Should Asians boycott some elite universities that practice holistic admissions?

[Anonymous]

I think the elite colleges have plausible reason to use holistic evaluation for admissions. It's called social responsibility.
This is not discrimination, otherwise asian americans would not have filled those elite schools with 30 or 40% of the student body. I myself is an asian american. If my children could not make into the elite schools under that kind of ethnic admission rate I would go to a lesser school. Think about it, my asian american friends. What you are asking is winner takes all (let alone the question what should be factors for choosing a winner). Let's say if all the top few schools become 80% asian from the admissions solely based on test scores, is it really what you want to see? The schools will become boring if not for anything else.

For the society's good, we have to give opportunities to various groups so they can have highly educated leadership that will go back to their communities and improve the life in their neighborhood. I am not saying we don't want fair competition, but it has to have a balance so the society can be kept from all the ill resulted from the lack of opportunity in some sections. This will benefit everyone of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I think the elite colleges have plausible reason to use holistic evaluation for admissions. It's called social responsibility.
This is not discrimination, otherwise asian americans would not have filled those elite schools with 30 or 40% of the student body. I myself is an asian american. If my children could not make into the elite schools under that kind of ethnic admission rate I would go to a lesser school. Think about it, my asian american friends. What you are asking is winner takes all (let alone the question what should be factors for choosing a winner). Let's say if all the top few schools become 80% asian from the admissions solely based on test scores, is it really what you want to see? The schools will become boring if not for anything else.

For the society's good, we have to give opportunities to various groups so they can have highly educated leadership that will go back to their communities and improve the life in their neighborhood. I am not saying we don't want fair competition, but it has to have a balance so the society can be kept from all the ill resulted from the lack of opportunity in some sections. This will benefit everyone of us.

How about NBA that's 95% full of... tall basketball players... do you have problems with that? Or NFL that's 95% full of... muscle-bound meatheads... do you have problems with that? For the good of the "social responsibility," in the name of diversity, should we not have short basketball players... and bookish book-worms football players? Professional sports such as NBA and NFL are the epitome of homogeneity. I am willing to bet my house you don't have problems with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I think the elite colleges have plausible reason to use holistic evaluation for admissions. It's called social responsibility.
This is not discrimination, otherwise asian americans would not have filled those elite schools with 30 or 40% of the student body. I myself is an asian american. If my children could not make into the elite schools under that kind of ethnic admission rate I would go to a lesser school. Think about it, my asian american friends. What you are asking is winner takes all (let alone the question what should be factors for choosing a winner). Let's say if all the top few schools become 80% asian from the admissions solely based on test scores, is it really what you want to see? The schools will become boring if not for anything else.

For the society's good, we have to give opportunities to various groups so they can have highly educated leadership that will go back to their communities and improve the life in their neighborhood. I am not saying we don't want fair competition, but it has to have a balance so the society can be kept from all the ill resulted from the lack of opportunity in some sections. This will benefit everyone of us.

How about a few Jewish attorneys in the NFL? A few Asian doctor playing in the NBA? That would be more socially responsible.

[Anonymous]

When Women, blacks and Hispanics are overrepresented in anything, that's good diversity. Nobody even dares propose any changes. When Whites, Asians or men dominate something, that is bad and must change. Do liberals think the rest of the country is Stupid?

[Anonymous]

I think the Government should introduce affirmative action in giving grants. Why the heck should Harvard, JHU, MIT and other elites get such a large portion of the grant money?

I Why can't Cal Poly and University of Arkansas get more representatio

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think the elite colleges have plausible reason to use holistic evaluation for admissions. It's called social responsibility.
This is not discrimination, otherwise asian americans would not have filled those elite schools with 30 or 40% of the student body. I myself is an asian american. If my children could not make into the elite schools under that kind of ethnic admission rate I would go to a lesser school. Think about it, my asian american friends. What you are asking is winner takes all (let alone the question what should be factors for choosing a winner). Let's say if all the top few schools become 80% asian from the admissions solely based on test scores, is it really what you want to see? The schools will become boring if not for anything else.

For the society's good, we have to give opportunities to various groups so they can have highly educated leadership that will go back to their communities and improve the life in their neighborhood. I am not saying we don't want fair competition, but it has to have a balance so the society can be kept from all the ill resulted from the lack of opportunity in some sections. This will benefit everyone of us.

How about a few Jewish attorneys in the NFL? A few Asian doctor playing in the NBA? That would be more socially responsible.

If you are talking about a specific job, I agree that the employer should only consider the person who can perform the best job. It's like NASA should only hire the best rocket scientists when it sends astronauts to space, merit is the only consideration. But we are talking about education that prepares young people for those future jobs. People call it the equalizer. This is where society should help some. It's like we would give more opportunities to some kids in tutoring but when it's time for the exam we grade them only based on what they have performed on the test. That's the same logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think the elite colleges have plausible reason to use holistic evaluation for admissions. It's called social responsibility.
This is not discrimination, otherwise asian americans would not have filled those elite schools with 30 or 40% of the student body. I myself is an asian american. If my children could not make into the elite schools under that kind of ethnic admission rate I would go to a lesser school. Think about it, my asian american friends. What you are asking is winner takes all (let alone the question what should be factors for choosing a winner). Let's say if all the top few schools become 80% asian from the admissions solely based on test scores, is it really what you want to see? The schools will become boring if not for anything else.

For the society's good, we have to give opportunities to various groups so they can have highly educated leadership that will go back to their communities and improve the life in their neighborhood. I am not saying we don't want fair competition, but it has to have a balance so the society can be kept from all the ill resulted from the lack of opportunity in some sections. This will benefit everyone of us.

How about a few Jewish attorneys in the NFL? A few Asian doctor playing in the NBA? That would be more socially responsible.

If you are talking about a specific job, I agree that the employer should only consider the person who can perform the best job. It's like NASA should only hire the best rocket scientists when it sends astronauts to space, merit is the only consideration. But we are talking about education that prepares young people for those future jobs. People call it the equalizer. This is where society should help some. It's like we would give more opportunities to some kids in tutoring but when it's time for the exam we grade them only based on what they have performed on the test. That's the same logic.

Why stop at education? Why not the job market as the equalizer? Isn't that what affirmative action is all about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think the elite colleges have plausible reason to use holistic evaluation for admissions. It's called social responsibility.
This is not discrimination, otherwise asian americans would not have filled those elite schools with 30 or 40% of the student body. I myself is an asian american. If my children could not make into the elite schools under that kind of ethnic admission rate I would go to a lesser school. Think about it, my asian american friends. What you are asking is winner takes all (let alone the question what should be factors for choosing a winner). Let's say if all the top few schools become 80% asian from the admissions solely based on test scores, is it really what you want to see? The schools will become boring if not for anything else.

For the society's good, we have to give opportunities to various groups so they can have highly educated leadership that will go back to their communities and improve the life in their neighborhood. I am not saying we don't want fair competition, but it has to have a balance so the society can be kept from all the ill resulted from the lack of opportunity in some sections. This will benefit everyone of us.

How about a few Jewish attorneys in the NFL? A few Asian doctor playing in the NBA? That would be more socially responsible.

If you are talking about a specific job, I agree that the employer should only consider the person who can perform the best job. It's like NASA should only hire the best rocket scientists when it sends astronauts to space, merit is the only consideration. But we are talking about education that prepares young people for those future jobs. People call it the equalizer. This is where society should help some. It's like we would give more opportunities to some kids in tutoring but when it's time for the exam we grade them only based on what they have performed on the test. That's the same logic.

Why stop at education? Why not the job market as the equalizer? Isn't that what affirmative action is all about?

That's where it's wrong about the affirmative action at job hiring. It may result in unqualified people hired that can not perform the job. Like I said in the NASA example, you can't hire unqualified people as rocket scientists to send someone to space. Education is about training. We help people there. If someone needs more training than others we try to help him more, providing more opportunities to him on education, so to speak. But when it come to job hire, it should be all about merit. That's the point I am trying to make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think the elite colleges have plausible reason to use holistic evaluation for admissions. It's called social responsibility.
This is not discrimination, otherwise asian americans would not have filled those elite schools with 30 or 40% of the student body. I myself is an asian american. If my children could not make into the elite schools under that kind of ethnic admission rate I would go to a lesser school. Think about it, my asian american friends. What you are asking is winner takes all (let alone the question what should be factors for choosing a winner). Let's say if all the top few schools become 80% asian from the admissions solely based on test scores, is it really what you want to see? The schools will become boring if not for anything else.

For the society's good, we have to give opportunities to various groups so they can have highly educated leadership that will go back to their communities and improve the life in their neighborhood. I am not saying we don't want fair competition, but it has to have a balance so the society can be kept from all the ill resulted from the lack of opportunity in some sections. This will benefit everyone of us.

How about a few Jewish attorneys in the NFL? A few Asian doctor playing in the NBA? That would be more socially responsible.

If you are talking about a specific job, I agree that the employer should only consider the person who can perform the best job. It's like NASA should only hire the best rocket scientists when it sends astronauts to space, merit is the only consideration. But we are talking about education that prepares young people for those future jobs. People call it the equalizer. This is where society should help some. It's like we would give more opportunities to some kids in tutoring but when it's time for the exam we grade them only based on what they have performed on the test. That's the same logic.

Why stop at education? Why not the job market as the equalizer? Isn't that what affirmative action is all about?

That's where it's wrong about the affirmative action at job hiring. It may result in unqualified people hired that can not perform the job. Like I said in the NASA example, you can't hire unqualified people as rocket scientists to send someone to space. Education is about training. We help people there. If someone needs more training than others we try to help him more, providing more opportunities to him on education, so to speak. But when it come to job hire, it should be all about merit. That's the point I am trying to make.

Typical banana...

[Anonymous]

Admissions should be equitable, but equitable doesn’t always mean equal. They should have some race based admissions particularly for underrepresented minorities. And the remaining slots should be completed with no regard to race. Thus everyone should be competing equally for the remaining slots as opposed to strictly competing against your own race. There is no reason why universities cannot fine tune and adjust their affirmative action policies if they wanted them to be truly equitable. In fact, they should just do a lottery based on qualified applicants. Now that would be equitable.

But the reality is life is unfair. And the Asian community has never been one to speak up. And they should. Asians face lots of stereotyping and discrimination. Most teachers, principals, school administration and college admissions are overwhelmingly white. The role of bias is undeniable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When Women, blacks and Hispanics are overrepresented in anything, that's good diversity. Nobody even dares propose any changes. When Whites, Asians or men dominate something, that is bad and must change. Do liberals think the rest of the country is Stupid?

Please don't lump Asians with racist white people. And I say racist because from your attitude you must be one. Liberals lmao.

[Anonymous]

Maybe if our soccer team had some Mexicans, we would have made it into the World Cup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, again, where does the 22% come from?

Again, as was stated above, it's the percentage of Asians admitted to Harvard the last two years.

Which, again, prompts my question of what rationale (reason, principle) makes this number the dividing line between fair and unfair admissions?

define fair

If non-Asian students with equal credentials are admitted, refusing admission to Asian students with identical credentials is giving less consideration of interest to Asians. Fairness requires giving equal consideration of interest to all students.

No such thing. Do you understand what holistic admissions means? Some are legacies, some have sports, some have parents who are big donors, some are URMs. Asians are not URMs.

"Holistic admission" historically had been used to discriminate against Jewish students and to keep them out of Ivy League. It's a code word for a racist policy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/the-ivy-leagues-history-of-discriminating-against-jews-2014-12

sounds like you oppose affirmative action as well. (as does the plaintiff making the accusations in that link you supplied). They lost the last time they tried in 2016.

We are talking what is "fair," not what is "legal." They are not always interchangeable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe if our soccer team had some Mexicans, we would have made it into the World Cup.

lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think the elite colleges have plausible reason to use holistic evaluation for admissions. It's called social responsibility.
This is not discrimination, otherwise asian americans would not have filled those elite schools with 30 or 40% of the student body. I myself is an asian american. If my children could not make into the elite schools under that kind of ethnic admission rate I would go to a lesser school. Think about it, my asian american friends. What you are asking is winner takes all (let alone the question what should be factors for choosing a winner). Let's say if all the top few schools become 80% asian from the admissions solely based on test scores, is it really what you want to see? The schools will become boring if not for anything else.

For the society's good, we have to give opportunities to various groups so they can have highly educated leadership that will go back to their communities and improve the life in their neighborhood. I am not saying we don't want fair competition, but it has to have a balance so the society can be kept from all the ill resulted from the lack of opportunity in some sections. This will benefit everyone of us.

How about NBA that's 95% full of... tall basketball players... do you have problems with that? Or NFL that's 95% full of... muscle-bound meatheads... do you have problems with that? For the good of the "social responsibility," in the name of diversity, should we not have short basketball players... and bookish book-worms football players? Professional sports such as NBA and NFL are the epitome of homogeneity. I am willing to bet my house you don't have problems with that.

. Professional sports are different from every other type of employment and are a very very very small percentage of the population. This example is not making your point. Test scores and grades are not the only thing that points to a successful college experience. Going to college is not just about preparing for employment. To make it meaningful for everyone that attends, having diversity (the many different types of diversity) adds to the experience.