SCOTUS upholds college Affirmative Action

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to see the black lady beating up on white posters. What is sad is that Asian Americans who are most affected by this ruling is forgotten and ignored once again.

Forget Becky with bad grades, Asian Americans with excellent grades, scores, awards, ECs, leadership skills, sport etc. are getting denied admission to top schools due to soft quotas in place at the top universities for Asian Americans . Asian Americans have accomplished academic and non-academic accomplishments despite many of them (or their parents) being immigrants who had to overcome language and cultural obstacles in addition to the same racial discrimination. Blacks are not the only group experiencing discrimination. Asians have been forced into slave labor, sent to internment camps, had property confiscated, lynched, subject to Chinese Exclusion Act etc.

Hopefully, the legal actions against Harvard and UNC by Asian Americans can proceed now the SCOTUS case is over.

Don't forget, wherever Holistic admission system" is used without considering "race", blacks make up extremely small number which is very telling.

For example, TJ uses "Holistic Admission System" and places heavy emphasis on short essays (SIS) and longer essay (some would say to give preference to non-Asians) and the admission's office bends backwards to recruit and admit blacks and Hispanics but their numbers are typically around 1% and 3% respectively and not much better for Berkeley and UCLA for blacks (2-3%) while Hispanics do better (20-25%).

Oh please, yes. Even if we reached the point that the makeup of the student body at one of these colleges was 100% Asian, there would still be some on here complaining that they had higher scores and should have gotten in. Holistic is holistic and can't be reduced to just numbers (even when those numbers include ECs with the appropriate number of awards and level of leadership).

And look at what has happened to TJ. As the make-up of the student body has changed, the school has become more of a stress factory, causing many students not to want to apply and some teachers to leave. Colleges each have their cultures and administrators often want to preserve those.

Many students not want to apply = whites scared to compete with Asian Americans or racist;
Teachers leave = teachers are retiring after 20-30 years of service.
Whites can run from competetion but they cannot hide forever.

It's not fear, it's not wanting that kind of pressured environment. I'd call that smart.
The teachers I know who have left have left because they didn't like how the culture was changing. They have not retired, but found jobs at schools with a healthier atmosphere and more balance.
Your third comment is so obviously misguided and/or racist, it doesn't warrant a response. It is worth noting, however, that instances of cheating at TJ are on the increase.

Whites can try to oppress but Asians are smarter than whites. Can't oppress that forever.

If we're going to stereotype (and you started it)- Asians aren't smarter, they work harder. This type of work and memorization results in high grades and test scores, but does bestow EQ or leadership skills, which are essential for success. Despite seeing so many Asians in top schools, you still see very few Asians in leadership positions, either in government or in the corporate world. African American students historically perform poorer than Asian students, yet you see more of them assume leadership roles in corporate America. Population-wise, there are about 3x the number of AAs in America than Asians, yet there are more than 10x the number of AAs in Congress.

I would never consider TJ for my kids, mostly because I believe there are more well-rounded options that can help develop better critical thinking and leadership skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The arguments in this forum are reflective of why affirmative action is still necessary.

This cartoon sums up the current debate nicely:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Glitters143/status/746101369136783360/photo/1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For top national universities such as Berkeley and UCLA, national demographics should be used not regional. Nationally, blacks make up about 12% of the population. Incoming black student population for Berkeley was 2.8% for 2015 and the total black student population for UCLA is 4.0% which are very small compared to 10 to 12 percent for other top schools. This is with unofficial Institutional Affirmative Action at UCs despite the ban in place.

NP-No, you should use state demographics to compare state school enrollment. State schools give state residents preference in admissions; Cal and UCLA are no exception. The prior PP is correct, California's two flagship universities' Black population is aligned with the state's Black population.

Berkeley's 2015 incoming black students: 2.8%
Stanford's 2015 incoming black students: 7.8%

Both schools are located in California and both use holistic admissions program so what makes Stanford's black student number significantly higher (almost 3 times) than Berkeley number even though both are in California and Stanford is supposedly more selective school (the most selective in the country)? Berkeley is even cheaper for black students who are California residents. Shouldn't Berkeley's numbers be higher for blacks?

You guessed it. Affirmative Action program at Stanford where race preference is significant.

UC Berkeley in-state cost is 36k, stanford's is $62k. Like the Ivys on the east coast, Stanford is expects nada, zero, nilch in financial support for families earning less than 125k. Anybody who can get into Stanford can get into UCB. The money is at Stanford. Berkeley doesn't pass out that kind of financial assistance.

Nope. You have to pay about $17,000.00 for approximately $125,000.00 HHI. The financial aid doesn't do you any good if you are not accepted first. Your post still doesn't explain why significantly higher percentage of blacks are admitted to Stanford than Berkeley except for the racial preference difference.

Your numbers aren't admits. They are enrolled numbers. Big difference. And 17k is still significantly less than 36k. Moreover, all things being equal, Stanford all the way.

Most in-state students at Berkeley pay 0 to 30% of the total expected cost. Typically between $7,000 to $16,000 so you can't make the cost argument.

That's not true. They end up paying for it later in the school loans.

Not really:

"Did You Know?

Sixty-one percent of Berkeley undergraduate students who graduated between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014 graduated without loan debt (Federal Direct Subsidized/Unsubsidized Loans, Federal Perkins Loans, private loans). The average cumulative loan debt for graduating seniors was $17,584. "

http://financialaid.berkeley.edu/tags/student-loans

17,584/4= 4.396 per year for 39% of the graduates. Not bad. That also works out to average of about $1,800 per year in student loan for all students! Not bad. Still making the cost argument?

Hm, 77% of Stanford grads graduate with absolutely zero, none, nada debt. Yeah, I'm still making the cost argument. No student loans.

You forgot about the average student debt for Stanford graduate for 2015:

The average per student cumulative undergraduate indebtedness for students earning undergraduate degrees between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2015 and receiving financial aid: $21,238
Percent of graduates with debt: 22% Of course more students at Berkeley will take out loans since more poor students attend Berkeley. For example, a student might borrow $4,000.00 in student loan for a given academic year even if that was the total EFC for the year. Berkeley has one of the highest Pell Grant recipient percentage in the country so yeah more of them will borrow. But they borrow less amount than Stanford students on average.

You conveniently left that piece of information out. Still making the cost argument?

Yes. Seventy-seven percent zero debt. That leaves somewhere between one and twenty-three percent of students having debt from an Ivy. Some students have parents who can afford full ride. Btw, Berkely is 36k and not 17k. The maximum pull grant is $5,775 per year. A student at Berkely is limited to the same amount as a student at UNC, UVA, UMD. It's federal money with a cap. Without scholarships and other grants, students rely on loans. Due to very large endowments, Stanford and all the other IVy schools don't have the limits of the UC system. Given the opportunity to attend either Stanford or UC anything, I would send my child to Stanford. That is, if money was not an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP, I have worked at two top 20 schools and I have two friends that work in admissions at 2 Ivies. Black students are not taking Asian spots. They are not taking up top white student spots. Mediocre whites, yes. Asians are competing with white students for admission and as long as white people hold the power Asians will not get into top schools in high numbers. Top schools want the student body to be majority white because these institutions are historicallying white and have white boards and administration that lead the schools and donate money.

I think this nicely sums it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For top national universities such as Berkeley and UCLA, national demographics should be used not regional. Nationally, blacks make up about 12% of the population. Incoming black student population for Berkeley was 2.8% for 2015 and the total black student population for UCLA is 4.0% which are very small compared to 10 to 12 percent for other top schools. This is with unofficial Institutional Affirmative Action at UCs despite the ban in place.

NP-No, you should use state demographics to compare state school enrollment. State schools give state residents preference in admissions; Cal and UCLA are no exception. The prior PP is correct, California's two flagship universities' Black population is aligned with the state's Black population.

Berkeley's 2015 incoming black students: 2.8%
Stanford's 2015 incoming black students: 7.8%

Both schools are located in California and both use holistic admissions program so what makes Stanford's black student number significantly higher (almost 3 times) than Berkeley number even though both are in California and Stanford is supposedly more selective school (the most selective in the country)? Berkeley is even cheaper for black students who are California residents. Shouldn't Berkeley's numbers be higher for blacks?

You guessed it. Affirmative Action program at Stanford where race preference is significant.

UC Berkeley in-state cost is 36k, stanford's is $62k. Like the Ivys on the east coast, Stanford is expects nada, zero, nilch in financial support for families earning less than 125k. Anybody who can get into Stanford can get into UCB. The money is at Stanford. Berkeley doesn't pass out that kind of financial assistance.

Nope. You have to pay about $17,000.00 for approximately $125,000.00 HHI. The financial aid doesn't do you any good if you are not accepted first. Your post still doesn't explain why significantly higher percentage of blacks are admitted to Stanford than Berkeley except for the racial preference difference.

Your numbers aren't admits. They are enrolled numbers. Big difference. And 17k is still significantly less than 36k. Moreover, all things being equal, Stanford all the way.

Most in-state students at Berkeley pay 0 to 30% of the total expected cost. Typically between $7,000 to $16,000 so you can't make the cost argument.

That's not true. They end up paying for it later in the school loans.

Not really:

"Did You Know?

Sixty-one percent of Berkeley undergraduate students who graduated between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014 graduated without loan debt (Federal Direct Subsidized/Unsubsidized Loans, Federal Perkins Loans, private loans). The average cumulative loan debt for graduating seniors was $17,584. "

http://financialaid.berkeley.edu/tags/student-loans

17,584/4= 4.396 per year for 39% of the graduates. Not bad. That also works out to average of about $1,800 per year in student loan for all students! Not bad. Still making the cost argument?

Hm, 77% of Stanford grads graduate with absolutely zero, none, nada debt. Yeah, I'm still making the cost argument. No student loans.

You forgot about the average student debt for Stanford graduate for 2015:

The average per student cumulative undergraduate indebtedness for students earning undergraduate degrees between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2015 and receiving financial aid: $21,238
Percent of graduates with debt: 22% Of course more students at Berkeley will take out loans since more poor students attend Berkeley. For example, a student might borrow $4,000.00 in student loan for a given academic year even if that was the total EFC for the year. Berkeley has one of the highest Pell Grant recipient percentage in the country so yeah more of them will borrow. But they borrow less amount than Stanford students on average.

You conveniently left that piece of information out. Still making the cost argument?

Yes. Seventy-seven percent zero debt. That leaves somewhere between one and twenty-three percent of students having debt from an Ivy. Some students have parents who can afford full ride. Btw, Berkely is 36k and not 17k. The maximum pull grant is $5,775 per year. A student at Berkely is limited to the same amount as a student at UNC, UVA, UMD. It's federal money with a cap. Without scholarships and other grants, students rely on loans. Due to very large endowments, Stanford and all the other IVy schools don't have the limits of the UC system. Given the opportunity to attend either Stanford or UC anything, I would send my child to Stanford. That is, if money was not an issue.

17K is the average student debt for Berkeley students NOT 36K. For Stanford, it's 21+K in student debt on average. 36K is the total cost of attendance. Giving up on the cost argument?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to see the black lady beating up on white posters. What is sad is that Asian Americans who are most affected by this ruling is forgotten and ignored once again.

Forget Becky with bad grades, Asian Americans with excellent grades, scores, awards, ECs, leadership skills, sport etc. are getting denied admission to top schools due to soft quotas in place at the top universities for Asian Americans . Asian Americans have accomplished academic and non-academic accomplishments despite many of them (or their parents) being immigrants who had to overcome language and cultural obstacles in addition to the same racial discrimination. Blacks are not the only group experiencing discrimination. Asians have been forced into slave labor, sent to internment camps, had property confiscated, lynched, subject to Chinese Exclusion Act etc.

Hopefully, the legal actions against Harvard and UNC by Asian Americans can proceed now the SCOTUS case is over.

Don't forget, wherever Holistic admission system" is used without considering "race", blacks make up extremely small number which is very telling.

For example, TJ uses "Holistic Admission System" and places heavy emphasis on short essays (SIS) and longer essay (some would say to give preference to non-Asians) and the admission's office bends backwards to recruit and admit blacks and Hispanics but their numbers are typically around 1% and 3% respectively and not much better for Berkeley and UCLA for blacks (2-3%) while Hispanics do better (20-25%).

Oh please, yes. Even if we reached the point that the makeup of the student body at one of these colleges was 100% Asian, there would still be some on here complaining that they had higher scores and should have gotten in. Holistic is holistic and can't be reduced to just numbers (even when those numbers include ECs with the appropriate number of awards and level of leadership).

And look at what has happened to TJ. As the make-up of the student body has changed, the school has become more of a stress factory, causing many students not to want to apply and some teachers to leave. Colleges each have their cultures and administrators often want to preserve those.

Many students not want to apply = whites scared to compete with Asian Americans or racist;
Teachers leave = teachers are retiring after 20-30 years of service.
Whites can run from competetion but they cannot hide forever.

It's not fear, it's not wanting that kind of pressured environment. I'd call that smart.
The teachers I know who have left have left because they didn't like how the culture was changing. They have not retired, but found jobs at schools with a healthier atmosphere and more balance.
Your third comment is so obviously misguided and/or racist, it doesn't warrant a response. It is worth noting, however, that instances of cheating at TJ are on the increase.

Whites can try to oppress but Asians are smarter than whites. Can't oppress that forever.

If we're going to stereotype (and you started it)- Asians aren't smarter, they work harder. This type of work and memorization results in high grades and test scores, but does bestow EQ or leadership skills, which are essential for success. Despite seeing so many Asians in top schools, you still see very few Asians in leadership positions, either in government or in the corporate world. African American students historically perform poorer than Asian students, yet you see more of them assume leadership roles in corporate America. Population-wise, there are about 3x the number of AAs in America than Asians, yet there are more than 10x the number of AAs in Congress.

I would never consider TJ for my kids, mostly because I believe there are more well-rounded options that can help develop better critical thinking and leadership skills.

If we're going to stereotype (and you started it)- Asians aren't smarter, they work harder.

No it's both and you have to have high intelligence and work hard to accomplish at the level many TJ students are accomplishing. Average golfer will not become a professional golfer just because he "worked hard".

This type of work and memorization results in high grades and test scores, but does bestow EQ or leadership skills, which are essential for success.

You are engaging in stereotyping and worse denigration of the entire race. If you had said something like "Blacks are lazy and prone to violence", some on this forum would have a fit but similar stereotyping against Asian Americans is ok? Crap all over Asians since they have no political power right?

Despite seeing so many Asians in top schools, you still see very few Asians in leadership positions, either in government or in the corporate world.

Mostly due to "bamboo ceiling" and there is no political base to whine and protest discrimination against Asian Americans. We see it all the time including allowing discrimination against Asians in college admissions. Just imagine if colleges discriminated against blacks as they are doing against Asian Americans? That would not be tolerated by the hypocritical political correctness groups for one second!

African American students historically perform poorer than Asian students, yet you see more of them assume leadership roles in corporate America.

Affirmative action in preferring blacks in college admissions and employment coupled with actual discrimination against Asian Americans in college admissions and employment is largely to blame. Let's face it, what major company wouldn't mind meeting black quota by hiring some blacks whether qualified for the job or not; good PR move definitely and a preventive measure to avoid boycotts and protests.

Population-wise, there are about 3x the number of AAs in America than Asians, yet there are more than 10x the number of AAs in Congress.

True. That is because there are only handful of congressional districts that are majority Asian Americans and they are mostly limited to Hawaii and California. Most of the black congressmen are elected from majority black districts. No rocket science and certainly not due to any lack of leadership skill on the part of Asian Americans. You again choose to engage in stereotyping and racial denigration for the entire Asian Americans without really thinking about the issue.

I would never consider TJ for my kids, mostly because I believe there are more well-rounded options that can help develop better critical thinking and leadership skills.

Again, you are being a racist by saying "never". It's up to your child not you to decide. TJ certainly allows for development of critical thinking and leadership skills. Again, you choose to stereotype and engage in denigrating the entire Asian American race without knowing what you are talking about. Belive me, there is plenty of critical thing going on at TJ as well as development of leadership skills. In fact, most of the leadership positions of teams, clubs, student government etc. etc. are held by Asian Americans. Why is that when Asians are so lacking in leadership skill? In fact, whites make up about 30% of the student population but so lacking in leadership positions? And yet, you crticize Asian Americans for lack of political positions when they make up 6% of the population NOT 30%.

I hope you see the hypocrisy and mean spirited racial denigration going-on throughout your post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to see the black lady beating up on white posters. What is sad is that Asian Americans who are most affected by this ruling is forgotten and ignored once again.

Forget Becky with bad grades, Asian Americans with excellent grades, scores, awards, ECs, leadership skills, sport etc. are getting denied admission to top schools due to soft quotas in place at the top universities for Asian Americans . Asian Americans have accomplished academic and non-academic accomplishments despite many of them (or their parents) being immigrants who had to overcome language and cultural obstacles in addition to the same racial discrimination. Blacks are not the only group experiencing discrimination. Asians have been forced into slave labor, sent to internment camps, had property confiscated, lynched, subject to Chinese Exclusion Act etc.

Hopefully, the legal actions against Harvard and UNC by Asian Americans can proceed now the SCOTUS case is over.

Don't forget, wherever Holistic admission system" is used without considering "race", blacks make up extremely small number which is very telling.

For example, TJ uses "Holistic Admission System" and places heavy emphasis on short essays (SIS) and longer essay (some would say to give preference to non-Asians) and the admission's office bends backwards to recruit and admit blacks and Hispanics but their numbers are typically around 1% and 3% respectively and not much better for Berkeley and UCLA for blacks (2-3%) while Hispanics do better (20-25%).

Oh please, yes. Even if we reached the point that the makeup of the student body at one of these colleges was 100% Asian, there would still be some on here complaining that they had higher scores and should have gotten in. Holistic is holistic and can't be reduced to just numbers (even when those numbers include ECs with the appropriate number of awards and level of leadership).

And look at what has happened to TJ. As the make-up of the student body has changed, the school has become more of a stress factory, causing many students not to want to apply and some teachers to leave. Colleges each have their cultures and administrators often want to preserve those.

Many students not want to apply = whites scared to compete with Asian Americans or racist;
Teachers leave = teachers are retiring after 20-30 years of service.
Whites can run from competetion but they cannot hide forever.

It's not fear, it's not wanting that kind of pressured environment. I'd call that smart.
The teachers I know who have left have left because they didn't like how the culture was changing. They have not retired, but found jobs at schools with a healthier atmosphere and more balance.
Your third comment is so obviously misguided and/or racist, it doesn't warrant a response. It is worth noting, however, that instances of cheating at TJ are on the increase.

Whites can try to oppress but Asians are smarter than whites. Can't oppress that forever.

If we're going to stereotype (and you started it)- Asians aren't smarter, they work harder. This type of work and memorization results in high grades and test scores, but does bestow EQ or leadership skills, which are essential for success. Despite seeing so many Asians in top schools, you still see very few Asians in leadership positions, either in government or in the corporate world. African American students historically perform poorer than Asian students, yet you see more of them assume leadership roles in corporate America. Population-wise, there are about 3x the number of AAs in America than Asians, yet there are more than 10x the number of AAs in Congress.

I would never consider TJ for my kids, mostly because I believe there are more well-rounded options that can help develop better critical thinking and leadership skills.

If we're going to stereotype (and you started it)- Asians aren't smarter, they work harder.

No it's both and you have to have high intelligence and work hard to accomplish at the level many TJ students are accomplishing. Average golfer will not become a professional golfer just because he "worked hard".

This type of work and memorization results in high grades and test scores, but does bestow EQ or leadership skills, which are essential for success.

You are engaging in stereotyping and worse denigration of the entire race. If you had said something like "Blacks are lazy and prone to violence", some on this forum would have a fit but similar stereotyping against Asian Americans is ok? Crap all over Asians since they have no political power right?

Despite seeing so many Asians in top schools, you still see very few Asians in leadership positions, either in government or in the corporate world.

Mostly due to "bamboo ceiling" and there is no political base to whine and protest discrimination against Asian Americans. We see it all the time including allowing discrimination against Asians in college admissions. Just imagine if colleges discriminated against blacks as they are doing against Asian Americans? That would not be tolerated by the hypocritical political correctness groups for one second!

African American students historically perform poorer than Asian students, yet you see more of them assume leadership roles in corporate America.

Affirmative action in preferring blacks in college admissions and employment coupled with actual discrimination against Asian Americans in college admissions and employment is largely to blame. Let's face it, what major company wouldn't mind meeting black quota by hiring some blacks whether qualified for the job or not; good PR move definitely and a preventive measure to avoid boycotts and protests.

Population-wise, there are about 3x the number of AAs in America than Asians, yet there are more than 10x the number of AAs in Congress.

True. That is because there are only handful of congressional districts that are majority Asian Americans and they are mostly limited to Hawaii and California. Most of the black congressmen are elected from majority black districts. No rocket science and certainly not due to any lack of leadership skill on the part of Asian Americans. You again choose to engage in stereotyping and racial denigration for the entire Asian Americans without really thinking about the issue.

I would never consider TJ for my kids, mostly because I believe there are more well-rounded options that can help develop better critical thinking and leadership skills.

Again, you are being a racist by saying "never". It's up to your child not you to decide. TJ certainly allows for development of critical thinking and leadership skills. Again, you choose to stereotype and engage in denigrating the entire Asian American race without knowing what you are talking about. Belive me, there is plenty of critical thing going on at TJ as well as development of leadership skills. In fact, most of the leadership positions of teams, clubs, student government etc. etc. are held by Asian Americans. Why is that when Asians are so lacking in leadership skill? In fact, whites make up about 30% of the student population but so lacking in leadership positions? And yet, you crticize Asian Americans for lack of political positions when they make up 6% of the population NOT 30%.

I hope you see the hypocrisy and mean spirited racial denigration going-on throughout your post.

About time Asian Americans started standing up for their rights!

[Anonymous]

Anyone who thinks URMs don't get huge bumps at ivies is kidding themselves. Further more, admissions spots are fungible so to the poster that says that Asians compete against other Asians and whites only for spots means there is a de facto URM target enrollment quota that schools aim for every year.

The reason why I know URMs get a huge bump is because I posted before how my company asks for standardized test scores and transcripts from UG and MBA a

[Anonymous]

Applicants when we do hiring, and I see a large gap in quality of applicants between URMs and non URMs who apply.

Certainly there are URMs who are equally as strong as non URMs but those students are rare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks URMs don't get huge bumps at ivies is kidding themselves. Further more, admissions spots are fungible so to the poster that says that Asians compete against other Asians and whites only for spots means there is a de facto URM target enrollment quota that schools aim for every year.

The reason why I know URMs get a huge bump is because I posted before how my company asks for standardized test scores and transcripts from UG and MBA a

I'm the poster you referred to. Of course there is a target URM enrollment. There is also a target legacy, sports, merit, etc. If there was no affirmative action, the number of URM's would decrease to about 3% black and 4% Hispanic at most top 20 schools. However, this doesn't mean the number of Asian students would significantly increase to make up the difference. I guarantee that the number of white students would be proportionally higher. I have set on committees where it was clearly stated that no group should be over represented. Everyone in the room knows what that means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks URMs don't get huge bumps at ivies is kidding themselves. Further more, admissions spots are fungible so to the poster that says that Asians compete against other Asians and whites only for spots means there is a de facto URM target enrollment quota that schools aim for every year.

The reason why I know URMs get a huge bump is because I posted before how my company asks for standardized test scores and transcripts from UG and MBA a

I'm the poster you referred to. Of course there is a target URM enrollment. There is also a target legacy, sports, merit, etc. If there was no affirmative action, the number of URM's would decrease to about 3% black and 4% Hispanic at most top 20 schools. However, this doesn't mean the number of Asian students would significantly increase to make up the difference. I guarantee that the number of white students would be proportionally higher. I have set on committees where it was clearly stated that no group should be over represented. Everyone in the room knows what that means.

+100000. I know that investment banks ask about scores and grades. However, most companies don't. I actually went into investment banking after law school and no one asked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ post their profile/stats and i can tell you why. that's no rocket science.

I just gave you their profile: The 42 white students ALL had lower scores than Abby Fisher. You have no problem opining about why non-white students are admitted with lower scores (without knowing anything else about their "profile" ). So please tell me why these white students were admitted with lower scores than Abby. Why shouldn't she sue over that? I mean, they did take "her" seat after all.

I don't consider your blanket statement their profile. Maybe they were in top 10% of their class even with lower scores. Give me applicant by applicant profile of gender, GPA, test scores, any hooks, % of class, ECs. Now, go get it. You can do it.

The top 10% were already admitted (that's based on grades, not SAT/ACT scores). Abby and the 42 white students with lower scores who were admitted did NOT graduate in the 10% of their class. They were considered in a different pool.

Just as I suspected...you have nothing but excuses for this pathetic lawsuit. You cannot defend the indefensible. You and Abby are both mediocre.

NP. Without more information on those 42, who knows why they were admitted. For example, my DS attends a top SLAC and his roommate went to a magnet high school in TX ranked in the top 30 in the country. He did not graduate in the top 10% due to the caliber of student that attends the high school but nevertheless has almost a full merit scholarship to the SLAC based on his high school record.

OMG, so of you just do not read or you just do not understand the issue. Fisher was not in the 10% pool and her scores were middle of the road. She was NOT an exceptional student within her own pool. There were 42 White people with LOWER scores. Sure, they made have had some kickass EC's - just like the minority students may have. There were minority students with HIGHER scores who did NOT get in. If your DS's roommate is as smart as you say, I doubt his scores were as mediocre as hers. This case is not about a private SLAC - which has a lot more flexibility in admitting people and giving merit aid. This is about a flagship state university that admits very few in-state freshmen outside the 10%. Even looked at under the BEST light, UT was a pipe dream for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to see the black lady beating up on white posters. What is sad is that Asian Americans who are most affected by this ruling is forgotten and ignored once again.

Forget Becky with bad grades, Asian Americans with excellent grades, scores, awards, ECs, leadership skills, sport etc. are getting denied admission to top schools due to soft quotas in place at the top universities for Asian Americans . Asian Americans have accomplished academic and non-academic accomplishments despite many of them (or their parents) being immigrants who had to overcome language and cultural obstacles in addition to the same racial discrimination. Blacks are not the only group experiencing discrimination. Asians have been forced into slave labor, sent to internment camps, had property confiscated, lynched, subject to Chinese Exclusion Act etc.

Hopefully, the legal actions against Harvard and UNC by Asian Americans can proceed now the SCOTUS case is over.

Don't forget, wherever Holistic admission system" is used without considering "race", blacks make up extremely small number which is very telling.

For example, TJ uses "Holistic Admission System" and places heavy emphasis on short essays (SIS) and longer essay (some would say to give preference to non-Asians) and the admission's office bends backwards to recruit and admit blacks and Hispanics but their numbers are typically around 1% and 3% respectively and not much better for Berkeley and UCLA for blacks (2-3%) while Hispanics do better (20-25%).

Oh please, yes. Even if we reached the point that the makeup of the student body at one of these colleges was 100% Asian, there would still be some on here complaining that they had higher scores and should have gotten in. Holistic is holistic and can't be reduced to just numbers (even when those numbers include ECs with the appropriate number of awards and level of leadership).

And look at what has happened to TJ. As the make-up of the student body has changed, the school has become more of a stress factory, causing many students not to want to apply and some teachers to leave. Colleges each have their cultures and administrators often want to preserve those.

What's funny to me is that it is NOT the Black and Latino students who complain about Asians "taking up all the spots." It is the White students (and their parents) who complain. What is even funnier is that when it comes to Blacks and Latinos, Whites think GPA and scores should lead the way. When it comes to Asians, Whites want a more "holistic" process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to see the black lady beating up on white posters. What is sad is that Asian Americans who are most affected by this ruling is forgotten and ignored once again.

Forget Becky with bad grades, Asian Americans with excellent grades, scores, awards, ECs, leadership skills, sport etc. are getting denied admission to top schools due to soft quotas in place at the top universities for Asian Americans . Asian Americans have accomplished academic and non-academic accomplishments despite many of them (or their parents) being immigrants who had to overcome language and cultural obstacles in addition to the same racial discrimination. Blacks are not the only group experiencing discrimination. Asians have been forced into slave labor, sent to internment camps, had property confiscated, lynched, subject to Chinese Exclusion Act etc.

Hopefully, the legal actions against Harvard and UNC by Asian Americans can proceed now the SCOTUS case is over.

Don't forget, wherever Holistic admission system" is used without considering "race", blacks make up extremely small number which is very telling.

For example, TJ uses "Holistic Admission System" and places heavy emphasis on short essays (SIS) and longer essay (some would say to give preference to non-Asians) and the admission's office bends backwards to recruit and admit blacks and Hispanics but their numbers are typically around 1% and 3% respectively and not much better for Berkeley and UCLA for blacks (2-3%) while Hispanics do better (20-25%).

Oh please, yes. Even if we reached the point that the makeup of the student body at one of these colleges was 100% Asian, there would still be some on here complaining that they had higher scores and should have gotten in. Holistic is holistic and can't be reduced to just numbers (even when those numbers include ECs with the appropriate number of awards and level of leadership).

And look at what has happened to TJ. As the make-up of the student body has changed, the school has become more of a stress factory, causing many students not to want to apply and some teachers to leave. Colleges each have their cultures and administrators often want to preserve those.

Many students not want to apply = whites scared to compete with Asian Americans or racist;
Teachers leave = teachers are retiring after 20-30 years of service.
Whites can run from competetion but they cannot hide forever.

It's not fear, it's not wanting that kind of pressured environment. I'd call that smart.
The teachers I know who have left have left because they didn't like how the culture was changing. They have not retired, but found jobs at schools with a healthier atmosphere and more balance.
Your third comment is so obviously misguided and/or racist, it doesn't warrant a response. It is worth noting, however, that instances of cheating at TJ are on the increase.

Whites can try to oppress but Asians are smarter than whites. Can't oppress that forever.

If we're going to stereotype (and you started it)- Asians aren't smarter, they work harder. This type of work and memorization results in high grades and test scores, but does bestow EQ or leadership skills, which are essential for success. Despite seeing so many Asians in top schools, you still see very few Asians in leadership positions, either in government or in the corporate world. African American students historically perform poorer than Asian students, yet you see more of them assume leadership roles in corporate America. Population-wise, there are about 3x the number of AAs in America than Asians, yet there are more than 10x the number of AAs in Congress.

I would never consider TJ for my kids, mostly because I believe there are more well-rounded options that can help develop better critical thinking and leadership skills.

If we're going to stereotype (and you started it)- Asians aren't smarter, they work harder.

No it's both and you have to have high intelligence and work hard to accomplish at the level many TJ students are accomplishing. Average golfer will not become a professional golfer just because he "worked hard".

This type of work and memorization results in high grades and test scores, but does bestow EQ or leadership skills, which are essential for success.

You are engaging in stereotyping and worse denigration of the entire race. If you had said something like "Blacks are lazy and prone to violence", some on this forum would have a fit but similar stereotyping against Asian Americans is ok? Crap all over Asians since they have no political power right?

Despite seeing so many Asians in top schools, you still see very few Asians in leadership positions, either in government or in the corporate world.

Mostly due to "bamboo ceiling" and there is no political base to whine and protest discrimination against Asian Americans. We see it all the time including allowing discrimination against Asians in college admissions. Just imagine if colleges discriminated against blacks as they are doing against Asian Americans? That would not be tolerated by the hypocritical political correctness groups for one second!

African American students historically perform poorer than Asian students, yet you see more of them assume leadership roles in corporate America.

Affirmative action in preferring blacks in college admissions and employment coupled with actual discrimination against Asian Americans in college admissions and employment is largely to blame. Let's face it, what major company wouldn't mind meeting black quota by hiring some blacks whether qualified for the job or not; good PR move definitely and a preventive measure to avoid boycotts and protests.

Population-wise, there are about 3x the number of AAs in America than Asians, yet there are more than 10x the number of AAs in Congress.

True. That is because there are only handful of congressional districts that are majority Asian Americans and they are mostly limited to Hawaii and California. Most of the black congressmen are elected from majority black districts. No rocket science and certainly not due to any lack of leadership skill on the part of Asian Americans. You again choose to engage in stereotyping and racial denigration for the entire Asian Americans without really thinking about the issue.

I would never consider TJ for my kids, mostly because I believe there are more well-rounded options that can help develop better critical thinking and leadership skills.

Again, you are being a racist by saying "never". It's up to your child not you to decide. TJ certainly allows for development of critical thinking and leadership skills. Again, you choose to stereotype and engage in denigrating the entire Asian American race without knowing what you are talking about. Belive me, there is plenty of critical thing going on at TJ as well as development of leadership skills. In fact, most of the leadership positions of teams, clubs, student government etc. etc. are held by Asian Americans. Why is that when Asians are so lacking in leadership skill? In fact, whites make up about 30% of the student population but so lacking in leadership positions? And yet, you crticize Asian Americans for lack of political positions when they make up 6% of the population NOT 30%.

I hope you see the hypocrisy and mean spirited racial denigration going-on throughout your post.

Well said. Asian culture values humbleness and many Asian Americans when facing hardship chose to endure and work harder. However, such culture is not appreciated in the US. Here, the crying baby gets the milk. And no other race will fight for Asian Americans if they chose to suck the shit put upon them up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks URMs don't get huge bumps at ivies is kidding themselves. Further more, admissions spots are fungible so to the poster that says that Asians compete against other Asians and whites only for spots means there is a de facto URM target enrollment quota that schools aim for every year.

The reason why I know URMs get a huge bump is because I posted before how my company asks for standardized test scores and transcripts from UG and MBA a

I'm the poster you referred to. Of course there is a target URM enrollment. There is also a target legacy, sports, merit, etc. If there was no affirmative action, the number of URM's would decrease to about 3% black and 4% Hispanic at most top 20 schools. However, this doesn't mean the number of Asian students would significantly increase to make up the difference. I guarantee that the number of white students would be proportionally higher. I have set on committees where it was clearly stated that no group should be over represented. Everyone in the room knows what that means.

You would then know that the group that is the most overrepresented is Jews.

I bet that's not what adcoms mean though since Jews obtained the necessary political clout to get policy changed.