<p>A. Which schools? I recognize that there are more, but the only institution that I know asks for country of origin is West Point. In fact, their definitions are so clear that it is impossible to pretend to be an under-represented minority.</p>
<p>B. I highly, highly doubt that. Considering both the gender of the Chinese immigrants at the time (mostly men) and the presence of severe restrictions after 1881, it is very unlikely that most Americans with Chinese ancestry can trace their family history back to the first immigrants. In the case of Japan, there was a de facto end of immigration following Theodore Roosevelts presidency. In either case, I contest your claim.</p>
<p>C. Would it be so exclusionary? Some people seem to not like the natural history of California after 1996. Yes, the numbers show that black enrollment at Berkeley and LA have never increased to their pre-1996 levels. Lets not forget that overall black enrollment across the entire UC system increased. Sounds like much human capital was being invested in without racial preferences. I'm not so sure about limiting immigration as a way to restrict a large "underclass." It's a different issue.</p>
<p>D. Everyone can take the test multiple times. I really hate the whole he scored better because he could afford private tutoring. It is a very lousy excuse. If these students do so well by paying for everything, then why is it that the vast majority of legacies at Harvard fail to graduate with honors?</p>
<p>1a. I have no experience with fee waivers. I do not know how limited they are, and I do not know how difficult the application process is. All I know is that they exist and they are designed for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.</p>
<p>2a. Certainly geographic location plays a role, but at face value, disadvantaged is disadvantaged everywhere.</p>
<p>I have never used a College Board service without reading the words fee waiver somewhere. I would imagine that if a student truly came from a disadvantaged background, then he would seek a waiver even if his counselor could not help him.</p>
<p>3a. Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe there exists a middle class that also has the time and resources yet lacks the stigma associated with "rich whites."</p>
<p>B. I can contest your claim simply by tracing my families history to Hawaii before the 20th century where they were plantation workers.</p>
<p>C. That could be also due to the demographic blip upward of the Asian population in CA. In other states like Texas, Michagan, Ohio, there has been a downward trend. So, you assume based on CA, which is an outlier, that the rest of the country would be the same. It is not.</p>
<p>D. Of course you're sick of the claim because it weakens your arguement. So, you really are not an advocate of using socioeconomics to judge applicants either. Very telling.</p>
<p>1a. Wow, and I have several friends who have not been able to qualify for CollegeBoard waivers, but do qualify for CA waivers. They are all low-income kids.</p>
<p>2a. Yep, but there are geographic differences which are often not considered when looking at what qualifies as low-income. You also make assumtions about access to information, etc...by low-income kids, even as some of them do not have access to computers or the time to investigate fully, all the options. They assume that people in positions of authority would not make mistakes or would let them know if something was amiss. Public poor public schools have more pressing issues related to funding than do other schools. They have larger classrooms, fewer college counselors (if they have them), etc... Make the poor work harder, as if they did not have to worry about other things that most affluent kids don't, and call it fair?! That is very strange. AGAIN, using socioeconomic factors would help those at a disadvantage, but you already showed that you believe that access to resources are equitable, when they are not.</p>
<p>3a. Actually, I used the word affluent, whether it means 'middle-class' or 'upper-class', not 'rich, whites' specifically. Those middle class kids would be advantaged in the college admissions process, unlike their low-income cohorts.</p>
<p>4a. Just go to the CollegeBoard website and look at the numbers. Asians in Hawaii would be at a disadvantage with respect to the U.S. college application pool, which assumes that Asian score higher (which is not true of Hawaii as a state). Asians in Hawaii are in a position of power and can keep their hold on it by sheer numbers.</p>
<p>A. Thank you.
B. Your (recent) ancestors emigrated to Hawaii before it became an American state. Hawaii was thus not bound by the 1881 Chinese Exclusion Act and the Gentlemen’s Agreement.
C. I’m not so sure about Texas. For every Asian student at Austin, there is a Hispanic student. In addition, the campus is 45% minority.
D. Yes, I am very sick of this excuse. It does not take into account the fact that there exist students who study for the SAT without resorting to overpriced private tutoring. My argument is not weakened in any way, especially since you have refused to attempt an explanation as to why many students admitted under legacy preferences fail to graduate with honors. Surely they could have purchased tutoring while at an elite university? I mean, they bought their high scores, can’t they buy better grades? Money buys everything! </p>
<p>1b. I guess we should ask College Board exactly what their policy is on allocating waivers.</p>
<p>2b. To elaborate on my statement “I would imagine that if a student truly came from a disadvantaged background, then he would seek a waiver even if his counselor could not help him,” I want to stress that if such a student were truly disadvantaged and desired to take a CB test or use a CB service, he would come across the words “fee waiver” SOMEWHERE and because of his family’s financial status, I believe that he would try to figure out how to obtain one. I’m not sure where I have mentioned that “access to resources is equitable.” But, I do know that you have claimed that I believe in such an idea (penultimate sentence of point D). Furthermore, your statements corroborate my support of affirmative action based on income as opposed to race.</p>
<p>3b. Those middle class kids would be advantaged in the sense that they do not have to seek fee waivers. Those middle class kids are also disadvantaged in the sense that they often receive very limited need-based financial aid, as opposed to the disadvantaged, and do not lack the financial freedom that the upper class possesses.</p>
<p>4b. I mean, all I can say is your statements FURTHER support the stupidity of race-sensitive admissions.</p>
<p>It’s slightly irrelevant, but I’ll mention it nonetheless. Of all the people I’ve met who claim to be of a conservative political stance, you have got to be the least conservative. Supporting investment in human capital is not unique to conservatives. I can support such an ideal without resorting to gender and racial preferences. The two are independent.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Actually, some of my relatives also did come after the Act, as well. Hawaii was a US protectorate since the late 19th century.<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>C. I’m not so sure about Texas. For every Asian student at Austin, there is a Hispanic student. In addition, the campus is 45% minority.</p>
<br>
<blockquote>
<p>Still correct at Michigan and Ohio. And at Texas, especially if economic AA, which you advocate, is implemented as it would benefit whites and some Asians, while reducing the number of other minority groups.<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>D. Yes, I am very sick of this excuse. It does not take into account the fact that there exist students who study for the SAT without resorting to overpriced private tutoring. My argument is not weakened in any way, especially since you have refused to attempt an explanation as to why many students admitted under legacy preferences fail to graduate with honors. Surely they could have purchased tutoring while at an elite university? I mean, they bought their high scores, can’t they buy better grades? Money buys everything!</p>
<br>
<blockquote>
<p>Yes, the socioeconomic 'excuse'. I know you're sick of it. But, it is a socioeconomic factor. As for Honors at Harvard, those legacies do not need it because they tend to be affluent, so they can work through the network. BTW, you have not SHOWN a causal relationship with respect to legacy performance at Harvard. Good debate tactic though.<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>1b. I guess we should ask College Board exactly what their policy is on allocating waivers.</p>
<br>
<blockquote>
<p>You can receive up to four fee waiver cards (two for the SAT, two for Subject Tests) to cover both your junior and senior years. Fee Waivers cover the test fee only, and cannot be transferred from one test date to another. Each Subject Test fee waiver card covers up to three Subject Tests for each registration. </p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Only your counselor can grant you a fee waiver card. Fee Waivers are not available through the College Board. You must meet the financial eligibility guidelines for fee waivers, such as participating in the Federal Free and Reduced Lunch/National School Lunch Program at your school. Your guidance counselor will share and additional eligibility guidelines with you. </p>
<p>Students who use SAT fee waivers who plan to enter college in fall 2007 are eligible to receive up to four Request for Waiver of College Application Fee forms from their counselor. These forms must be included with your college application; they notify participating colleges that you have participated in the SAT Program Fee-Waiver Service and request that colleges consider waiving their application fees.</p>
<p>Note: An institution listed in the Directory of Colleges Cooperating with the SAT Program Fee-Waiver Service is not obligated to waive its application fee for every SAT Program fee-waiver user who applies. Please speak to the admissions director at the institution you wish to apply.<<</p>
<p>2b. To elaborate on my statement “I would imagine that if a student truly came from a disadvantaged background, then he would seek a waiver even if his counselor could not help him,” I want to stress that if such a student were truly disadvantaged and desired to take a CB test or use a CB service, he would come across the words “fee waiver” SOMEWHERE and because of his family’s financial status, I believe that he would try to figure out how to obtain one. I’m not sure where I have mentioned that “access to resources is equitable.” But, I do know that you have claimed that I believe in such an idea (penultimate sentence of point D). Furthermore, your statements corroborate my support of affirmative action based on income as opposed to race.</p>
<br>
<blockquote>
<p>Actually, I said that the CB provides a limited number of waivers (4, the last time this was addressed). To make your arguement work, it would need to depend on equality of access with respect to resources. Which it does not. My statements do not support just economic AA because I believe that economic factors are impacted by ethnicity, education, income, wealth, parental education, etc.... Thus, my arguement is for socioeconomic AA. BTW, you went from socioeconomic to just economic AA. Another good debate tactic. (Look at your previous posts)<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>3b. Those middle class kids would be advantaged in the sense that they do not have to seek fee waivers. Those middle class kids are also disadvantaged in the sense that they often receive very limited need-based financial aid, as opposed to the disadvantaged, and do not lack the financial freedom that the upper class possesses.</p>
<br>
<blockquote>
<p>Actually, depending on how you define 'middle class', it could be true or not. Those at the low end of the bracket get aid, while those at the high end do not. Where are your statistics to back this one up? Especially since few truely disadvantaged minority kids end up at the competitive schools. So, you're saying that even with better primary and secondary educational resources and opportunities, the upper-middle class (those that make more than $100,000) are MORE disadvantaged thatn families making $60,000 or less? That middle class kids don't get merit aid? Wow. Must be tough to be in the middle class. You want the priviledges that the wealthy can afford, but also want to be seen as more disadvantaged than low-income kids attending less attractive primary and secondary schools.<< </p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>4b. I mean, all I can say is your statements FURTHER support the stupidity of race-sensitive admissions.</p>
<br>
<blockquote>
<p>Wow, name calling. How smart. My statements, like those by acting Harvard President Bok, former Princeton Presidents, the Dean of the Columbia Journalism school, and the stance of many selective schools are stupid??? Socioeconomic AA is a better choice SINCE there are still people who attempt to keep or gain power by further marginalizing those with the least amount. Rather than invest in human capital by being inclusive, you are doing the opposite, helping those that need it the least. Wow.<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>It’s slightly irrelevant, but I’ll mention it nonetheless. Of all the people I’ve met who claim to be of a conservative political stance, you have got to be the least conservative. Supporting investment in human capital is not unique to conservatives. I can support such an ideal without resorting to gender and racial preferences. The two are independent.</p>
<br>
<blockquote>
<p>Actually, they are not, as evidence by the Supreme Court decision in UMichigan, which does see that gender and ethnicity does impact income, education, etc...because of practices by the majority (i.e. behavior). The reason that my stance is different than most conservatives on this issue is that I've seen both sides of it. Whether in Hawaii the West Coast, The East Coast or The South. Does race make a difference in how people are treated on the street, in the classroom, etc...? My experiences say it does. Am I going to ASSUME that if the practice occurs regularly that it does not occur elsewhere? No, I'm not comfortable with that, hence I advocate for socioeconomic AA, rather than an economic AA policy. I believe that perceptions of the majority affect behavior because they set the tone for society. That people believe that there is little or no discrimination against minorities or that there is no need to ensure that they are not further marginalized is odd--unless you come from one of those who benefit from it. Thus, economic factors by themselves are suspect.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Here I thought the conservative label spanned a spectrum and was not static. Now it's about diavowing my conservative credentials. Another good debate technique.</p>
<p>You might want to read 'Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria', 'The Promised Land', or the myriad of other books on the subject.<<</p>
<ol>
<li>California and Texas have abolished racial preferences for some time now. The current data reflects the change. By contrast, Michigan voted to end racial preferences a few weeks ago. The current data DO NOT reflect any change yet. Check a few years from now and well see what will change.</li>
<li>If the SAT is unfair simply because some have access to resources that others do not, then why is it that poor Asian students outperform middle-class whites (and other under-represented minorities) on standardized tests? What kind of causal relationship are you looking for, by the way?</li>
<li>I must say now that I believe CB should take a more aggressive approach in awarding fee waivers by eliminating the role of the middleman (ie. Making it optional) and giving more than four waivers per student.</li>
<li>If you yourself have not cited any statistics in the fee waiver issue, is it fair for you to demand that I present numbers? Ill tell you straight-up that I dont have any.</li>
<li>Ive never called you stupid, but I have said that race-sensitive admissions is stupid. Also, if you choose to appeal to Drs. Bowen and Bok, Ill say that their study The Shape of the River has serious methodological flaws. Read any critique by Dr. Thomas Sowell.</li>
<li>Investing in human capital is a great idea. The key word is HUMAN. Youre calling for special preferences based on race. Such an idea is counter to HUMAN capital, which by definition, includes all instead of some.</li>
</ol>
If, Judge Buckwalter, the SAT discriminates against poor, disadvantaged black students, please answer some questions. Why do poor Asian students outperform middle-class whites on standardized tests? How is math culturally biased, such that American-born, English-speaking kids (who happen to live in the inner-city) should not be expected to perform? Why are there high schools where the average SAT score is 1300 in Barbados, a poor, black country, with a high percentage of single-parent households?</p>
<p>And, if the SAT does not predict academic success, why do University of California kids admitted under "special criteria" (a.k.a. affirmative action) drop out at much higher rates than do students admitted under regular criteria? Of the minority students admitted under "special criteria" from 1983 to 1987, only 7.2% graduated in four years, less than 50% within six years. During the same period, for "white and other" students admitted under regular criteria, graduation rates in four and six years were 34.1% and 77.6%, respectively.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>He posits it as a rhetorical question. You'd be better served asking Mr. Elder for his source.</p>
<p>Sorry about your luck, asians. What about us WHITE people? It really sucks for us! </p>
<p>We get no slack, whatsoever.</p>
<p>I believe that colleges should not be able to ask what your race is. I know that you can leave it blank, but if you're a minority, you'll write it in, and it will help you. If it was REALLY race blind, then the schools could just look at our stats and determine who is the best applicant.</p>
<p>Actually that's not true for white males. There is a fair amount of affirmative action at the most selective colleges in favor of males to keep the colleges from developing a gender imbalance. As most of the males are white, most of the beneficiaires are also white.</p>
<p>White females on the other hand have reason to complain - where is Gloria Steinem when she is most needed?</p>
<p>haha. i saw this on 20/20 too. it was about privilege and wealth. there was that one asian guy who got a 2400 and was rejected from almost every ivy. soooo sad. i dont know. i feel as if asians are discriminated in the college process. everyone just stereotypes us--even if it is subconsciously.</p>
<p>As the daughter of Asian immigrants, I just wanted to contribute my opinion - no offense intended to anyone.</p>
<p>Why would anyone come to America in the first place? Some people still believe in the American dream - better economic opportunities, democracy, freedom, starting over. It's impossible to ask these people with big dreams and hopes for their children to give up. To the Asians I know, education = opportunities. They're willing to pay any price for this... and to oversimplify, the strong Asian community in my area is much more willing to pay for something like SAT prep classes over something like a performing arts program for their child. Education, tutoring, prep class businesses are flourishing in my area because of the influx of Asian parents willing to pay for this. The businesses selling their prep market it well - they'll play off the ultimate dream of getting the "best" education, which according to their knowledge, is an Ivy League, what US News has deemed #1, etc. </p>
<p>All parents want what's best for their child, and the Asians I know think education, and the best one possible, is the best thing for their child. In doing so, many similar approaches happen - pursuit of an extracirricular, usually something safe or "dignified" like a musical instrument, and excelling in that extracirricular (tangible things like awards from competitions). Academics are a given: in a unflawed academic institution, grades are a reflection of a person's aptitude in the course. Math and science are solid subjects with growing job opportunities. The SAT prep business has convinced everyone of the partial truth that SAT scores highly influence your chances in the college admission process, so the parents push their children to take prep classes and/or do well. </p>
<p>Like many others have stated, colleges want diversity. If they just happen to have 200 academically qualified students with musical awards all coming from the same cultural background (as in, maybe they're ALL children of recent immigrants), they might not "need" all 200 of them - why not accept the athlete, drama student, or person with a different cultural experience? It's impossible to exclude race or ethnicity out of the admissions process because (I can't speak for everyone here) my ethnicity is very much a part of who I am - my morals, principles, values, and the choices I make. Wouldn't it be more interesting to have someone who can make Thai food over many who can make Chinese food on a college campus? They're trying to enrich YOUR college experience by diversifying. I don't see anyone SPECIFICALLY discriminating against Asian people, but the similarities are inevitable, therefore having many of them would not be advantageous to the college campus. </p>
<p>I don't fit the Asian stereotype - I don't do well in math, I don't have any awards. I don't play piano well; I gave it up recently to pursue dance. I have yet to take the SAT (I'm a junior), but have not and will not take prep classes because I have identified the most effective learning techniques for me, which is independent study. I'm lucky enough to have built a relationship with my parents where they trust I want what's best for myself - they don't ask for my grades, but know if I get bad ones, I'm only hurting myself. At the same time, with all the work I do, I know I'm relatively attractive to colleges, and won't keel over and die when/if I don't get into an Ivy. I'm applying to colleges I believe I'll be happiest at - and I'm comfortable enough with myself to know that in any institution where I'm living independently and pursuing education I can make myself happy.</p>
<p>That was an insightful and smart post. Sometimes posters on CC, me included, get a little upset during the course of AA or Asian debates.</p>
<p>It's hard when some posters bait you by calling you names or attacking your political/social beliefs. I forget that from time-to-time.</p>
<p>Like you, I grew-up in an area where cram schools, prep courses, music lessons, etc...were the norm for most of my Asian friends. Whether they were interested or not, they gave in to pressure and often gave up what they enjoyed. The idea for my friends was to blend and conform rather than find something they love. Now, as some of them are graduating from college, they are still not passionate about much, although many are going off to grad school. The common response is that at least they will be financially secure, if not happy with what career they have or will have chosen.</p>
<p>I also don't fit the stereotype...and when I was younger, that made me stand out, mostly in a negative way. I got over it when I realized in high school that there were others around my age that were interested in the same things I was. I played football, mountain biked, and rowed. I was interested in art, religon, western civilization (especially the Mayaians), and epics. I made some great friends volunteering at the Special Olympics and local homeless shelters.</p>
<p>And, you know what?? That did not hurt me when it came to the college search. For all the angst, I had some amazing choices. I must confess that I applied to more schools than I needed to because some CCers made me worry about Asians being discriminated against. It was a strawman. I realized that those that picked-up the cause, often had other motives.</p>
<p>Thank you for the reminder that there are others (epiphany included) that are reasonable and can see the bigger picture.</p>
<p>I wish you well on your college search. Any school will be lucky to have you.</p>
<p>The boring Asian comments are no different than the ones about Asian performance on tests (just look at Hawaii as an example where that does not hold), or the idea that other minority groups are less deserving based on test scores, etc...</p>
<p>You make it your business, because you believe that Asians have been slighted or that their acceptance rates are or can be lower than other groups. I believe that it is more unsavory to resurrect the stereotypes of other minority groups, originally used by the majority to control minority populations by denying them an education, the right to vote, and the right to self-determination, in the name of who deserves a college education--especially since there has not been an attempt to correct or address the inequity at the primary and secondary levels. That some think it is okay to use non-Asian minority stereotypes to correct percieved slights to Asians is galling, but expected--unfortunately. </p>
<p>That is when it is my business. That affects economic productivity and social norms. There are far too many Asians and Whites who are 'boring' in the sense that they do not stand out in an application pool, because they choose not to. And, yes, I have Asian friends who got into the best schools and who were great test-takers, came from affluent homes, went to private prep schools, etc... They were statistically like many other Asian applicants. The difference was that they took a passion or passions of theirs and transmitted it via their ECs, recs, essays, etc...to the adcoms. I also have friends who wasted their opportunities with respect to their college application and did not get into those same schools, even with better stats.</p>
<p>Asians and Whites benefit from using the negative stereotypes of other groups, even as they assume or believe that a single-sitting test is indicative of who deserves to be admitted to college.</p>
<p>My belief is like yours in that the colleges can use the criteria they choose to craft a class, and if they view diversity as a positive, I don't have a problem with that...especially if they are private institutions. Public institutions are a bit different, because they are responsive to their residents. And, since their residents can affect what the institution does with respect to its own admissions policies, there is a greater probability that those who make up the majority will help to craft policies that benefit their own group. Hence, non-Asians pick-up the Asian cause...because Asians are supposedly 'victimized' by AA. They are not, at least when socioeconomics measures are studied.
The majority does not often understand, for instance, that there are real differences between East Asians and Southeast Asians.</p>
<p>That indifference to socioeconomic and political history by those that pick-up the Asian AA arguement is what I object to...nor am I comfortable letting the majority dictate how Asians are lumped together as a group, as is often the case here on CC...when it comes to the AA arguement. It's the selective amnesia by those who want to dismantle AA, without coming up with a better system and implementing it that concerns me. </p>
<p>I dislike 'boring' anything, but to advocate accepting all the boring Asians and Whites because of a belief in a positive or negative stereotype based on stats is not the solution, but the entrenchment of the status quo.</p>
<p>As I've said before: Many others have suggested studies with respect to test scores, etc...and, I've made it a point to read them. I've looked at both the 'conservative' ones (like Illiberal Education, The Closing of the American Mind, etc....) and the 'liberal' ones (mentioned in some of my posts), as well as ones which do not have a strong idiological bent (like The Promised Land, The Otherside of the River)....but, those are sometimes side-stepped here because of an already formulated belief in one 'theory' or another. </p>
<p>Again, its when Asians (or the majority) advocate a plan that benefits their group that I get a little bit concerned. I'm just surprised that it's a zero sum game here on CC, especially given that we're supposed to be intelligent--that we recognize that, in some cases, it is not a zero sum game.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The boring Asian comments are no different than the ones about Asian performance on tests (just look at Hawaii as an example where that does not hold), or the idea that other minority groups are less deserving based on test scores, etc...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Indeed. All of them are based on skewed perceptions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You make it your business, because you believe that Asians have been slighted or that their acceptance rates are or can be lower than other groups. I believe that it is more unsavory to resurrect the stereotypes of other minority groups, originally used by the majority to control minority populations by denying them an education, the right to vote, and the right to self-determination, in the name of who deserves a college education--especially since there has not been an attempt to correct or address the inequity at the primary and secondary levels. That some think it is okay to use non-Asian minority stereotypes to correct percieved slights to Asians is galling, but expected--unfortunately.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Close, but not quite. I make it my business because I think it is wrong for such comments to go unchecked. In that sense, I believe Asians have been "slighted." As far as the acceptance rates, again, who a university wants to admit is that university's business. But, something is wrong when comments like "not another boring Asian" are used as if they were not discriminatory.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That is when it is my business.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you believe that it is wrong to use one stereotype to "correct" another, then by all means, I support you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Asians and Whites benefit from using the negative stereotypes of other groups, even as they assume or believe that a single-sitting test is indicative of who deserves to be admitted to college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not sure how much of a benefit there is, as neither Asians nor Whites belong to preferential groups (unless they are athletes or legacies).</p>
<p>On other discussions with respect to race and affirmative action, I have read a student's argument that the discrimination faced by Asians is different than the discrimination faced by Blacks because the former "arrived in this nation with education and wealth." Her argument was woefully incomplete and ignored the first Asian immigrants, who were unskilled laborers.</p>
<p>In fact, preferential groups benefit from using "positive" stereotypes of Asians because some in those groups honestly believe that Asians came to this country with education and monetary means.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hence, non-Asians pick-up the Asian cause...because Asians are supposedly 'victimized' by AA. They are not, at least when socioeconomics measures are studied.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have to bring up the Espenshade and Chung study, which concluded that, on average, at elite institutions, Asians face an SAT loss of 50 points. I have never read an argument that said such a practice is fair. It is tantamount to saying that "The best you can do isn't good enough." It is easy for someone to feel victimized by a policy which ostensibly seeks to create a diverse and open campus but in actuality is quite negative to a certain group.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, its when Asians (or the majority) advocate a plan that benefits their group that I get a little bit concerned.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The only thing I can say is we'll just have to see. A majority of voters in Michigan supported Proposition 2, which makes it, I believe the fourth state (along with California, Florida, and Texas) to ban racial preferences in public institutions. If four years from now, Michigan becomes "all-White" or "all-Asian," what should be concluded, anyway?</p>
<p>Is it:</p>
<ol>
<li>There's institutionalized discrimination in the admissions room against "under-represented" minorities</li>
<li>Wealthy whites can afford services like Ms. Michele Hernandez's counseling, whose fees are in excess of tens of thousands of dollars.</li>
</ol>
<p>Nah, I think it's neither because Michigan won't be "all-White" and it won't be "all-Asian."</p>
<p>Interesting thread. We can ***** and moan about what we perceive to be slights against anyone of us because or race, religion, color of our skin, sex or other factors. Will we be able to change the mind of any adcomm on this message board because of our complaints, probably not. </p>
<p>My feeling is you do the best you can, and not worry about the rest of the bs, because there is nothing we can do about it anyway. Good Luck.</p>
It means that you did not read both of the articles in their entirety or you would know that
The Espenshade & Chung study is based on admissions preferences and is hypothetical and not actually not factual.</p>
<p>In the Chronicle of Higher Education 6-21-2006 article:</p>
<p>State Bans on Affirmative Action Have Been of Little Benefit to Asian-American Students, Report Says</p>
<p>Contrary to predictions in a widely cited 2005 study that said Asian-American students were the biggest losers in affirmative action, those students made only minor gains at law schools when the practice was banned in three states, according to a new study.</p>
<p>Something is wrong when you resurrect other stereotypes and advocate the abolition of AA to correct for comment about Asians. When you do that, it becomes 'everyone's business'. Interesting that you percieve your comments as valid when it comes to other group stereotypes. So you comment on Asian stereotyping because you are upset and it is your business, by stereotyping other groups. Interesting tactic.</p>
<p>It's good that you support me. The problem is that socioeconomic inequity is something that affects educational opportunities...while your position, is that stats should be used when college admissions is at stake, benefitting your group (as you minimize the differences between East Asians and South East Asians). Turning a particular belief in supposed Asian 'superiority' into an action that does have ramifications with respect to the educational, political, social, and economic scene, is unsavory.</p>
<p>And, scary. I've become a bigger socioeconomic AA supporter precisely because people advocate such scary ideas. It is those people who truely believe that Asians are better or more deserving, even as other Asians are oppressed by not having the stats that negatively impacts the larger Asian community. Again, there are socioeconomic differences between East Asians and Southeast Asians. And, colleges are recognizing the differences, while you often do not. To you, considering socioeconomic differences between the two groups would be a way to discriminate against East Asians who tend to have more 'clout' (i.e. money, opportunities, wealth). By choosing to ignore socioeconomic differences, you are contributing to the thing that makes it 'your business'--since your stance would make differences between applicants, even Asian ones, irrelevant and more uniform. </p>
Something is wrong when you resurrect other stereotypes and advocate the abolition of AA to correct for comment about Asians. When you do that, it becomes 'everyone's business'. Interesting that you percieve your comments as valid when it comes to other group stereotypes. So you comment on Asian stereotyping because you are upset and it is your business, by stereotyping other groups. Interesting tactic.
[/quote]
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Please provide examples of when I have "resurrected" other stereotypes, and please provide the context. Resurrected implies that I am presently using stereotypes which are no longer used. I would be most interested if you were able to produce a single one.</p></li>
<li><p>I do not advocate the abolition of race-based affirmative action "just" to correct negative comments about Asians. I advocate its end because I am against its principle of giving a person extra consideration based on his race, which in my opinion, is counter to the very ideals set forth by our nation's founders.</p></li>
<li><p>It would become everybody's business if I did what you have claimed that I have done, but I have not done what you have claimed.</p></li>
<li><p>Which stereotypes? Resurrected ones or actively used ones? Examples of my usage of either, please?</p></li>
<li><p>Such a tactic would be interesting if it were actually used.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
It's good that you support me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No problem.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The problem is that socioeconomic inequity is something that affects educational opportunities...while your position, is that stats should be used when college admissions is at stake, benefitting your group (as you minimize the differences between East Asians and South East Asians). Turning a particular belief in supposed Asian 'superiority' into an action that does have ramifications with respect to the educational, political, social, and economic scene, is unsavory.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wealth is the factor behind almost everything you have mentioned. You've talked about students not being able to afford tests. You've talked about wealthy students who can buy everything. When I asked you to explain why many students admitted to Harvard under legacy preferences fail to graduate with honors, you responded with the claim that such people don't need the honor because they were already **connected<a href="ie.%20they%20had%20%5Bb%5Dmoney%5B/b%5D">/b</a>.</p>
<p>I absolutely support using stats when college admissions is at stake. No doubt in my mind.</p>
<p>I object to your claim that I minimize differences betweeen East and Southeast Asians. The current race-sensitive affirmative action policy does not make a uniform distinction between the two, which hurts both groups as well as other Asians.</p>
<p>Please provide a single instance in which I have touted the "superiority of Asians" and its context. Would you like to continue conjuring things out of thin air? Please be my guest.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And, scary. I've become a bigger socioeconomic AA supporter precisely because people advocate such scary ideas. It is those people who truely believe that Asians are better or more deserving, even as other Asians are oppressed by not having the stats that negatively impacts the larger Asian community. Again, there are socioeconomic differences between East Asians and Southeast Asians. And, colleges are recognizing the differences, while you often do not. To you, considering socioeconomic differences between the two groups would be a way to discriminate against East Asians who tend to have more 'clout' (i.e. money, opportunities, wealth). By choosing to ignore socioeconomic differences, you are contributing to the thing that makes it 'your business'--since your stance would make differences between applicants, even Asian ones, irrelevant and more uniform.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Um, I'll assume that I belong to the "those people" group.</p>
<p>Would you please demonstrate when and where (in context, if you don't mind) I have ever stated that Asians are "better" or "more deserving"? Wow, I had no idea that fighting against comments like "not another boring Asian" would result in me being associated to such false claims. Maybe I should just let Asians get stereotyped. On second thought, hell no.</p>
<p>I love how you have taken my use of the phrase "my business" grossly out of context. I said that it is "my business" when comments like "not another boring Asian" are accepted as truth. Remember? Or would you like to continue taking my words out of their original context?</p>
<p>I think a better way to put it would be "Some colleges are recognizing the differences." I'll ignore your assertion that I "often do not."</p>
<p>I'm going to bring back your original example of Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank. Your use of the example was inappropriate because you ignored one of the key features of his policy - availability of microloans to any group that applied. Under what you propose, only some people should receive loans, while others should be shut out. How is it "investing in human capital" when you say someone can receive a loan and someone else cannot?</p>
<p>For someone who makes a fuss about being the victim of non-existent "name-calling", you sure like to dish out what you can't take.</p>
<p>I'll convert to Sufi Islam if you can demonstrate a SINGLE instance of when I have supported the use of a stereotype or claimed that Asians are superior. And you MUST give the original context.</p>