<p>I totally agree with Sakky...an institutionalized Running of the Asians is no good</p>
<p>I agree completely with sakky!
princeton08540, why can't a group overrepresent? what does overrepresent mean? shouldn't the process be solely merit?
In NBA, african americans overrepresent compared to the proportion of african american in the population. So what?</p>
<p>Come up with a better arguement to convince the down side of overrepresent!
Or else don't try to sound like it's completely ridiculous for asians to overrepresent when you can't prove it.</p>
<p>Actually, Asians are overrepresented at UC-Berkeley compared to their numbers versus the popluation of CA. Attacking the vocabulary (like the conservative right misusing the term "theory" when speaking about the Theory of Evolution) is an underhanded way to promote a particular agenda...especially anti-AA advocates, because they think it is ONLY about race, not socioeconomic disparity.</p>
<p>Being blind to the fact that primary and secondary public schools in poor neighborhoods often get far less funding and have fewer options with respect to external fundraising is to ignore the majority's HISTORIC discrimination against particular groups...including Asians.</p>
<p>Also, there is a distinction between Southeast Asians and East Asians with respect to socioeconomics and test scores. Thus, even when you subtract race from the equation, the more affluent East Asian will gain as less affluent Southeast Asians will lose.</p>
<p>Also, no one has tackled the issue, brought up several times before here on CC, regarding Asian test scores in Hawaii. That is the SAT scores of Hawaii Asians are not much higher (+10 points) than whites and other URMs. </p>
<p>Looking just at stats will produce the same kind of enviornment that was present before the Civil Rights Movement, because it assumes fairness at the outset. The funny thing is that those that were opposed to, say, integration during the 1950-60's used the same justification that many on this thread are using. That African Americans were less 'intelligent', although now the subsitute is test 'scores'. </p>
<p>Again, those that feel their power slipping with shifts in demographics often change the definitions (i.e. redistricting, moving towards 'unbiased' stats). </p>
<p>All colleges sometimes discriminate based on geography, state residence, developmental candidacy, legacy status, athletic ability, recommendations, work history, ECs, essays, etc... The problem is that many want to be able to choose which things to include when an admissions decision is made, often to their own benefit.</p>
<p>The upshot is: If you're thinking about yourself, you're not thinking about what's good for society or what is 'more fair' but rather what you can get out of the system the way it stands. The funny thing is that the system was developed because of biases that the MAJORITY had and how they treated others (including women and Asians) when such power is concentrated. Thus, those that were/are oppressed needed to find legal recourse, with the hope that the court system would rectify the imbalance (and which was reaffirmed in the recent UMichigan Supreme Court, which knocked down quotas but enabled colleges to use race as a factor).</p>
<p>Funny, but those that do not know their history are bound to make the same mistakes. It took Women and African Americans, for example, a few hundred years to gain the right to vote, without intimidation and retribution. Do I want it to go back to the way it was? </p>
<p>Nope. And, I'm a conservative, who believes that expanding the workforce and increasing the standard of living is good for the GDP of the US. By investing in 'human capital' for those that have traditionally been excluded from the workforce means that the US Labor Market will shift in the positive direction, gains will be made in productivity, cost to firms will be reduced, there will be capital deepening, and that the GDP and all other measures derived from it will increase.</p>
<p>So, isleboy, if socioeconomic disparities are so important, then why do colleges still consider race? Race is totally irrelevant...instead we should have a straight income-based affirmative action policy.</p>
<p>IsleBoy,
Thank you for your mature & thoughtful perspective.</p>
<p>how does need-blind work? I mean, I don't think they ask for your family income on the application, do they? although they do ask for occupations of parents....but how much information can they get out of that? a mediocre doctor can make less than a top educator...and fin aid is always a separate package.</p>
<p>b4nnd20:
Colleges still consider race (among other things) because they understand that people still sometimes judge others by looking at their skin tone. They understand that such a practice affects how those people think about larger macro issues (i.e. housing, schools, taxes, political rights, etc...). Also, the idea that a single-sitting test can accurately assess 'intelligence' is a bit unbelievable. I've had several occassions to blow a singular test (e.g. Calculus II, Physics, AP Biology), but have been fortunate to bring up my grades because there were several tests, quizes, and/or papers. That is why, most colleges use the highest values for the SAT and its subset scores during admissions. Unfortunately, some students cannot afford to take the test multiple times, know to take the ACT, or can afford test prep classes or paid college counselors. That is why colleges like Bowdoin, Bates, Holy Cross, Mt. Holyoke, Franklin & Marshall, Wheaton (MA), Knox, Hamilton, Gettysburg, etc...have made them optional (and that is backed by studies). By just using stats when making admissions decisions, more affluent kids (who tend to be White or East Asian) would benefit, reinforcing the idea that that there is a certain validity to a single-sitting test being able to measure 'intelligence'. I'm not in that camp so to speak. If I were, my college choices would have been different, because I do have bad days once in a while. Often, I also learn something in the process that would not have been learned by always acing a test, paper, etc...</p>
<p>Plantero:
I'd have to modify the statement of yours. Only some colleges are need-blind and not need aware. Also, preferencial packaging does go on within a financial aid office at times. Case in point, Brown University just went need-blind (but is still need aware for international students) a couple of years ago. Carleton College, though usually meeting 100% of a student's need, is need-aware for the last 5% of their application pool.</p>
<p>epiphany:
I didn't look at my keyboard as long as I could. :) Conversations about ethnicity seem to alway be stilted. And, I'm still waiting on someone to argue that investing in 'human' capital is a bad thing. I guess, some people forget that Muhammed Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize this year for a 'simple' idea, and that other countries are beginning to copy his process. I wonder how some of the CCers would respond to empowering the marginalized?! ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
And, I'm still waiting on someone to argue that investing in 'human' capital is a bad thing.[/quote[</p>
<p>I don't believe that investing in human capital is a bad thing.</p>
<p>I do, however, believe that treating stereotypes as truth is a bad thing, and that such practices should not be tolerated.</p>
<p>Treating stereotypes as 'truth' is definitely not what I'm advocating. But, the reality is that discrimination occurs because of social norms and the practice, by the majority (no matter what country), to keep power for themselves. Often, the only recourse that marginalized groups have is through the courts. That is why anti-discrimination laws came into being. Also remember that sociologist make a distinction between those that are discriminatory (they have power) and those that are prejudice (those that are in marginalized/oppressed groups).</p>
<p>If the practice of recognizing the unique demographic, social, historic, political, and economic distinctions cannot be made, there is no mechanism for which to judge, especially if schools remain selective. For instance, stats, athletic ability, high school attended, legacy status, ethnicity, geographic residence, ECs, grades, state of residence, family wealth, etc...do differentiate applicants from one another. </p>
<p>If you were advocating open admissions, that would be great, but I suspect that in such a scenario selective college applicants would themselves want distinctions between schools. Harvard is different than Brown. University of Chicago is different than Reed College. Vassar College is different than Duke University. And, as evidenced by the posters on CC, me included, how applicants choose schools, also depends on categorization. Thus, since the mid-90's schools have had to market themselves more aggressively, and pay more attention to rank, even if it means that fit becomes secondary. It is because we make choices based on suspect data, like USNews that makes us discriminatory. </p>
<p>That a mechanism is in place to ensure that minority groups (including women) are not shut out when it comes to higher education is an outgrowth of the prevailing idea, defined by the majority) that minorities are inferior (i.e. Jim Crow laws that took power away from Southern African-Americans at the turn of the century, intimidation through violence that prevented women and blacks from voting, placing Japanese-Americans in internment camps during WWII). Now, it's couched in the movement to use statistics in college admissions that is exclusionary. Whites and East Asians have traditionally enjoyed greater access to money, power, etc...but ignoring those differences, will result in the hoarding of power. Yet the focus is on the 'Top Schools', the ones that many CCers covet, even if they would be better served by other schools.</p>
<p>BTW: if you don't belive that investment in human capital is a bad thing, then how do you explain the systemic exclusion of the poor within the U.S. and elsewhere?</p>
<p>Again, Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize because he recognized that the poor can be creditworth, something the the American public (through practice) does not strongly believe. And, lifting the most poverty-stricken Bangladeshis (at a rate of 58%) is conter to the arguement that only those who perform strongly on a single-sitting test, based on a somewhat arbitrary definition, can be successful if given the tools to their own liberation. The problem in the U.S. is that we tend to be status driven and have not devised practical plans for those suffering in poverty. Rather than inclusivity, Americans argue for exclusion--at least with respect to college admissions. We treat some of high education (i.e. the 'best schools') as a right rather than a priviledge based on sometimes flawed or incomplete data.</p>
<p>BTW, the belief that test scores reveal who is most deserving of a place in a particular school, as advocated here, is also a stereotype--which is often treated as gospel here on CC.</p>
<p>I agree that one of the few options marginalized groups have to protect themselves is the court system, which is why I support Li Jian.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If the practice of recognizing the unique demographic, social, historic, political, and economic distinctions cannot be made, there is no mechanism for which to judge, especially if schools remain selective. For instance, stats, athletic ability, high school attended, legacy status, ethnicity, geographic residence, ECs, grades, state of residence, family wealth, etc...do differentiate applicants from one another.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think the above two sentences are contradictory. There is certainly a way to distinguish applicants without using race, which is what demographics, social, historical, political, and economic backgrounds boil down to. In fact, you have already mentioned factors such as stats (includes grades, extracurriculars, and athletic ability), high school attended, and geographic residence, none of which depend on race.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you were advocating open admissions, that would be great, but I suspect that in such a scenario selective college applicants would themselves want distinctions between schools. Harvard is different than Brown. University of Chicago is different than Reed College. Vassar College is different than Duke University.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Universities will always have distinctions, regardless of admissions policy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That a mechanism is in place to ensure that minority groups (including women) are not shut out when it comes to higher education is an outgrowth of the prevailing idea, defined by the majority) that minorities are inferior<a href="i.e.%20Jim%20Crow%20laws%20that%20took%20power%20away%20from%20Southern%20African-Americans%20at%20the%20turn%20of%20the%20century,%20intimidation%20through%20violence%20that%20prevented%20women%20and%20blacks%20from%20voting,%20placing%20Japanese-Americans%20in%20internment%20camps%20during%20WWII">/b</a>. Now, it's couched in the movement to use statistics in college admissions that is exclusionary. **Whites and East Asians have traditionally enjoyed greater access to money, power, etc...but ignoring those differences, will result in the hoarding of power. Yet the focus is on the 'Top Schools', the ones that many CCers covet, even if they would be better served by other schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have bolded two statements.</p>
<p>I dont really understand the first statement. Are you saying that the majority has established group preferences because they believe certain individuals are inferior?</p>
<p>As far as the second statement, I would like you to define traditionally. In the late 19th century, there was a severe restriction on immigration from East Asia. These quotas were not removed until the 1960s.</p>
<p>
[quote]
BTW: if you don't belive that investment in human capital is a bad thing, then how do you explain the systemic exclusion of the poor within the U.S. and elsewhere?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is a loaded question. Consequently, the answer is that I have none.</p>
<p>
[quote]
BTW, the belief that test scores reveal who is most deserving of a place in a particular school, as advocated here, is also a stereotype--which is often treated as gospel here on CC.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How is it a stereotype? Test scores are the most quantifiable factor. The amount of subjective analysis placed on test scores is far less than the analysis placed on essays, leadership, extracurriculars, and so forth.</p>
<p>Tests produces quantifiable data, true, but tests themselves are not objective metrics of merit by any means. A holistic admissions process has its advantages, since the world at large is not meritocratic and there are other traits that prospectives can possess beneficial to the school community / world (besides money, :P).</p>
<p>Fab:</p>
<p>(1) Without ethnicity factors, differences between Southeast Asians and East Asians would not be considered (favoring East Asians over Southeast Asians). Thus, the two sentences are not contradictory in that different factors are used when selecting a class. Ethnicity can impact other factors used in admissions so it cannot be readily 'taken out' of the equation.</p>
<p>(2) People also have distinctions that make them different regardless of cultural norms (and regardless of college admissions policies).</p>
<p>(3) I'm saying that without court intervention, to correct social and economic biases by the majority, groups outside the norm are viewed as suspect. As for East Asian groups, the Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans, have higher incomes and more opportunities than Southeast Asians and most other groups currently. As for limits on who can come to the U.S., how is that related to American East Asians as opposed to East Asians from other countries? We currently limit Mexican immigrants, which is a matter of govenment policy, and the U.S. majority discriminates against them. The problem is within American society, rather than discrimination against those that live outside the nation's borders (I hope you're not suggesting that all who want to immigrate should be allowed to do so).</p>
<p>(4) It is only a loaded question if you do not recognize that the majority by practice and through laws have historically driven the movement to keep power by exclusionary tactics. Pretty clear, actually.</p>
<p>(5) Whether or not scores are the most quantifiable, does not mean that there is no bias or that it is the most reliable means to assess applicants. Statistics can be mislead and cause the general public to jump to conclusions; and, if repeated enough become the 'truth', whether or not it is valid. As for not being able to assess applicants, Bowdoin, Mt. Holyoke, Franklin & Marshall, Bates, Holy Cross, Dickinson, Knox, Wheaton (MA), Connecticut College, Hobart & William Smith, Lawrence University, etc..would disagree. Some of the college have been choosing classes without scores for decades. Hence, the recent movement away from using scores as a major determinant.</p>
<p>The question is how can the scores be reliable and above reproach when the CollegeBoard charges for tests, affluent kids tend to take it multiple times, and there are test-prep options for some, especially in light of the scores of Hawaii SAT test takers (who score only a handful of points above or sometime below other minority groups and non-minorities?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Without ethnicity factors, differences between Southeast Asians and East Asians would not be considered (favoring East Asians over Southeast Asians). Thus, the two sentences are not contradictory in that different factors are used when selecting a class. Ethnicity can impact other factors used in admissions so it cannot be readily 'taken out' of the equation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you are suggesting a reform of the way ethnicity is used in making decisions, then I do agree that change is needed.</p>
<p>Under the current system, an entire continent is grouped under the label Asian. Thus, even with ethnicity factors, differences between Southeast Asians and East Asians are seldom noticed.</p>
<p>I do still propose that ethnicity be taken out altogether. There is no good reason to distinguish between two individuals based on race. There may be some good reasons to distinguish between two individuals based on socioeconomic status, but not race.</p>
<p>
[quote]
People also have distinctions that make them different regardless of cultural norms (and regardless of college admissions policies)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, absolutely. I completely agree.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm saying that without court intervention, to correct social and economic biases by the majority, groups outside the norm are viewed as suspect. As for East Asian groups, the Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans, have higher incomes and more opportunities than Southeast Asians and most other groups currently. As for limits on who can come to the U.S., how is that related to American East Asians as opposed to East Asians from other countries? We currently limit Mexican immigrants, which is a matter of govenment policy, and the U.S. majority discriminates against them. The problem is within American society, rather than discrimination against those that live outside the nation's borders (I hope you're not suggesting that all who want to immigrate should be allowed to do so).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>OK, thanks for the clarification.</p>
<p>I mentioned the bit of history because I do not believe that traditionally is appropriate to describe the current situation. Most Americans with Asian descent cannot trace their American heritage back to the first immigrants from the 19th century. We are the children of recent immigrants.</p>
<p>I most certainly am not suggesting that we restrict immigration. In fact, I do not know where I could possibly have alluded to such an idea.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is only a loaded question if you do not recognize that the majority by practice and through laws have historically driven the movement to keep power by exclusionary tactics. Pretty clear, actually.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do recognize that. I failed to see why I was asked to explain the systemic exclusion of the poor within the U.S. and elsewhere simply because I believe that investment in human capital is not a bad thing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Whether or not scores are the most quantifiable, does not mean that there is no bias or that it is the most reliable means to assess applicants. Statistics can be mislead and cause the general public to jump to conclusions; and, if repeated enough become the 'truth', whether or not it is valid. As for not being able to assess applicants, Bowdoin, Mt. Holyoke, Franklin & Marshall, Bates, Holy Cross, Dickinson, Knox, Wheaton (MA), Connecticut College, Hobart & William Smith, Lawrence University, etc..would disagree. Some of the college have been choosing classes without scores for decades. Hence, the recent movement away from using scores as a major determinant.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The original statement, as follows:</p>
<p>
[quote]
BTW, the belief that test scores reveal who is most deserving of a place in a particular school, as advocated here, is also a stereotype--which is often treated as gospel here on CC.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My reply, as follows:</p>
<p>
[quote]
How is it a stereotype? Test scores are the most quantifiable factor. The amount of subjective analysis placed on test scores is far less than the analysis placed on essays,
leadership, extracurriculars, and so forth.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I stand by my assertion that test scores are the most quantifiable of all factors. The SAT tests (including Subject tests) and AP exams are standardized. Individuals can be readily compared to others, hence most quantifiable.</p>
<p>Also, can you give me examples of bias in standardized tests?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The question is how can the scores be reliable and above reproach when the CollegeBoard charges for tests, affluent kids tend to take it multiple times, and there are test-prep options for some, especially in light of the scores of Hawaii SAT test takers (who score only a handful of points above or sometime below other minority groups and non-minorities?
[/quote]
</p>
<ol>
<li>The College Board also provides fee waivers to those who demonstrate financial need.</li>
<li>If a student is truly from a poor background, then he is allowed to apply for fee waivers and take the test at a reduced cost or even at no cost.</li>
<li>Is it not possible for people to study for the test on their own? Is it necessarily true that all high scoring students employed the services of others?</li>
<li>I dont see the significance of the Hawaii anecdote, other than the fact that race shouldnt be a factor in admissions decisions.</li>
</ol>
<p>A. All the schools I applied to made the distinction between East and Southeast Asians because of socioeconomic factors. By definition, sociological facotrs include ethnicity.</p>
<p>B. Most East Asians can trace their family history back that far.</p>
<p>C. By dismantling AA without a better method in place first would be exclusionary, and thus counter to the belief in investing in human capital, especially if they are already marginalized by society. And, since recent immigrants are usually the ones most marginalized, the only way to restrict a larger underclass is to limit immigration. Or, the nation will have a bigger problem with educating those in a marginalized group. The movement towards using scores as the primary tool in admissions is one way to entrench marginalization in this country.</p>
<p>D. The problem with test is that the more affluent can take the test multiple times, go to cram schools, hire college counselors, etc... Thus, you do not know just by looking at the raw scores who has prepped or not.</p>
<p>To answer your statements:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The fee waivers are limited and are difficult to qualify for. Many who qualify for CA waivers do not get CB waivers. Likewise, the cost of the CSS Profile is high, and a waiver is also hard to comeby. Thankfully, colleges are moving away from using the CSS...</p></li>
<li><p>Right, you qualify for a waiver, but it does not consider geographic location, etc...this only those that are the most impovrished get help...never mind that public school counselors often do not have such specific information (that includes waiver form for things like the CA, CSS, and SAT).</p></li>
<li><p>It is more likely that the more affluent kids will have the time and resources to prep for the tests.</p></li>
<li><p>Hawaii shows that the MAJORITY (in the state's case Asians), does not have to rely on test scores to retain it's power. It shows that the Asians stereotyp that many CCer's have about Asians does not necessarily hold true, even as they advocate for the use of the stats to be the most important in college admissions. Thus, for mainland Asians, the test scores equate to gainning power through schooling, while the majority can seem altruistic while advocating to keep it's hold on power. Nice.</p></li>
</ol>