<p>Sorry for the mistake, but I'm not an international, and not applying to any of those colleges anyway so I wouldnt know. I do not envy international though (unless you are from like Africa or something).</p>
<p>"It matters because you only brought them up to try to distance yourself from the million students with those same e.c.'s comment."</p>
<p>Please never again bother to attempt to tell me why I did something or why I said something. You wouldn't have a clue. In fact, your supposition is thoroughly false. I brought up the BWRKs to give a parallel example, because others arguing something similar were not being well understood by various posters. It was an extension of the intellectual argument, not an apologetic addition to the debate.</p>
<p>"epiphany, you can't deny that there is discrimination against Asians. It is not imaginary. Remarks like yet another Asian student who wants to major in math and science and who plays the violin and I dont want another boring Asian have been uttered by adcoms."</p>
<p>Have you heard that uttered? Or been told by someone that he, she heard those words or read similar words uttered? (And btw, the paraphrased remarks -- or your overheard remark, or whatever -- reminds me of the excerpts, again, from the Toor book. Her comments about BWRK's were far worse. They were outright insulting, demeaning, and patronizing -- much worse than I've heard from anybody posting anything about Asians on CC.)</p>
<p>And again, please don't tell me what I "can" and "cannot" do. I can deny discrimination against Asians only because they are not being denied access to compete equally, along with other ethnic groups "because" they are Asians. They are not being given less access, relative to assignments within an entire freshman college class. There is neither a positive nor a negative quota in a presumptive or pre-judged sense. For example, were by some fluke there were only 2 Asians applying one year to a particular elite, yet neither was judged to be sufficiently able to do the work at that elite, neither Asian would be admitted. (Fill in the blank for other ethnic groups.) There may be some elasticity in admissions, but the elites do not feel compelled to admit any or all low-ranked applicants of a particular ethnic group, any more than they do (or should) feel compelled to admit all high-ranked applicants of a particular ethnic group.</p>
<p>You simply do not understand the civil rights principle of true discrimination. You are applying it improperly.</p>
<p>None of us are one in a million. There is always someone out there with the same or even better stats. There are thousands of students out there aiming for the same goal. You may have been class president, but there are thousands more out there who were also president. No one stat can assure you are accepted. Asians are not getting "negative AA". There are simply more Asians applying than URM. You have to take this all in scope of the college.
If you accepted merely on academic merit you will get a very undiversified school. The rich simply are more oppurtune to have a better education. They are the ones who can afford private schools and tutors. The college takes all factors into consideration. </p>
<p>The ideal example is Stuyvesant High School, a public high school in New York City considered to be the epitome of public education in New York City. Admission into this school is merely based on three hours of your life, a standardized test. There is a cutoff score, everyone aboves is accepted no matter financial situation, legacy, or anything else. The school is aprox. 50% Asian. Is that representative of the American population. No, Asian Americans comprise 13% of the population. This school is blatantly off-spectrum and not representative of America, or as a matter of fact New York City.
Now we all know there is more to a person than these standardized tests. We all have a personaltiy, we are not walking numbers. When a school merely compares SATs and GPAs and APs and any other acronym you can think of you are being more racist than the situation right now. Like stated before some are just luckier the the draw; some are born into rich families with parents who have time to work with their children. No respected school will fill their ranks with rich CT. white prep, smart Asians, poor URM, or any sterotype you can think of. So yes Asians may be getting the short end, but all because of the fact that some people are luckier than others.</p>
<p>I don't understand why the hell this thread got so long or why it was started in the first place. I read the first page of posts and am not planning on bothering with the BS on pages 2-6. Let me make use of a very simple statistic:</p>
<p>ASIANS = 4% OF US POPULATION (Keep this in mind)
PRINCETON STUDENT BODY = 13% ASIAN!!!!!</p>
<p>That statistic set a record for the largest percentage of asians attending Princeton in its ENTIRE history. Maybe this didn't make national news, but since I live in Princeton, I receive a newsletter that details everything that's going on in the university. There are similar statistics in many of the other top universities in the country. SO, MY QUESTION IS THIS, HOW CAN ANY ASIAN POSSIBLY COMPLAIN ABOUT IVY ADMISSION STANDARDS WHEN THEY ARE ALREADY MISREPRESENTING ASIANS IN FAVOR OF ASIANS? When you take the number of asians attending universities in the top 10 slots and divide by the total number of college-going asians and then do the same for caucasians, WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET? LET'S BE LOGICAL ABOUT THIS. THINK IT OVER AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND IF IT'S REALLY UNFAIR. I'm proud to be asian and whenever some naive, simple-minded buffoon regrets being asian, well, then they don't DESERVE to be asian do they?</p>
<p>I thought I posted earlier (but I guess I didn't) with a post explaining that affirmative action is usually only a way to choose between two very similarly qualified people. At a good lower-tier private college, a downright pathetic one, or a large public university, there are either more varying talents or more spots to held them, so this isn't a huge deal. However, at the most competitive universities, so many similar students are vying for a few spots. This allows affirmative action to make a bigger difference.</p>
<p>If that's really true, proletariat, then why do so many kids with top notch SATs and GPAs get rejected and so many lower-scoring URMs get accepted? I'm not being racist, there are obviously many highly qualified URMs getting accepted and many Asians/whites with low qualifications getting rejected on merit...but, it's illogical to justify accepting students of vastly different caliber using the excuse that "AA is for students of similar merit."</p>
<p>Asians are forced to "compete" for college admissions (btw I like to think of college as a match to be made, not a competition to be won) on the basis of "better" not "different" because their parents aren't as tolerant of being different as we are. They see being different from John or Andrew or somebody else from that Asian church as you being "inferior" rather than "different." Thus with very little differentiation the model's perfect competition. Oh yeah and most asians apply to the same top schools, major the same things, and have the same career goals. With very little differentiation among asians, and because Princeton can't and won't fill their entire class with asians, which means we do get screwed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Please never again bother to attempt to tell me why I did something or why I said something. You wouldn't have a clue. In fact, your supposition is thoroughly false. I brought up the BWRKs to give a parallel example, because others arguing something similar were not being well understood by various posters. It was an extension of the intellectual argument, not an apologetic addition to the debate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It appears as if you did not like my criticism.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the record remains. You directed the remark against Asians. You made no attempt to generalize at the time. You only brought up the BWRKs to try to downplay your earlier statement.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Have you heard that uttered? Or been told by someone that he, she heard those words or read similar words uttered?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Answer to your first question, no. The answer to your second can be found in the link below:</p>
<p><a href="And%20btw,%20the%20paraphrased%20remarks%20--%20or%20your%20overheard%20remark,%20or%20whatever%20--%20reminds%20me%20of%20the%20excerpts,%20again,%20from%20the%20Toor%20book.%20Her%20comments%20about%20BWRK's%20were%20far%20worse.%20They%20were%20outright%20insulting,%20demeaning,%20and%20patronizing%20--%20much%20worse%20than%20I've%20heard%20from%20anybody%20posting%20anything%20about%20Asians%20on%20CC.">quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Does that excuse discrimination against Asians? Oh, wait...</p>
<p>
[quote]
And again, please don't tell me what I "can" and "cannot" do. I can deny discrimination against Asians only because they are not being denied access to compete equally, along with other ethnic groups "because" they are Asians.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is a very restrictive definition. Am I to infer that, based on your definition, almost no one could claim to be discriminated against today?</p>
<p>Please. Unlike a mathematical proof, in which only one counterexample is needed to disprove the statement, discrimination exists as long as examples of it exist. It does not matter how many counterexamples there are. In fact, your statement barely counts as a counterexample as-is.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They are not being given less access, relative to assignments within an entire freshman college class. There is neither a positive nor a negative quota in a presumptive or pre-judged sense. For example, were by some fluke there were only 2 Asians applying one year to a particular elite, yet neither was judged to be sufficiently able to do the work at that elite, neither Asian would be admitted. (Fill in the blank for other ethnic groups.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This restriction is interesting. You've frequently mentioned about how it is not feasible to admit all high-ranking applications, but in this case, you supposed that the two hypothetical students were in fact not high-ranking.</p>
<p>Also, would you care to explain "There is neither a positive nor a negative quota in a presumptive or pre-judged sense" in light of the earlier "truth" that there is a "pattern" of extracurriculars among East Asians?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You simply do not understand the civil rights principle of true discrimination. You are applying it improperly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Would you care to elaborate on what the "civil rights principle of true discrimination" is? Would you also tell me why I am applying "it" improperly?</p>
<p>ahahaha omg Iam def not the average korean american.</p>
<p>I want to major in film and my sat score is 1870</p>
<p>^1870 is closer to the average SAT for a Korean than a 2200. However, the only Koreans you (or more importantly your parents) even bother to notice are the 2400s who play an instrument for 18 years and are amazing at math and science. You fail to notice the majority of Koreans who probably go to state colleges or even community colleges. Most asians in America do not even bother applying to top 25 colleges. Most Asians in America are not math wizes. To assume the majortiy of any race has above a 2000 SAT and is looking at top private colleges is ignorant. The only reason an Asian has it harder than a white person is because there is a higher probablility a white person has 10 generation legacy at any college, improving chances at admissions. There is a huge difference between a stereotypical Asian and your every day Asian. I may fit the stereotype more, but that is the way I am. Not all Asians are like me. Not all of us fit the stereotype. Deal with it.</p>
<p>If I were Mexican, I'd be a Mexican female.. i'd get into Harvard with my GPA of 3.86 unweighted (6 AP's, a lot Honrs)</p>
<p>If I were Mexican, I'd be a Mexican female.. i'd get into Harvard with my GPA of 3.86 unweighted (6 AP's, a lot Honrs)</p>
<p>There is no average conception of any person.</p>
<p>The bad part of the whole Asian stereotype thing is that colleges can use that "Oh, she/he's trying so hard not to be Asian" thought process to use against an Asian applicant. Yep, Asians get shafted no matter what. Whatever Asian applicants do, there will always be discrimination used against her/his actions.</p>
<p>does being a native hawaiian/pacific islander benifit in any way? i know being asian is a big disadvantage and other minoirity races other htan asian are all benifits</p>
<p>i'm below the typical asians. it's true that internationals compete w/ other internationals (including other azns too!).
but.. they wouldn't just turn me down because i'm below the typical ones.
if they do.. um.. well.. then i'mma kill ma self.</p>
<p>The PROBLEM is that Asians account for only 4% of the population...that 4% is like the smartest people who competed with tens of thousands of people in China/Korea etc to get a spot to study abroad in America, find a job, and stay. </p>
<p>I'm not saying this is true to everyone, it isn't even true to me, but a lot of times these Asians traditionally have VERY high expectations of their children, and will not be tolerant it if the kid doesn't get 4.0 or play the violin expertly. Plus since the parents were super-smart, the kids will be more likely to be academically qualified. </p>
<p>Now if you were in a place where say 40% of the population was Asian, you're gonna end up with all types of different Asians just as with any other race. </p>
<p>That being said, I wish I wasn't Asian. I don't have 2400, don't have 4.0, don't really know how to play the piano or violin. I should just go kill myself. :(</p>
<p>^lmfao</p>
<p>College is so overrated. Anyone wanna b pirates with me?</p>
<p>
[quote]
very simple statistic:</p>
<p>ASIANS = 4% OF US POPULATION (Keep this in mind)
PRINCETON STUDENT BODY = 13% ASIAN!!!!!</p>
<p>That statistic set a record for the largest percentage of asians attending Princeton in its ENTIRE history. Maybe this didn't make national news, but since I live in Princeton, I receive a newsletter that details everything that's going on in the university. There are similar statistics in many of the other top universities in the country. SO, MY QUESTION IS THIS, HOW CAN ANY ASIAN POSSIBLY COMPLAIN ABOUT IVY ADMISSION STANDARDS WHEN THEY ARE ALREADY MISREPRESENTING ASIANS IN FAVOR OF ASIANS? When you take the number of asians attending universities in the top 10 slots and divide by the total number of college-going asians and then do the same for caucasians, WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET? LET'S BE LOGICAL ABOUT THIS. THINK IT OVER AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND IF IT'S REALLY UNFAIR. I'm proud to be asian and whenever some naive, simple-minded buffoon regrets being asian, well, then they don't DESERVE to be asian do they?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The issue is that there would probably be EVEN MORE Asians at Princeton if Princeton was to abolish things like AA, legacy admissions, and tip-points for athletes, phenomena that have little to do with academic merit, strictly defined. </p>
<p>The historical analogy would be the numerus clausus, or the 'Jewish quotas', used by the Ivies and other top schools back before WW2. These quotas prevented "too many" Jews from entering top schools. The quotas that were implemented still allowed more Jews in than the national population (as the percentage of Jews, then and now, is still only a tiny fraction of the population), but the key was to not let in any more than a certain threshold, to avoid being "overrun" with Jews. </p>
<p>Look, you are using a statistical analysis that has an assumption that is fatally flawed - that assumption being that statistical representation of a particular group should hold with any activity. This deliberately ignores the stark fact that overrepresentation of various groups in various activities has been a historical feature throughout every civilization. For example, Jews have been greatly overrepresented in academic achievement in the last 150 years since the 'Jewish Emancipation' of the 1800's when Jews were basically released from most of the ghettoes of Europe and allowed to integrate into regular European society. Jews have won 23% of the world's Nobel Prizes despite constituting a bare 0.25% of the world's population, in spite of endemic historical anti-Semitism such as the Eastern European pogroms and the Holocaust. African-Americans have been greatly overrepresented in the development of American music - in fact, so much so, almost all of the prominent genres of American music (jazz, blues, swing, rock, hip-hop, disco, soul, R&B) can trace their roots to African-American musical innovators. The overwhelming majority of prominent jazz artists throughout history have been African-Americans. African-American dominance in athletics is also plain to see, with 2 of the major professional sports leagues (the NFL and the NBA) being majority African-American. The other 2 professional sports leagues (MLB and the NHL) demonstrate over-representation of other groups - Latinos are overrepresented in baseball (20% of players on MLB rosters were Latino), and Canadians are overrepresented in the NHL (over half of all players on all NHL rosters, including American NHL teams, are Canadians). This is actually a striking change from the past when virtually all of the players in the NHL were Canadians. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html</a></p>
<p>The point of all this is that overrepresentation of a particular group is not unusual, but is a normal feature of society. You say that Princeton now is 17% Asian. Well, perhaps using strict academic criteria, Princeton might be 40-50% Asian. Why not? A school like Berkeley that does not practice AA or legacy admissions has a freshman class that is almost 48% Asian. Hence, Princeton could STILL be discriminating against Asians, although perhaps less so than in the past. </p>
<p>I like your arguments, Sakky. Very clear.</p>
<p>This post is quite depressing....</p>
<p>so, some Asians are being "punished" because although they are hard workers, they are still below the average of the "Asian Status"?</p>