<p>Fab:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Geographical residence / home state / high school attended is, in my opinion, an excellent way of achieving diversity without resorting to race.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Some would argue that it is discrimination, not based on performance. That diversity would mean more students from other states that are not held to a higher standard.</p>
<p>Fab:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Essays. Yeah, universities have a "preference" for people who can express their thoughts in clean, crisp English. The day universities have a "preference" for people who phonetically write in Ebonics is the day I move back to Australia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, some smart kids write bland essays, even when they have good test scores. So, essays can illuminate differences between good test takers and those that are good writers.</p>
<p>Test scores. Universities have a "preference" for people who show that they can perform well on standardized tests. Should be a no-brainer.</p>
<p>Fab:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Test scores. Universities have a "preference" for people who show that they can perform well on standardized tests. Should be a no-brainer.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As seen above, with respect to good writing, high scores do not necessarily mean that an individual is also a good writer. That is why test scores are not a no brainer. Different socioeconomic, political, and educational experiences within the primary and secondary schools also impact test performance.</p>
<p>Fab:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Developmental status / legacy standing. In this sense, I again do not agree with Li Jian. Legacies might (key word) have to pay more for admission. Hey, that can contribute to the construction of a library, an athletic complex, an endowed professorship - good stuff. So if I am rejected in favor of a legacy admit, it's possible that because of that student, other students enjoy real, physical benefits (like a new library). Compare that to "diversity."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Diversity, especially in the emerging global economy, is sometimes more important than posh athletic facilities, four person suites, free tickets to sporting competitions, etc... And, in this day and age, it is very rare for an individual to afford to give any school a new library. Welcome to the accelerated rate of comodification of education. Kids expect to be catered to, but that maybe more a fuction of a socio-psychological phenomenon.</p>
<p>It is definitional for both of us.</p>
<p>Let's take an economic look at the issue, shall we? (Those who have followed my comments on economics and motivation will laugh at this, as well you should, but I'm going to proceed anyway).</p>
<p>Economics predicts that individuals engage in wealth-maximizing behavior. Viewed in that light, opponents of affirmative action make perfect sense. First, being white in the US (and even more so in Australia, I believe) is more closely correlated to being the child of wealthy parents than being African American, Hispanic, or Native American. I'm not as sure this is true of Asians in the US, but I suspect this is the case.</p>
<p>Wealth and education are closely related. Education breeds wealth and wealth breeds education of offspring, even unintentional education, from an early age. For instance, reading skills are closely tied to two factors: the amount of time spent reading and the comprehension of what one is reading. Children of wealthy, educated parents may well enter kindergarten with a listening vocabulary of 12.000 words. Those from impoverished backgrounds may have only 2,000 words. Children of wealthy families are likely to have access to more books in the home to read and more likely to have the vocabularies to comprehend those books. Thus, they are more likely to become excellent readers.</p>
<p>A recent study suggests that elite schools don't provide an economic benefit to attendees, except for URMs or, even specifically, black students (see final paragraph, especially).</p>
<p>Another study indicates that people with African-American-sounding names are 50% less likely to get called to an interview than those without AA-sounding names, even though they had the same credentials on a resume. And this is DESPITE affirmative action programs at many employers. It's not a great leap to assume that those screening for AA-sounding names might screen for AA-looking people in an actual interview.</p>
<p>Taken as a whole, when we ask ourselves why so many whites and Asians (potentially) oppose affirmative action, we must ask ourselves why we should be surprised by this. In economic terms, it seems obvious that those who are given, by birth, a greater probability of prosperity would be reluctant to relinquish that advantage to those with a lesser probability by birth. Reducing that advantage won't level the playing field, of course, but it will make it more level, and it's not surprising that those who have the playing field tilted in their direction would oppose a reduction in the tilt.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier: Those articles were creepy, but I don't see how AA can destroy the neo-Nazi agenda.</p>
<p>Fabrizio: Just_Browsing was right. Post 24 has nothing to do with reductio ad hitlerum. I believe that you were referring to 23, but Drosselmeier has already explained those.</p>
<p>Excuse me? If you believe that every white person and Asian is richer than every African-American, Tarhunt, your comments might make more sense. But I'm sure nobody here believes it is fair to pit the numerous poor Asians against the numerous rich African-Americans, with the latter having the added bonus of AA. I know it's surprising, but there are many Asians who are poorer than many African Americans (gasp!).</p>
<p>Not only that, but a study cited in Freakonomics (which, unfortunately, I don't have right now) runs contradictory to the study you cited. It basically showed that it doesn't matter if someone has a white or black-sounding name.</p>
<p>I'm offended by the proposition that Asians want to tilt the admissions process in their favor, or that we're consciously racist. Subconciously, yes, but who isn't?</p>
<p>proletariat:</p>
<p>Citing economic theory is racist? In what way? Saying "being closely correlated" is the same as saying (in your words) "I know it's surprising, but there are many Asians who are poorer than many African Americans (gasp!)."</p>
<p>Can you give me a reference for the statistical theory that equates correlation with 100%?</p>
<p>I don't blame people for wanting to play on a field tilted in their favor. That's not the least bit racist, consciously or not. I prefer to play on a field as level as it possibly can be, but that's me.</p>
<p>From today's Washington Post Outlook Section
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/19/AR2007011901360_2.html?sub=AR%5B/url%5D">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/19/AR2007011901360_2.html?sub=AR</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
Recently, Newsweek International's Fareed Zakaria noted Singapore's success on international math and science exams, but asked Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam why Singapore produced so few top-ranked scientists, entrepreneurs, inventors, business executives and academics. "We both have meritocracies," he replied. America's "is a talent meritocracy, ours is an exam meritocracy. There are some parts of the intellect that we are not able to test well -- like creativity, curiosity, a sense of adventure, ambition. Most of all, America has a culture of learning that challenges conventional wisdom, even if it means challenging authority. These are the areas where Singapore must learn from America."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>American colleges look at more than just test scores. Asian colleges look mostly at test scores. It is hard to say which is better, but I think we can agree that neither system is perfect. Asians point to SAT scores when saying that they are more qualified applicants, and wikipedia's AA page says that Asians see a decrease in 50 points for their SAT scores. How significant can 50 points on the SAT be, especially when ECs and essays mean more at a certain point for top school admissions?</p>
<p>A quick note to the above. I should have used the word "relationship" instead of "correlation," since race is a binary.</p>
<p>"Uyghurs are very common in Kazakhstan and other neighboring countries, and Manchurians live in Russia as well as China. Tibetans have also historically lived in Nepal and Bhutan. If Mexican-Americans lived in Canada, they wouldn't be Mexican-Americans anymore, eh?"</p>
<p>What are you talking about? That makes no sense "If Mexican-Americans lived in Canada." Okay, if you are ethnically Mexican but BORN in America and LIVE in America and have citizenship in America, THEN YOU ARE AN AMERICAN. If you're Manchurian or whatever and born in China and live in China, and have Chinese citizenship, THEN YOU ARE CHINESE.</p>
<p>Being Chinese is NOT an ethnic background, it's a national background.</p>
<p>And I was takling about those Chinese minorities - Ughyurs, Tibetans, Hui, etc... who receive unbelievably extraordinary beneficial minority tokens that make AA look like dust. Thoey ARE Chinese... the people I was talking about.</p>
<p>Again, being Chinese is NOT an ethnic background, it's a national background.</p>
<p>karupt:</p>
<p>Not to interject too much here, but do you happen to know how the Chinese look at it? That is, do the Chinese grant, in the minds, the status of "Chinese" to someone who is born and lives in China? Would that apply to the White Russians?</p>
<p>I've heard a neighbor across the street insist on being referred to as "Chinese" and not "Taiwanese" because, in her mind, the Taiwanese are not Chinese. Is this common or uncommon?</p>
<p>i actually like to be referred taiwanese instead of chinese but that is basically due to the same fact that someone would like to be called from hong kong instead of china. we all have our preferences =D
edit: when i go out, i do not state i'm a american but rather say i'm a californian =D it's just preference =D</p>
<p>proletariat2 and Just_Browing,</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>Yes, I made a mistake. I was referring to Post 23 (Drosselmeier's post).</p>
<p>"Not to interject too much here, but do you happen to know how the Chinese look at it? That is, do the Chinese grant, in the minds, the status of "Chinese" to someone who is born and lives in China? Would that apply to the White Russians?"</p>
<p>Yes, if you are born and live in China, the gov't considers you Chinese. If you are White Russian, or another minority, you actually get very special statuses. Minorities in China are NOT SUBJECT to the ONE-Child policy rule. In college admissions, they get special privileges... etc.</p>
<p>"I've heard a neighbor across the street insist on being referred to as "Chinese" and not "Taiwanese" because, in her mind, the Taiwanese are not Chinese. Is this common or uncommon?"</p>
<p>Is it common? No. Do some people do it? Yes. Taiwan is composed of 98.5% Han Chinese, whereas the mainland is only around 91%. It's not that Taiwanese people AREN'T Chinese, it's just like me saying I'm Californian. I don't deny I'm an American, it's just that I'm just saying I'm a Californian. Bah, it's kinda confusing and has a lot to do with current politics.</p>
<p>IsleBoy,</p>
<ol>
<li><p>A coach recruits an athlete based on his demonstrated performance and his potential. We've all seen the films where private K12 schools give scholarships to talented athletes from underfunded schools (e.g. Hoop Dreams). If the athlete is good, he won't be missed.</p></li>
<li><p>If universities must use a factor to ensure "diversity," then I believe geographic residence is far better than race. It's nowhere near as bitter of a factor.</p></li>
<li><p>What's your point about some smart kids writing average essays? Looks to me like they weren't able to express themselves in correct English as well as some others.</p></li>
<li><p>So, you're going to admit a student with a 1800 / 3.0 into a freshman class where the average is 2100 / 3.8?</p></li>
<li><p>Each individual is unique. Diversity should automatically happen, but certain special interest groups don't see it that way.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, Tarhunt did bring up a good point. Legacies are quite obviously more unfair than AA, so why is the problem ignored by so many people who care so much about AA?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Good post. Somebody answer this question. Now.</p>
<p>My guess is that white people are unfairly allowed to get away with more than anybody else. There's also a cultural belief that rich white people "belong" in Ivy League schools, whereas minorities (especially blacks and Latinos) have to earn every minute they spend on campus.</p>
<p>Asians have been some of the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action (before affirmative action, the asian population in elite schools were less than 2%) especially when many flocked to california to take advantage of the free tuition at the UCs. I don't understand why some onw would want to decry the same system that gave them a leg up . </p>
<p>Keep in mind that elite college admission has never been a soley merit system especially when the schools were comprised of mainly rich white males. If there affirmative action were to end tomorrow, and private schools (becasue this is where the rub is in these big AA debates) stopped trying to achieve a diverse class, how long do you think it would be before schools were once like they used to be ?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not only that, but a study cited in Freakonomics (which, unfortunately, I don't have right now) runs contradictory to the study you cited. It basically showed that it doesn't matter if someone has a white or black-sounding name.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Did you actually just cite Freakonomics as a source? Brilliant! </p>
<p>
[quote]
Legacies are quite obviously more unfair than AA, so why is the problem ignored by so many people who care so much about AA?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Easy, racism. Its much easier to blame the black guy than it is to blame the white one.</p>
<p>Good point, sybbie. Colleges were actually less merit-driven in admissions when they were also much less diverse.</p>