<p>vorosson, I would doubt if Frederick Crews, from whom I have taken classes, believes “social science is a fraud.” That has certainly never come across in any of his lectures or writings, to my knowledge. :)</p>
<p>Post 517: Actually, you are the one who appears to be the master of diversionary tactics. We asked you a simple question, which you refuse to answer. Instead, you reply with off-topic insults. And as I mentioned twice now, I read the thread that you just cited, and read it twice in fact.</p>
<p>Agreeing with epiphany (I figured one of the participants here from California would have heard of Crews before), I wouldn’t say that Frederick Crews in general claims that social sciences are a fraud. But he does claim, including himself in the claim, that sometimes academics can get caught up in trendy “follies,” and suggests methodological approaches for avoiding follies in science that I think are good for most thinkers, including me.</p>
I find your unwavering faith in adcoms’ abilities to determine its strongest applicants without relying on test scores as a major aspect of an applicant’s application somewhat humorous. But hey, this particular argument has been going on for so long and our views so stagnant that this really is a useless exercise.</p>
<p>Let me reintroduce what I was trying to reach to earlier: how do you feel about a racial affirmative action system that disadvantages SE Asians? And if you would like to contest that this is not what currently exists, can you substantiate your earlier claim that SE Asians are benefited by the current racial affirmative action system? Even empirical evidence would be better than your complete lack of support to this claim.</p>
<p>“I find your unwavering faith in adcoms’ abilities to determine its strongest applicants without relying on test scores as a major aspect of an applicant’s application somewhat humorous.”</p>
<p>It’s not humorous at all, because some adcoms don’t rely so heavily on test scores. E.g., here’s one LAC’s weighting:</p>
<p>20% test scores + GPA + class rank
20% courses taken
20% interview + recommendations
20% essays
20% ECs + community service</p>
<p>Think of it as holistic admissions. Clearly some big state schools weight test scores more heavily in their formulaic admission policies.</p>
<p>You cannot find a single post of mine on CC in which I say that admissions committees do not use test scores as a major aspect. You can find many posts of mine where I accurately assert, based on posts by ad officers, conversations with ad reps, and books authored by committee members that test scores are but one component of 9-11 components, not weighted in the CDS of Elites who post such facts on their CDS’.</p>
<p>That would be Common Data Sets, for those of you truly in love with data.</p>
<p>(Cross-posted with vossron: I was referencing the non-LAC’s myself; thanks for the additional data.):)</p>
<p>Indeed, test scores are not everything. And I have referenced many times a study conducted on Duke’s admissions policies that incorporates ALL of those core aspects and evaluates how each race performs (<a href=“http://www.econ.duke.edu/~hf14/WorkingPaper/mismatch/mismatch_april2009.pdf[/url]”>http://www.econ.duke.edu/~hf14/WorkingPaper/mismatch/mismatch_april2009.pdf</a>). Asians remained on top in all but “Personal qualities,” on which they were slightly edged out by Caucasian applicants. Of course, you dismissed the study as “flawed”; well, I am tired of putting facts in front of you and having those facts get persistently ignored, so as I said, let’s move on.</p>
<p>1) What gives you support to the claim that SE Asians are beneficiaries of the current system of racial AA
2) Do you agree with an AA system that does not benefit SE Asians</p>
<p>For those who contend that several oft-cited papers (viz. Espenshade and Chung, Arcidiacono et al. [ie. “The Duke study”]]) are flawed, can you list an example of an academic paper on affirmative action that isn’t flawed?</p>
<p>You have a history of closing on 4000 posts that we can all wade through. I will let readers make the call. Your job here is to deliberately muddle the water and to create dissension, isn’t it?</p>
<p>A simple question? Based on your previous posts, I would call it an invitation to semantic hell. Gambit declined. Instead, I offer up the entire threat so we all can see what was said, word play not necessary, or possible.</p>
<p>No insult intended. Since you don’t believe in data points, what is left is Divine intervention/“feelings”. Since you seem to be obsessed with “you should” (thou shalt?) and Latin, I was speculating that you might be thinking that you are presiding over an inquisition, that’s all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here we go again. St. Anselm’s argument? I am not Kant, gambit declined.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If past posts are any indication, you will not get a straight answer. </p>
<p>This is the time of the year when many colleges gather their Common Data Set information on enrolled students, so college institutional research officers are just now figuring out how to adjust to the new federal reporting categories.</p>
<p>what do you think the adcoms will think (at top colleges)?? like if your name is “Jorge Rodrigez,” and decide to remain “neutral” or w/e. i was thinking about this the other day and decided to ask you guys.</p>
<p>May I take this opportunity to update strategies used?</p>
<p>I see the opponents continue to press on with rational arguments, so there is no change here.</p>
<p>Amount supporters, I see a new tactic emerging. Since evasion does not seem to shake off the pursuers, a new tactic is to speak in an inquisitional tone, clearly intended to intimidate the pursuers from pursuing.</p>
<p>Academics may argue that this is not a change in tactics but a change in strategy, showing the beginning of empirical awareness. Personally I think it is too early to speak of “green shoots”, but time will tell if I am being too “conservative”.</p>
<p>It has been fun. Really. Unless there is further development, I will take leave for a while. It is heartening that my hypothesis holds up this well.</p>
<p>There are plenty of people who do not consider themselves ethnic hispanics with names like that one, just as there are plenty of people with names like “Maureen O’Flynn” who don’t particularly consider themselves Irish or “Sven Andersson” who don’t consider themselves Scandinavian. Lots of people are stuck with ancient family names, or have crazed parents who gave them relatively unusual first names chosen because they “match” the surname. There also are lots of ethnic hispanics out there named “Doris Smith” because of one gringo five generations back named Smith and a grandmother who loved Doris Day’s movies.</p>
<p>You have no way to control for what some random person will think when they see your name. Check the ethnicity box yes or no depending on your own personal sense of who you are.</p>
<p>Wrong. Hispanic is the broader term for people with descendants from Spain. Latino is a subset of Hispanics and generally refers to people from NA, CA & SA. The OP is correct using either term.</p>
<p>OP, what’s the point of your question?? Are you going to change your name for college applications? You have the option of either marking ethnicity & race or not, just do whatever you feel comfortable with.</p>
<p>“Hispanic is a subset of Latino,” because all Hispanics are Latino whereas not all Latinos are Hispanic. Take Brazilians for example. They are native lusophones, not native hispanophones, therefore they are not Hispanic. However, they are certainly Latino.</p>
<p>For purposes of filling out a college application, the overall topic of this forum, Hispanic and Latino are synonyms, because they are used as synonyms in the federal regulations about ethnic surveys of students. </p>