollment at Harvard would mean that Harvard would become like CalTech and would need to change its name to HarvardTech. Because in these peoples minds Asians are all interested in STEM and essentially all the same because they all play tennis and violin and are robots that no only how to take standardized tests and get good grades. </p>
<p>How many times have the posters argued that getting accepted to Harvard is not just about grades and test scores but other factors such as ECs, essays, LOR, special awards, being creative, or level of curiousness, not being a linear thinker etc with absolutely no data to support that Asians do not possess any of these other factors while URM and Whites must have high amounts of these traits. There is absolutely no evidence for this view, but it is continually repeated over and over in your thread by more than just one person.</p>
<p>Even you state " Fwiw, the lawsuits alleges that “Harvard’s qualified applicant pool was 46% Asian for roughly the last decade” but most unbiased observers will note that the definition of what constitutes a “qualified” applicant is as narrow and self-serving as it could be." What this statement implies is that Asians must have deficient characteristics of the type described above without a smidgen of evidence or any data to confirm this view that Asians lack everything other than test scores and GPA.</p>
<p>Fabrizio asks you to give what you believe his viewpoint is on race and college admissions, but like you do on many of your posts, you answer with ambiguity or in cryptic form or just deflect it with a change of topic. </p>