Set a filter with X GPA and Y SAT scores. Throw all people who make it into the pool and use a random computer algorithm to pick people.
Totally the fairest way to choose. All of the extraneous stuff is nonsense. Schools should decide where they want to set the bar for quality, then have a completely race agnostic system for selection. Drawing straws is fair after the cutoff is met.
Then you just deal with an overcrowded CS/ENG dept and nobody in the English dept? So much more does (and should ) go into selecting a freshman class
It really doesn't take a slide ruler or advanced calculus to figure this out.
Fill out application with random assigned number that kids your name and identity. Select top 3 choices for major. Input GPA/SAT. Done.
No fluff. No legacies. No identities. Randomly pick people who meet a cutoff for GPA/SAT. You can include parameters for random selection based on major choice and limits for capacity.
Students get accept or reject letter stating which majors they're admitted to. This is a minor problem.
That is ridiculous.
They really need to just apply to European schools (or many asian countries as well) who you take a test, score high enough you get in
Maybe, that’s why foreign schools are now ranked higher than US universities in technical fields like engineering. They’re admitting the best and brightest abroad and not based on flimsy ID baskets.
True. Look at US News best global engineering school rankings. Even scarier is the fact that many of China’s engineering schools in the world’s T25 or T50 don’t even belong to their Ministry of Education—they belong to their Ministry of Defense. Including world’s #5, Harbin, which is ranked just below world’s #4, MIT. It’s a military technical university.
Americans are oblivious to how fast they're falling behind in technical fields.
I wouldn’t say that we are falling behind fast, but China’s rise is a huge concern. I read a few things about their history of nuclear and missile programs. Not long ago (a few decades ago) the majority of that nation was poor uneducated peasants. But they did have a few brilliant students who studied in the US and (to a lesser extent) Europe. The founder of their missile and space program was an MIT Ph.D. and CalTech professor. The father of their atomic bomb was a Purdue Boilermaker, helped by some Michigan Wolverines. (Wonder if there was a Big Ten rivalry in their nuclear and missile research facilities.) A CalTech Ph.D. and cofounder of Cornell’s aeronautical engineering (along with William Sears) (now part of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Dept) also contributed greatly to their weapons programs. Allegedly he died in a plane crash in China—carrying hydrogen bomb design documents. Just want to say that we are in a life-or-death struggle for technological supremacy. The competition for technological supremacy is fiercer than ever in human history. Does AA/DEI help or hurt us in maintaining technological supremacy? Different people may have different opinions, but that’s a question we must answer.
Do we think certain groups of people will help us maintain technological superiority?
That is exactly what they are saying - they can't make it in their country, so they are entitled to make it in this country, and they are entitled to take anyone else's place, because they know how to teach to the test, and Americans allegedly do not, so Americans must be inferior in Maths.
My, this is a very "Dictatorship" or "Communistic" thing to say. You do realize America is a Democracy?
Yes, America is a democracy. Do you realize that even deep blue California voters voted down AA, twice? If AA is put up for a democratic vote, it does not stand a chance in this country. Those elite college admins are NOT elected by the people.
However, if those "elite college admins" feel it is important to increase the number of blacks, latinos and other minorities on their campus, they will find a way to do that. Just like if they believe their is value in increasing the number of low income students on campus they will make it happen.
We do not get to vote on how private universities are run (or public really) and that is a good thing, given that only 50% of 25-60yo have even graduated college.
IF private universities don’t take a penny of taxpayers money then they can racially discriminate however they want. But they do take taxpayers money.
My tax dollars go to plenty of things that I do not get a direct say in. Yet I still pay my taxes.
The research that private universities do with the grants they get end up "costing the country far less than if we had to hire people to do the research". So the argument of "take away their money" does not really go very far. Undergrads and graduate students are extremely cheap labor for the extensive research that happens. Govt could not afford to pay for the research if it was all done in public firms/non-universities.
The amount of energy people put into complaining their kid wont or didn't get into a highly selective university is astounding. Get over it, move on and support your kid at wherever they end up. Fact will remain, just because you got great test scores and a 4.0 gpa and 10 APs that does NOT entitle you to an elite education. There are more qualified candidates than spots, someone will get left out. And the definition of "qualified" is different at each school, as they balance majors, M/F, demographics, etc.
You are not entitled to an elite education because of the color of your skin.
What are you talking about? There are more people of any skin tone than there are slots available. DP
Somebody mentioned gender “equity” in STEM fields. I know I’m going to get a lot of flak for saying this, but some people told me that gender discrimination against boys in STEM admissions is even more egregious than racial discrimination. Sure, some women can be good at science, but many are not. Last year a conservative Black man ran for Congress in Michigan and he was slammed for saying that women’s brains have a different structure from men’s. He’s a Stanford CS graduate and has a Harvard MPA. AA or not, a Stanford AND Harvard graduate is smarter than 99%+ of the general population. But doesn’t he have a point? Lincoln Republicans thought that emancipated Black men, given proper education and understanding of our political system, would be able to participate in a representative democracy. But even the most radical Republicans rejected universal suffrage at the time. Because they knew what a slippery slope would be if they allowed women to vote.
Anonymous wrote:Somebody mentioned gender “equity” in STEM fields. I know I’m going to get a lot of flak for saying this, but some people told me that gender discrimination against boys in STEM admissions is even more egregious than racial discrimination. Sure, some women can be good at science, but many are not. Last year a conservative Black man ran for Congress in Michigan and he was slammed for saying that women’s brains have a different structure from men’s. He’s a Stanford CS graduate and has a Harvard MPA. AA or not, a Stanford AND Harvard graduate is smarter than 99%+ of the general population. But doesn’t he have a point? Lincoln Republicans thought that emancipated Black men, given proper education and understanding of our political system, would be able to participate in a representative democracy. But even the most radical Republicans rejected universal suffrage at the time. Because they knew what a slippery slope would be if they allowed women to vote.
Set a filter with X GPA and Y SAT scores. Throw all people who make it into the pool and use a random computer algorithm to pick people.
Totally the fairest way to choose. All of the extraneous stuff is nonsense. Schools should decide where they want to set the bar for quality, then have a completely race agnostic system for selection. Drawing straws is fair after the cutoff is met.
Then you just deal with an overcrowded CS/ENG dept and nobody in the English dept? So much more does (and should ) go into selecting a freshman class
It really doesn't take a slide ruler or advanced calculus to figure this out.
Fill out application with random assigned number that kids your name and identity. Select top 3 choices for major. Input GPA/SAT. Done.
No fluff. No legacies. No identities. Randomly pick people who meet a cutoff for GPA/SAT. You can include parameters for random selection based on major choice and limits for capacity.
Students get accept or reject letter stating which majors they're admitted to. This is a minor problem.
That is ridiculous.
They really need to just apply to European schools (or many asian countries as well) who you take a test, score high enough you get in
Maybe, that’s why foreign schools are now ranked higher than US universities in technical fields like engineering. They’re admitting the best and brightest abroad and not based on flimsy ID baskets.
True. Look at US News best global engineering school rankings. Even scarier is the fact that many of China’s engineering schools in the world’s T25 or T50 don’t even belong to their Ministry of Education—they belong to their Ministry of Defense. Including world’s #5, Harbin, which is ranked just below world’s #4, MIT. It’s a military technical university.
Americans are oblivious to how fast they're falling behind in technical fields.
I wouldn’t say that we are falling behind fast, but China’s rise is a huge concern. I read a few things about their history of nuclear and missile programs. Not long ago (a few decades ago) the majority of that nation was poor uneducated peasants. But they did have a few brilliant students who studied in the US and (to a lesser extent) Europe. The founder of their missile and space program was an MIT Ph.D. and CalTech professor. The father of their atomic bomb was a Purdue Boilermaker, helped by some Michigan Wolverines. (Wonder if there was a Big Ten rivalry in their nuclear and missile research facilities.) A CalTech Ph.D. and cofounder of Cornell’s aeronautical engineering (along with William Sears) (now part of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Dept) also contributed greatly to their weapons programs. Allegedly he died in a plane crash in China—carrying hydrogen bomb design documents. Just want to say that we are in a life-or-death struggle for technological supremacy. The competition for technological supremacy is fiercer than ever in human history. Does AA/DEI help or hurt us in maintaining technological supremacy? Different people may have different opinions, but that’s a question we must answer.
Do we think certain groups of people will help us maintain technological superiority?
That is exactly what they are saying - they can't make it in their country, so they are entitled to make it in this country, and they are entitled to take anyone else's place, because they know how to teach to the test, and Americans allegedly do not, so Americans must be inferior in Maths.
My, this is a very "Dictatorship" or "Communistic" thing to say. You do realize America is a Democracy?
Yes, America is a democracy. Do you realize that even deep blue California voters voted down AA, twice? If AA is put up for a democratic vote, it does not stand a chance in this country. Those elite college admins are NOT elected by the people.
However, if those "elite college admins" feel it is important to increase the number of blacks, latinos and other minorities on their campus, they will find a way to do that. Just like if they believe their is value in increasing the number of low income students on campus they will make it happen.
We do not get to vote on how private universities are run (or public really) and that is a good thing, given that only 50% of 25-60yo have even graduated college.
IF private universities don’t take a penny of taxpayers money then they can racially discriminate however they want. But they do take taxpayers money.
My tax dollars go to plenty of things that I do not get a direct say in. Yet I still pay my taxes.
The research that private universities do with the grants they get end up "costing the country far less than if we had to hire people to do the research". So the argument of "take away their money" does not really go very far. Undergrads and graduate students are extremely cheap labor for the extensive research that happens. Govt could not afford to pay for the research if it was all done in public firms/non-universities.
The amount of energy people put into complaining their kid wont or didn't get into a highly selective university is astounding. Get over it, move on and support your kid at wherever they end up. Fact will remain, just because you got great test scores and a 4.0 gpa and 10 APs that does NOT entitle you to an elite education. There are more qualified candidates than spots, someone will get left out. And the definition of "qualified" is different at each school, as they balance majors, M/F, demographics, etc.
It sounds all good.
They just need to make sure that they don't racially discriminate anyone.
I wish the SCOTUS would address gender discrimination against boys too but it won’t. That issue was not litigated. It’s a shame that some STEM schools want to achieve 50/50 “balance.” Oh wait, they forgot LGBTQ. They need to assign quotas to each of (how many?) genders.
Anonymous wrote:I wish the SCOTUS would address gender discrimination against boys too but it won’t. That issue was not litigated. It’s a shame that some STEM schools want to achieve 50/50 “balance.” Oh wait, they forgot LGBTQ. They need to assign quotas to each of (how many?) genders.
Anonymous wrote:Huge cultural chasm here. America does not have the same testing traditions you find in just about every other country in the world. Americans believe in never quitting more than they believe in winning. That's why footbalk teams that lose hard fought games get celebrated almost as though they won.
The difference is every other country in the world has clear rule and transparency.
Another difference is that America rewards persistence. Many other countries give you just one chance to measure up in life. Not so in the USA.
Test measures persistence. It's for 12 years of persistent education
Also they do reward persistence with sort of GPA together with Test
I don't care if you do GPA only Test only GPA + Test, GPA + Test + whatever.
The important thing is clear rule and transparency.
the only thing you are asking for is how much was spent on making sure those scores were achieved. that's it. and not an amount, a percentage of income. if a 400k family spends 40k and an 80k family spends 8k its the same type of leg up, it is.
I am so tired of test prep being a replacement for intelligence and capability.
Same for GPA, ECs, Essay, etc.
I think test score is at least most objective and fair, so that disadvantaged intelligent and capable students get chance to compete.
Standardized testing has racist origins in the U S (and was used to justify segregation in the military and schools)., is culturally biased ( "pre test" questions that were answered correctly by most blacks were thrown out), and today is more a reflection of household income , test prep, and superscoriing.
Not even close to objective.
Most of the 1,900 colleges that are now test optional will remain after the AA ruling.
Good.
+1
Those arguing against this are just upset their kid has "lost their advantage" of privilege. Also, they apparently do not understand the numbers---there are simply many more kids with 1400/1450+ SAT and "qualified for elite schools" than there are spots. So most will be rejected. Nobody is entitled to a spot at an elite school, nobody. Once you recognize that and plan with great "target schools" you will be happier. Focus on the goal---getting your degree and starting a career, which can be done at a school ranked #30
+1
There are good schools even from #31 through #200 or so.
People are obsessed with T25s.
Expectations for college admissions need to get reset.
OK, then tell that to the URM who apply to T25. Tell them they should aim lower T100 to T200. It fits them better.
First, plenty of URM never even think of applying to T25 because it's so outside of their world when their parents do not have college degrees and are struggling just to keep the lights on and food on the table. So the group of "qualified URMs" is already much much smaller than everyone else at a T25. And many of them do end attending "lower ranked schools"---they attend the local state U that has a 60%+ acceptance rate and will be affordable and an easy drive from home.
However, it is Harvard/Stanford/any T25 choice as to how they build their freshman class. They see value in a URM or lower income student with only a 1500 and it's their right to admit them. I tend to agree that kid getting a 1500 means more than your 1%er getting a 1580. That kid will work harder and contribute more to the university over 4 years, and if Harvard thinks that, they will offer them admissions. Fact is outside of athletes, nobody with just a 1200 is getting admission to Harvard. So stop arguing that your kid with a 1580 is "better than a kid with a 1450+"---the difference is only in your head. Harvard has concluded that "1450ish is the cutoff" or whatever level and from there they look at other factors. And yes, I'd like my kids to attend colleges that are diverse. If you want an all asian college, you can apply in India or china and achieve just that. I want diversity on all levels.
+1
-1 no one stated that they wanted all Asian Americans in the college. And you are racist, implying that Asian Americans should "go back to their country".
Not racist---married to an Asian American, so I intimately understand both systems, having had a spouse go thru both sides. They much prefer the US system and are grateful our kids are not going thru the other system. Just sick of the few posters who keep wishing our system was "like china and India"---those systems exist and if that is what you want, then yes you are free to send your kids there. The fact you want to send them to a US school indicates that yes, our system overall is a better system. There are many faults with the China/India/Much of Europe way of tracking kids at an early age. I hope we never do that in this country---I don't think it's beneficial.
But complaining it's not fair your 1580 kid got rejected from highly rejective schools is ridiculous. Fact is most kids get rejected. But yes there are plenty of excellent schools out there, so focus on ones your kid can get into, and apply to the Reaches and reach for the stars, if it happens great, but if not, your kid is not forced to attend school #4001---many other excellent choices, some even better than the T25s you are so hell-bent on attending.
Ah, got it. So because the US system is better we need to celebrate racism. Thanks for your excellent opinion that is certainly valid since you are "married to an Asian American"
Nope--you would be the racist if you think it's always about race why someone does not get in. For every "asian with a 1580" who is rejected there are also white students, URM who are also rejected with similar scores---Why? Because those schools reject 95% of their applicants. It's lottery, and your SAT score buys you a ticket, after that the score does not matter---the rest of your application does. You have no clue what the teacher recs, ECs, volunteering, difficult life events a kid experienced goes into the holistic evaluation--and why the school accepts who they do. But fact is many many bright highly qualified kids gets rejected, along with yours. The sheer fact you think suing is a good thing in this situation tells me about your privilege and entitlement issues.
But yes, most schools do not aim to be 100% asian even in the engineering schools. Do you have issues with engineering programs who strive for a M/F balance, thus admitting more females each year to get there? I for one think the world is a better place that we now have more women in engineering/CS/STEM areas if that is what they want to major in. Since 50 years ago, women largely did not go to college, did you/do you find issues with universities working to ensure they have a good M/F balance. Similarly, I think it's great if we help ensure lower incomes students who have not had the same privileges as my kid, to get a great college experience. I can recognize my privilege and realize that a kid with a 3.7 and 1450 from an underprivileged life/environemnt might be more appealing than my 1% kiddo. I can feel happy that kid is getting the experience---I didn't think of suing when my kid didn't get into their T25 schools---I realized it was a lottery and had a long list of targets and safeties that they got into they loved as well
No feeling that you may have justifies systemic racism against Asian applicants but thank you for sharing
Harvard is ~30% asian for the most recent class. Berkeley is ~40% asian students.
USA is less than 10% persons of asian decent. How is it systemic racism? Each school admits a higher population of Asians than exist in the US population.
Are you now going to argue that asians are "just smarter" than everyone else and thus deserve to attend Harvard at a higher rate?
There are so many reasons he did not get accepted and race is likely not it. Berkeley is test blind and does not do AA for over a decade. Fact is while he is a great candidate, Harvard acceptance rate is single digits. 9+ kids are rejected for every 1 that is accepted. 8 out of every 9 kids rejected is likely considered" highly qualified" for Harvard (and any other T25). Yet the school has to reject all 9, so the first is easy, they are "not qualified", the other 8 could easily get the coveted spot, so the difference comes down to ECs, volunteering, personal essays, teacher recommendations, etc. 9 kids out of 10 will be disappointed. You did not read the essays or Teacher recs or see the volunteering or ECs, etc. You have no way to know why the choice was made. And a lot of it may be preferences---the AO liked the kid's essay, or the kid had an intriguing volunteer situation where they seemed to be genuinely engaged vs most who are just doing what they think will get them into a top school. You really have no clue what it is---99.9999% chance that race is NOT the reason. And if it seems that way, it's much more likely that Harvard saw an outstanding person who is first gen, low income and they want to give them the opportunity of attending Harvard---race is likely just a byproduct for you to scream "racism" ---it's very likely the person was admitted for being lower income or grabbed the AO attention due to being low income and how the persevered thru their life struggles and are somehow still a great candidate. So yes, I guess you are "discriminated against" for growing up with privilege, but that is a really convoluted way of looking at things.
DP.. why does it matter what the Asian American population is compared to the % of total population? Since when does any institution have to reflect the overall population? The reason why Asian American population is higher in colleges is because they apply to college at a higher rate; they value education. Other groups don't, I guess.
I don't know if Asian Americans are "smarter", but they sure have higher stats.
And if you look at the stats in the Harvard case, a black student from a UMC with lower stats has a better chance of getting in compared to an Asian American student from a MC family with higher stats.
Do you think a middle class Asian American student really has more academic and opportunity than an UMC black student with two lawyer parents?
this. there was an op-ed in the nytimes recently making the case the affirmitive action needs to change from being race-based to being class-based. I think that makes a lot of sense (I'm south asian american).
What you do not understand is that too many Asian applicants are the problem, not too many African American/Hispanic.
Why do you not understand that too many Blacks in the NBA are the problem?
Is the NHL a problem. How about the sailing, rowing or lacrosse teams. Are there problems in those sports because they are dominated by white people. Is badminton, table tennis or judo a problem because those sports are dominated by Asians?
The MLB, NHL, etc...DO get a lot of flak for 'not having enough diversity'.
You might want to try again.
MLB is full diverse. Half the teams are are Central American origin. Never heard of any flak about the NHL. I guess you didn’t think the other sports were worth mentioning because you totally ignored them.
Anonymous wrote:How about this: Let those Ivys take as many Black students as they want and reject as many Asians and Whites as they want. Just don’t take any government money. Do what Christian Evangelical universities do.
I don’t understand what you are trying to say. Evangelicals universities like Liberty U and Oral Roberts receive federal funding through Pell grants and subsidized federal student loans. Their students must complete the FAFSA to qualify for federal funding that goes directly to the universities. High Point University receives millions under the CARES Act during Covid relief. The school also follows FAFSA.
Set a filter with X GPA and Y SAT scores. Throw all people who make it into the pool and use a random computer algorithm to pick people.
Totally the fairest way to choose. All of the extraneous stuff is nonsense. Schools should decide where they want to set the bar for quality, then have a completely race agnostic system for selection. Drawing straws is fair after the cutoff is met.
Then you just deal with an overcrowded CS/ENG dept and nobody in the English dept? So much more does (and should ) go into selecting a freshman class
It really doesn't take a slide ruler or advanced calculus to figure this out.
Fill out application with random assigned number that kids your name and identity. Select top 3 choices for major. Input GPA/SAT. Done.
No fluff. No legacies. No identities. Randomly pick people who meet a cutoff for GPA/SAT. You can include parameters for random selection based on major choice and limits for capacity.
Students get accept or reject letter stating which majors they're admitted to. This is a minor problem.
That is ridiculous.
They really need to just apply to European schools (or many asian countries as well) who you take a test, score high enough you get in
Maybe, that’s why foreign schools are now ranked higher than US universities in technical fields like engineering. They’re admitting the best and brightest abroad and not based on flimsy ID baskets.
True. Look at US News best global engineering school rankings. Even scarier is the fact that many of China’s engineering schools in the world’s T25 or T50 don’t even belong to their Ministry of Education—they belong to their Ministry of Defense. Including world’s #5, Harbin, which is ranked just below world’s #4, MIT. It’s a military technical university.
Americans are oblivious to how fast they're falling behind in technical fields.
I wouldn’t say that we are falling behind fast, but China’s rise is a huge concern. I read a few things about their history of nuclear and missile programs. Not long ago (a few decades ago) the majority of that nation was poor uneducated peasants. But they did have a few brilliant students who studied in the US and (to a lesser extent) Europe. The founder of their missile and space program was an MIT Ph.D. and CalTech professor. The father of their atomic bomb was a Purdue Boilermaker, helped by some Michigan Wolverines. (Wonder if there was a Big Ten rivalry in their nuclear and missile research facilities.) A CalTech Ph.D. and cofounder of Cornell’s aeronautical engineering (along with William Sears) (now part of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Dept) also contributed greatly to their weapons programs. Allegedly he died in a plane crash in China—carrying hydrogen bomb design documents. Just want to say that we are in a life-or-death struggle for technological supremacy. The competition for technological supremacy is fiercer than ever in human history. Does AA/DEI help or hurt us in maintaining technological supremacy? Different people may have different opinions, but that’s a question we must answer.
Do we think certain groups of people will help us maintain technological superiority?
That is exactly what they are saying - they can't make it in their country, so they are entitled to make it in this country, and they are entitled to take anyone else's place, because they know how to teach to the test, and Americans allegedly do not, so Americans must be inferior in Maths.
My, this is a very "Dictatorship" or "Communistic" thing to say. You do realize America is a Democracy?
Yes, America is a democracy. Do you realize that even deep blue California voters voted down AA, twice? If AA is put up for a democratic vote, it does not stand a chance in this country. Those elite college admins are NOT elected by the people.
However, if those "elite college admins" feel it is important to increase the number of blacks, latinos and other minorities on their campus, they will find a way to do that. Just like if they believe their is value in increasing the number of low income students on campus they will make it happen.
We do not get to vote on how private universities are run (or public really) and that is a good thing, given that only 50% of 25-60yo have even graduated college.
IF private universities don’t take a penny of taxpayers money then they can racially discriminate however they want. But they do take taxpayers money.
My tax dollars go to plenty of things that I do not get a direct say in. Yet I still pay my taxes.
The research that private universities do with the grants they get end up "costing the country far less than if we had to hire people to do the research". So the argument of "take away their money" does not really go very far. Undergrads and graduate students are extremely cheap labor for the extensive research that happens. Govt could not afford to pay for the research if it was all done in public firms/non-universities.
The amount of energy people put into complaining their kid wont or didn't get into a highly selective university is astounding. Get over it, move on and support your kid at wherever they end up. Fact will remain, just because you got great test scores and a 4.0 gpa and 10 APs that does NOT entitle you to an elite education. There are more qualified candidates than spots, someone will get left out. And the definition of "qualified" is different at each school, as they balance majors, M/F, demographics, etc.
You are not entitled to an elite education because of the color of your skin.
No you are not. Nobody is entitled to anything. And I do not see anyone except white kids or asian kids filing lawsuits because they are not admitted to a Top university. Show me a black family or latino family or some other minority family that has sued for that. That's because they don't think they are entitled. They work hard, excel, apply and hope for good results.
It is similar to how it is often easier for a smart female to gain admission to engineering or CS programs because those have been largely male dominated fields for decades. So schools are aiming to ensure more women have the opportunity and work hard to ensure a closer to 50/50 mix (best most get to is 60/40 some have gotten better but not many). Yes, it appears it's easier to get in as a female, but in reality that is because many girls have been told they are not good at math/science and have not had their self esteem boosted thru our educational system like boys. So by the time college applicationtime arrives, the girls who are still interested in applying are the really smart ones, the so-so, struggling, ones on the fence have likely already been told "you can't do this" and have given up. So the girls who are apply have self-selected as the upper portion of girls. Whereas the guys have always been told they can do math/science and are more willing to try. So you still have guys applying who are in the "bottom 40/50%" and they don't get in. So for many schools, a higher percentage of girls get into eng/CS programs simply because the lower 20-50% have already disappeared due to how we educate girls.
Also, many schools actively attempt to bring their Eng/CS closer to 50/50 M/F so that means many years/decades of admitting more females in hopes they attend and continue to attend. Do you also complain that is not fair? When the real injustice is that women have been restricted for decades. When I was a kid women could not get a credit card without their husband or father signing for it, they did not have their own credit history even if they worked. Women thought their jobs could be a secretary or at most a nurse, but certainly not a lawyer, doctor, PHD in Chemistry, etc. Women growing up in the 40/50/60s did not expect to go to college at the same level as boys in the same environments. Do you think that world was better than today and that we should not have progressed. Once we realize our errors in judgment we then must work to correct for those. And that means encouraging girls to go into STEM.
You are annoyingly simplistic.
Forest through trees.
China and India alone have almost 3 billion citizens.
Chinese immigrants number about 2 million a year to the US. Immigrants from India have about the same numbers.
These immigrants come here for education and better quality of life. They are a tiny percentage of Asians but they are the most likely to be hardest working with some money and family connections.
I have a friend who came here from China as a child. We have children in the same grade and are close. The rest of her extended family will not allow their children to be friends with American children. They see Americans as lazy and a distraction.
It’s a different culture and with that amount of people the Asian population could easily fill MIT, Harvard, etc a thousand times over. What are they supposed to do, especially if most of them go back to their country of origin?
Anonymous wrote:China and India alone have almost 3 billion citizens.
Chinese immigrants number about 2 million a year to the US. Immigrants from India have about the same numbers.
These immigrants come here for education and better quality of life. They are a tiny percentage of Asians but they are the most likely to be hardest working with some money and family connections.
I have a friend who came here from China as a child. We have children in the same grade and are close. The rest of her extended family will not allow their children to be friends with American children. They see Americans as lazy and a distraction.
It’s a different culture and with that amount of people the Asian population could easily fill MIT, Harvard, etc a thousand times over. What are they supposed to do, especially if most of them go back to their country of origin?
I don’t understand the question…what are they supposed to do about what?
Why should we be sympathetic to the families that won’t assimilate?
Anonymous wrote:China and India alone have almost 3 billion citizens.
Chinese immigrants number about 2 million a year to the US. Immigrants from India have about the same numbers.
These immigrants come here for education and better quality of life. They are a tiny percentage of Asians but they are the most likely to be hardest working with some money and family connections.
I have a friend who came here from China as a child. We have children in the same grade and are close. The rest of her extended family will not allow their children to be friends with American children. They see Americans as lazy and a distraction.
It’s a different culture and with that amount of people the Asian population could easily fill MIT, Harvard, etc a thousand times over. What are they supposed to do, especially if most of them go back to their country of origin?
There is no more room. Who told them that there is?
Anonymous wrote:China and India alone have almost 3 billion citizens.
Chinese immigrants number about 2 million a year to the US. Immigrants from India have about the same numbers.
These immigrants come here for education and better quality of life. They are a tiny percentage of Asians but they are the most likely to be hardest working with some money and family connections.
I have a friend who came here from China as a child. We have children in the same grade and are close. The rest of her extended family will not allow their children to be friends with American children. They see Americans as lazy and a distraction.
It’s a different culture and with that amount of people the Asian population could easily fill MIT, Harvard, etc a thousand times over. What are they supposed to do, especially if most of them go back to their country of origin?
I don’t understand the question…what are they supposed to do about what?
Why should we be sympathetic to the families that won’t assimilate?
Anonymous wrote:China and India alone have almost 3 billion citizens.
Chinese immigrants number about 2 million a year to the US. Immigrants from India have about the same numbers.
These immigrants come here for education and better quality of life. They are a tiny percentage of Asians but they are the most likely to be hardest working with some money and family connections.
I have a friend who came here from China as a child. We have children in the same grade and are close. The rest of her extended family will not allow their children to be friends with American children. They see Americans as lazy and a distraction.
It’s a different culture and with that amount of people the Asian population could easily fill MIT, Harvard, etc a thousand times over. What are they supposed to do, especially if most of them go back to their country of origin?
I don’t understand the question…what are they supposed to do about what?
Why should we be sympathetic to the families that won’t assimilate?
What are you talking about
They are the ones who assimilate to the American way and American dream - hardworking and competition
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}