<p>Couldn’t we add the probability that other influences factor into the successful appearance of Talent and/or Effort? Effort rarely occurs in a vacuum; it can be the result of parental or other encouragement, standards, observation and experience. (The reputed Tiger effect isn’t about hours spent, but how hours are directed-? There is no magic Effort mushroom you can pick and become enlightened. How does a kid learn it’s about, say, math, and not becoming a top online gamer?) Plus reinforcement, which originates externally. Effort in a grade-inflated school can be yield false results. Etc.</p>
<p>Same for talent- the fairy can visit but without the context, challenges, nurturing and reinforcement, can wither on th vine-?</p>
<p>Counting on a 750+ as evidence Talent and Effort were rightly directed also doesn’t account fo some measure of luck.</p>
<p>I’m with texaspg’s former comment that we all can have fun with numbers, make stats work for us or our own perspectives- but I think it’s important to step back and look at context and other variables. Not simplistically, as in “Asian family” or “competitive school system,” or “mentor program.” But the particular influences that mold Effort and/or Talent into recognizable success. Or not. Plus a far broader definition of success than 750+. (Realizing, though, that it is just a shorthand, here.)</p>
<p>This study was numerically discredited in the earlier thread as far as Asian admissions are concerned. The UC Berkeley post-209 numbers contradict the prediction from Espenshade & Chung’s paper that the Asian admissions rate would jump compared to whites when admission is race-blinded. This also contradicts E&C’s own appeal to the UC data as supporting their model (as far as the Asian/white comparison is concerned). This point is clouded by the fact that their overall conclusion, that affirmative action is a zero-sum game between Asians and URM in its effects on the enrollment levels (not individual’s chances of admissions) with whites unaffected, is at least superficially consistent with the UC data that “everyone knows”.</p>
<p>The story was the same in all the other states but with less data available. Only UC provides detailed online information on admissions through the UC Statfinder:</p>
<p>For the URM enrollment, no study was needed to understand that it is greatly increased by affirmative action and plummets without it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are not the first one on CC to puff up this article by quoting the paragraph-long bio for the eminent authors, but you forgot to mention that their work was not peer reviewed and they published in a joke online journal devoted to postmodern race/gender studies, edited by a rotating staff of UCLA grad students and funded by the UCLA Graduate Student Association. </p>
<p>This is the university equivalent of a high school literary magazine. Many of the article titles would fit in The Onion and a majority of articles and reviews appearing in the journal are written by UCLA grad students, often masters’ degree students in education. A likely explanation for this piece is that Charles E Young, the ultimate Big Man emeritus at UCLA, sent off the paper to a grad student to publish either as a no-fuss method of getting the article out, or to promote a struggling in-house journal at his favorite institution. The chances that a grad student reviewer could have demanded changes or rejected the paper are slim to none.</p>
<p>That’s an interesting question. There seems to be nobody in the United States advocating that the percentage of Irish people, or of Jewish people, or of French-speaking people, or of left-handed people, on college campuses should be “representative” of the percentage of such people in the general United States population, so why is it important to define exactly and only five “race” categories and two “ethnicity” categories </p>
<p>As you pointed out, the admission rates for whites and Asians at Berkeley in 1997 were the same. But the percentage of “race unknown” students spiked at both Berkeley and UCLA in 1997. Do you know the composition of the “race unknown” group?</p>
<p>"This study was numerically discredited in the earlier thread as far as Asian admissions are concerned. "</p>
<p>This is exactly what I question. It is also a study. Who is the arbiter in discrediting it? CC Forums don’t discredit such studies, some competing entity needs to publish a study that countermands this study. It is kind of arbitrary for someone to hold one study as being superior to a later study, all based on a discussion in CC forum between Fabrizio and Siserune, two god knows who they are virtual entities (no offense)? </p>
<p>I for one hold both equal along with all the other studies and totally irrelevant to race relations at hand.</p>
<p>There is a kid who started a thread lamenting the fact that he/she scored 224 in 10th and 216 in 11th in PSAT and should have put in some effort instead of goofing off. I almost said unless you are Asian, you are supposed to be depending on talent to break that threshold! :p</p>
<p>I’m not sure this is true. I have a vague recollection of reading an article years ago about some Italian-American organization lobbying/complaining that Harvard doesn’t admit enough Italian-Americans.</p>
<p>Bay, I think you are factually correct in that recollection, although my recollection is that the colleges in question might have been the SUNY system colleges from the point of view of New York State in-state applicants. Anyway, it appears that that suggestion was dead on arrival. </p>
<p>Remembering the 1960s, when one of the important tasks of the United States was undoing systems of “race” classification in many states (there had NEVER been such systems in my state), I’m horrified that today in the second decade of the twenty-first century there are more classifications than ever, people taking them seriously even though more than a billion human beings have shifted classifications in my lifetime, and that the classifications are now pervasive in FEDERAL law rather than just in the law of the most backward states. I had no idea that the basic idea of common humanity and equal opportunity would still be so controversial in the United States so far along in my lifetime. The key idea about the category “Asian” (and, for that matter, “white” or “black” or any of the other categories on the federal forms) is that the category is POLITICAL, and there are good public policy reasons based on international comparisons </p>
<p>Wait… is there any point in not reporting race? they will see that I’m asian on my transcript right? I was thinking of not reporting it but I think they will find out anyways… =(</p>
<p>One solution is to have legal name changes.</p>
<p>I mean the Jews Americanised their names, it’s time for Asians to do so too. Let’s look to the Irish, Italians and the Jews as models what to do to fit in (which includes a fair bit of social unrest).</p>
<p>Asian men should change their last names, so that when they have kids (even mixed-race kids), they won’t suffer similar discrimination as our generation. Better yet, give your Asian kids names such as “Shaniqua” or change your last name to “Freeman”.</p>
<p>And talk about Malcolm X, a lot, in your admissions essays.</p>
<p>Asian parents are too frequently nonconfrontational when it comes to the racial politics that discriminates against them, their children and their interests; their solution to all the barriers that society throws against them is the exhortation: “work harder! study harder!” in a pointless Sisyphean exercise ever reminiscent of Boxer’s struggles in Animal Farm. But we have limits. Perhaps it is time for our generation to confront the system, by any means necessary.</p>
<p>“It’s easy for Jews to hide their Jewishness, but not for Asians to hide their Asian-ness. So what must we do to get us accepted into mainstream society, short of a race riot?”</p>
<p>Skipping a lot here, because I am watching Top Chef, but a question to Fab. You, and others, have argued that “race” has no bearing on “diversity”. That how someone looks has no unique bearing on who one is. Many have said that socioeconomic status the only criteria should be used in diversity, as it is the only important way that people are different (okay, maybe an overstatement).</p>
<p>I think evita is saying not being able to blend in is a unique part of her experience… </p>
<p>What? Does that mean there is support for the idea among at least SOME Asisans that looking different effects your perspective, even if you are not poor?</p>
<p>unique yes, a positively unique experience no. I suppose colleges should start holding physical beauty contests for their applicants too?</p>
<p>I want to stand out because what I have done, and what I appreciate, and not what I am born into. That is after all, the quintessential American individualistic dream no? Why does your society cruelly deny us this?</p>
<p>neorobie is a beautiful name, but unfortunately because of racial discrimination all the adcoms will ever perceive when reading her last name is that of a faceless yellow horde.</p>
<p>That’s what I did. I anglicized my surname to avoid mispronunciation issues and to create ambiguity regarding my racial classification. I have already met two other Americans of Asian descent whose surnames are also anglicized; one is my age while the other is a few years younger. (I did it after I turned 18.) In addition, I have experienced on several occasions a “Oh, you’re [insert real name here]!” upon meeting people who had seen my resume but not my face.</p>
<p>In this day and age I shouldn’t “have” to do that, but I didn’t “have” to. It was my choice after I realized that some people seem to want to make sure that Asians are identified as Asian by any means necessary (e.g. comments like “Why leave it blank? Your last name will give it away.”)</p>
<p>I’m not sue what the beauty contest part means. I am saying you have a unique perspective based on race. Period. Important? Maybe not. But it’s based on race, not economics.</p>
<p>Wait…neorobie is a faceless yellow hoard name? I though it was an African princess. Oh well, my kids last names are Irish. So THAT’S why they didn’t get in!</p>
<p>" Why does your society cruelly deny us this?"</p>
<p>Ultimately, I think that view of diversity is too shallow. I bring diversity because I look different? No, I bring diversity because of my interests, my viewpoints, my talents, and my weaknesses. I bring diversity as an individual, not as a member of a racial classification.</p>
<p>All anti-[insert racial classification here] remarks are based on shallowness, a failure to see people as individuals and not members of groups. So why employ the same shallowness in the name of “diversity”?</p>
<p>So dramatic! We have tokenadult here comparing college application sections to precursors genocide, and quoting Malcolm C suggesting confrontation by any means necessary, AND in bold font just because of a structural bias in college admissions. Seriously?</p>
<p>“Your generation” is doing fine. In fact, it is doing well. To compare it’s admissions difficulties to the issues that Malcolm X dealt with is simply inane. Then and now, it’s blacks who lack the human capital necessary to achieve equal footing with the whites. The Asians, in general, are achieving this ideal today, and no “extremism” is necessary to do it.</p>
<p>^ I don’t think that was Tokenadult…
" I bring diversity because I look different? No, I bring diversity because of my interests, my viewpoints, my talents, and my weaknesses. I bring diversity as an individual, not as a member of a racial classification."</p>
<p>So is Evita wrong in terms of identifying with, and being protective of her race? (Evita, I say go for it! Welcome to the revolution!..ok, maybe not. It’s not all good.)</p>
<p>I am thinking of perspective here, more than “diversity”. I think the experience of race brings diversity of perspective . Separate from income. Thats all. Not saying it’s important to EVERYBODY people’s education.</p>