<p>Again, your grasp of precise English betrays you. You perceive my use of preference as a bad thing but in reality it is neither good nor bad but rather just a statistical anomaly. There is no such statically anomaly with minorities. Therefore there is no such preference. Your logic is very flawed. BTW are you Asian? Also did you apply to Stanford? If so what are your stats?</p>
<p>Your use of the word ‘preference’ appeared synonymous with privilege or advantage as you didn’t show any indication that you referred to ‘preference’ as a statistical anomaly. Now you said there is no preference, you contradicted your previous statement. As I have already mentioned, Asian overrepresentation is a natural corollary of massive number of Asian applicants with their study ethic. I hope you know why Ivy+ universities have the most students from China, India, and South Korea among international students. Simply because, lot of students apply and among them are lot of talented students. How is that an anomaly? How is my logic very flawed? I would like to know as you didn’t specify any of the flaws yet. </p>
<p>My ethnicity and stats are irrelevant to this matter. I’m not here to complain how discriminating affirmative action is but to point out the existence of affirmative action for those who deny its presence. Although it is irrelevant, I’ll answer your questions. Yes, I’m an Asian. I’m an international applicant from a non-english speaking country , so such affirmative action certainly has a limited influence on me. I did apply to Stanford this year. I have 3.9+ GPA with 2240 SAT1 (740/760/740) score in only sitting.</p>
<p>
You’re comparing apples to oranges. Instead of comparing the number of Asians in the overall population, you need to consider the pool of applicants. Look at it another way, if a school accepts 10% of all applicants but 40% of the applicants have Feature X and that school accepts 15% of those with Feature X, are they given a preference? No, they are at a disadvantage based on the applicant pool. Nearly 100 years ago, the Ivy league schools did the exact same thing to limit the number of Jewish students when the Jewish population hit 25% at some schools. They instituted unofficial quotas based on a person’s name and “geographic diversity” knowing that Jewish students were less likely to live in Nebraska or Iowa and it gave the schools ‘cover’ against charges of discrimination. That’s what it was then and that’s what it is now, only now it is used against Asian-American students.
For the record, I am NOT Asian but believe that merit, not social engineering should decide who gets in…</p>
<p>Hater: No I said there is a preference to Asians-You don’t get it. It’s okay.</p>
<p>Let’s look at the big picture. You’re an Asian complaining that an American University in a town called Palo Alto by a city called San Jose near the big city called San Francisco is allegedly giving a preference to Americans with darker colored skin, named Palo, Jose and Cisco? Please rethink?</p>
<p>Any time a process puts values on certain things that a large group of people don’t have, the result is those in the group are going to find it more difficult to get value points on their applications in the process. I don’t think Stanford discriminates against Asians in that they do not look for Asians in the applications and put them in a separate stack and have a quota for them. But Stanford loves geographic diversity which puts anyone in California and other states where more applicants come from at a disdvantage in that the admissions process will give a tip to those from Maine or Louisiana, for instance. If you are international, there likely is a direct quota for your country and if you are from one that has a lot qualified applicants, it does put you to a distinct disadvantage. Stanford also gives certain categories a big bump up, and if you aren’t in those groups, if you want to reduce the semantics to what the end results are, yes, you are discrimnated agains.</p>
<p>Alumni, development, URMs, athletes celebrities are big deal categories at schools like Stanford. Don’t know how many Asians fall into those groups. If there aren’t many, then, yes, Asians as a group are going to have a tough time competing for those spots that are left. Also certain majors are oversubscribed to and there are limited places. Premed, natural sciences, engineering may get a lot of applicants whereas there are not as many kids interested in Classics and show that interest by taking both Greek and Latin and do their ECS in that area. So, from what I see, a lot of Asians put themselves in the most competitive areas of interest, and make it a lot tougher for admissions too. Think about it, if the absolute top applicants acadmically are all engineering majors, a school that has a balanced curriculum is not going to take them all. They want the English and Anthropology majors too. </p>
<p>The other thing that hurts those whose main attributes, strong points of the application is strong test scores and top grades,is that schools, top schools, do not list the applicants in order of the top scores. There are categories. If the Category for SATs is the range of 3500-4000 (they usually use 5 SAT scores, including 2 SAT2s) the students that get that 3500 are “graded” equally to the ones with the 4000 in that category… Those 500 points count for nothing, and the fact that a lot of Asians may be clustered in the top 300 points of the test scores doesn’t give them any more of push than anyone gets for being i that Category.</p>
<p>I stick with my argument. There is an obvious preference to Asians. Again preference is not good or bad but just simply more. BTW your argument also agrees. (Thank You)</p>
<p>Also-Are you really arguing that social engineering/integration has been a bad thing for Jews? Hint - think 2000 years not a 100.</p>
<p>
The social engineering I was referring to is exclusionary in nature, not integration…
Without getting nasty, you need a refresher course on history if you think social engineering has been a positive experience in all cases. Think Europe in 1930s to 40s…</p>
<p>JDad - The holocaust was a perversion of social engineering and a great tragedy. Having said that you deflect from the real issue. Do you not agree that Jews have benefited from integration/and positive social engineering? If so why do you deny those who come after you?</p>
<p>Many view integration as assimilation and a loss of cultural identity. I don’t know what you mean by social engineering but in the context of this thread as it relates to Asians and Jews, no I don’t see it as a positive in the sense that it limited opportunities for higher education based on factors external to the individual.
We may view social engineering differently but I don’t always trust the masses to act to protect the rights of the individual " in accordance with their place and function in society". That is based on 2000 years of history.</p>
<p>@sosomenza- your argument has nothing but a claim. You have no logic nor explanation. It was funny that you didn’t reply to my criticism at all and just try to abandon the discussion by calling me hater. lol Before you try to discuss something, why don’t you learn what the discussion is for? You are very arrogant and dogmatic. Whoever disagrees with you is very ignorant and dumb for you. How did I complain? You have been denying the presence of affirmative action and I pointed out the existence of affirmative action</p>
<p>In your very poor logic, if an Asian recognizes the presence of affirmative action, that’s merely a complain. If another racial student criticizes affirmative action, that is a very objective assessment? That is such a wonderful logic! Seriously, how old are you? I’m very curious for your surprising lack of insights and childish approach.</p>
<p>I’ve never strongly criticized or opposed affirmative action as it prevents universities from becoming Asian dominant community. However, I do prefer more of merit based approach while keeping the diversity. Of course, there isn’t any outright solution. If all you can do is to call me an ‘Asian complaining’ for affirmative action, it’s not worth my time to waste anymore time to you in this discussion. Just a piece of advice to you. When you are engaged in a discussion, try to use more logic and reason rather than personal insults.</p>
<p>Sigh…this is such a controversial issue, and if you read my post history, I’ve discussed this many times. I think it comes down to each and everyone’s unique personal experience. For example, I can’t comment on the experiences of being a black person in America. I, for one, who be extremely disappointed to say the least that my ancestors were dragged in chains to this country and forced to work for white people. I don’t know what that feels like. Perhaps there is reason to believe that the “white man” should give me preference to make up for the sins of the past, that’s not unreasonable. However, again, I can’t speak for the experiences of black people because I am not black. </p>
<p>However, I can speak for the experiences of an Asian American. I can say for a fact, that I’ve experienced discrimination, both overt and subtle and that yes, any minority does face discrimination. White people face discrimination too, I’ve had white friends tell they’ve gotten robed or jumped in Asian countries for being white, and definitely at least looked at differently. It’s only natural to notice minorities in a different way.</p>
<p>That being said, I still feel affirmative action is not right because it doesn’t benefit me, and actually hurts people like me. Yes, I know that’s self-centered and I do care about other Americans, black, white, hispanic, native american, whatever. However, where’s my affirmative action? Where’s my reprimands for legislation such as Chinese Exclusion Act and violence towards my people just because of their looks? For all the “funny” ching chong comments and go back to your country statements that reeks of ignorance and stupidity? For people who don’t even see Asians as Americans, and that all Asians are Chinese and that China (US’s largest trade partner) is somehow plotting to take over the world?</p>
<p>@DukeStudent12, true, when talking about historical persecution, Chinese deserve a sort of affirmative action. I also understand how much universities appreciate racial diversity, so I can’t strongly support one over another. Because there is nothing we, as individuals, can do about this matter, arguing in a small forum is futile. I can’t believe how many CCers are there who deny the existence of affirmative action, and asserts that no Asian is disadvantaged. I stand about neutral in a discussion about whether AA is right or wrong, but I can’t stand those who assert that AA doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>Dear HateS: My apology for calling you Hater. I was trying to abbreviate your moniker.
Again I stick by my stats. Also instead of complaining about the American system, why not work from within and change your country’s system of university education.</p>
<p>Jdad- You bobed and weaved around my question. But I’m happy to leave it at that.</p>
<p>To everyone: Stanford is such a bad example to argue preferential treatment. I just read it got 30K applicants and will accept under 6%. If for example they accept 1700 new students, 20% are likely to be Black & Hispanic. Do you really think those 340 minority student will not have excellent credentials. From a pool of 300,000 -400,00 minority high school graduates? C’mon, think people.</p>
<p>
I didn’t bob or weave but
I guess I need to make it clearer. No, they haven’t benefited from social engineering and I can give you plenty of examples of social engineering that is just plain wrong ethically and morally from eugenics to The Tuskegee Experiment.
As for denying those who come after me? I have no idea what you mean by that. My obligation is to leave a better fairer world. Social engineering does not do that and in this case hurts individuals and denies them the opportunity they deserve having earned to benefit someone else.
Level the playing field and treat all people equally…</p>
<p>JDAD-You should have walked away while you can. Are you really saying that Jews have not benefited from integration/positive social engineering? Less than a hundred years ago a Jew couldn’t live in a certain neighborhood, join country clubs, have visible synagogues, crack corporate America (Executive branch), get elected to office and on and on. Save the loss of identity speech. Dont give me any more negative engineering examples. Integration was good when it benefited Jews and now that it doesnt, you dont like it.</p>
<p>There certainly is no preference for asians based on the fact that they are asian - to say that is to totally ignore the facts in the interests of making an illfounded and uneducated point.</p>
<p>There is a preference for high scores. It just so happens that for whatever reason, many asians hold these scores. I’m not sure what kind of fool you’d have to be to deny Stanford the right to prefer high scores…</p>
<p>jdad, by stating that social engineering “hurts individuals and denies them the opportunity they deserve”, you imply that people deserve certain rewards for certain tasks. If you haven’t noticed, people go unrewarded everyday. Others get far more than they deserve. If you want to complain about social engineering and unfairness, surely there are thousands of more relevant, impactful, and heartpulling examples than college admissions.</p>
<p>So a kid doesn’t get into Stanford. Oh no, now he has to go to UMich. Imagine the horror.</p>
<p>Your definition of “social engineering” has both positive and negative facets, depending on the context and utilization.</p>
<p>(Speaking of which, you are totally incorrect in your use of that term ANYWAYS because eugenics and The Tuskegee Experiment are both not examples of social engineering considering that social engineering ACTUALLY refers to the access of confidential information and is generally used in the information sector to refer to a security breach that needs to be protected against…)</p>