Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe the reason this person does not accept your point is that they are 1) Asian American who believes they are being discriminated against, and 2) believe “merit” = “test scores.” Prove me wrong.

Read the data. They’re higher rated on academic and extracurricular ratings. What do you mean by merit? The ability to throw a lacrosse ball?

If you don’t think Asian american applicants are disadvantaged in the process vis a vis all other groups then there is no point to trying to convince you.

This is obvious. I am amazed by the deniers.

The Harvard case exposed it, with actual data to back it up.

The most amazing thing was those Personality scores -- interviewers gave Asian Americans the same scores on average as other groups, but admissions staff who had never met them gave them way worse scores in order to penalize them.

What a shameful scam.

The question no one answers and people pretend they don’t understand, repeated again:

While it appears that way when you look at just Harvard and a single-digit number of other colleges, isn’t the exact opposite at 99% of all other colleges where Asian is an URM?

False premise, wrong facts, stupid question.

Well, when you present all those facts in such a detailed and thoughtful response, it is hard to argue.

Lol... face the truth man. Not a false premise, DEFINITELY NOT THE WRONG FACTS, and a question you don't want to answer truthfully.

DP. What schools are known to provide a race preference for Asian students in the admissions process? I’m not taking about schools where Asians are under represented but schools where they receive a preference. You seem to have the facts. If you can provide backup I would be interested to see that.

Yes, you are talking about schools where Asians are Under represented. Any selective school tries to achieve racial Balance so there is a benefit to any student applying there where they are under represented. This has been explained many times in this thread and others here with the schools listed even. And there are many others be on the ones listed. You only have data for Harvard because they were sued

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe the reason this person does not accept your point is that they are 1) Asian American who believes they are being discriminated against, and 2) believe “merit” = “test scores.” Prove me wrong.

Read the data. They’re higher rated on academic and extracurricular ratings. What do you mean by merit? The ability to throw a lacrosse ball?

If you don’t think Asian american applicants are disadvantaged in the process vis a vis all other groups then there is no point to trying to convince you.

This is obvious. I am amazed by the deniers.

The Harvard case exposed it, with actual data to back it up.

The most amazing thing was those Personality scores -- interviewers gave Asian Americans the same scores on average as other groups, but admissions staff who had never met them gave them way worse scores in order to penalize them.

What a shameful scam.

The question no one answers and people pretend they don’t understand, repeated again:

While it appears that way when you look at just Harvard and a single-digit number of other colleges, isn’t the exact opposite at 99% of all other colleges where Asian is an URM?

False premise, wrong facts, stupid question.

Well, when you present all those facts in such a detailed and thoughtful response, it is hard to argue.

Lol... face the truth man. Not a false premise, DEFINITELY NOT THE WRONG FACTS, and a question you don't want to answer truthfully.

DP. What schools are known to provide a race preference for Asian students in the admissions process? I’m not taking about schools where Asians are under represented but schools where they receive a preference. You seem to have the facts. If you can provide backup I would be interested to see that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe the reason this person does not accept your point is that they are 1) Asian American who believes they are being discriminated against, and 2) believe “merit” = “test scores.” Prove me wrong.

Read the data. They’re higher rated on academic and extracurricular ratings. What do you mean by merit? The ability to throw a lacrosse ball?

If you don’t think Asian american applicants are disadvantaged in the process vis a vis all other groups then there is no point to trying to convince you.

This is obvious. I am amazed by the deniers.

The Harvard case exposed it, with actual data to back it up.

The most amazing thing was those Personality scores -- interviewers gave Asian Americans the same scores on average as other groups, but admissions staff who had never met them gave them way worse scores in order to penalize them.

What a shameful scam.

The question no one answers and people pretend they don’t understand, repeated again:

While it appears that way when you look at just Harvard and a single-digit number of other colleges, isn’t the exact opposite at 99% of all other colleges where Asian is an URM?

False premise, wrong facts, stupid question.

Well, when you present all those facts in such a detailed and thoughtful response, it is hard to argue.

Lol... face the truth man. Not a false premise, DEFINITELY NOT THE WRONG FACTS, and a question you don't want to answer truthfully.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe the reason this person does not accept your point is that they are 1) Asian American who believes they are being discriminated against, and 2) believe “merit” = “test scores.” Prove me wrong.

Read the data. They’re higher rated on academic and extracurricular ratings. What do you mean by merit? The ability to throw a lacrosse ball?

If you don’t think Asian american applicants are disadvantaged in the process vis a vis all other groups then there is no point to trying to convince you.

This is obvious. I am amazed by the deniers.

The Harvard case exposed it, with actual data to back it up.

The most amazing thing was those Personality scores -- interviewers gave Asian Americans the same scores on average as other groups, but admissions staff who had never met them gave them way worse scores in order to penalize them.

What a shameful scam.

The question no one answers and people pretend they don’t understand, repeated again:

While it appears that way when you look at just Harvard and a single-digit number of other colleges, isn’t the exact opposite at 99% of all other colleges where Asian is an URM?

No. In those instances they simply stand or fall on their own without being disadvantaged

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: What do you think of the children of faculty and staff getting those preferences?

It's exceedingly unfair.

It is a method to recruit top scholars, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe the reason this person does not accept your point is that they are 1) Asian American who believes they are being discriminated against, and 2) believe “merit” = “test scores.” Prove me wrong.

Read the data. They’re higher rated on academic and extracurricular ratings. What do you mean by merit? The ability to throw a lacrosse ball?

If you don’t think Asian american applicants are disadvantaged in the process vis a vis all other groups then there is no point to trying to convince you.

This is obvious. I am amazed by the deniers.

The Harvard case exposed it, with actual data to back it up.

The most amazing thing was those Personality scores -- interviewers gave Asian Americans the same scores on average as other groups, but admissions staff who had never met them gave them way worse scores in order to penalize them.

What a shameful scam.

The question no one answers and people pretend they don’t understand, repeated again:

While it appears that way when you look at just Harvard and a single-digit number of other colleges, isn’t the exact opposite at 99% of all other colleges where Asian is an URM?

False premise, wrong facts, stupid question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe the reason this person does not accept your point is that they are 1) Asian American who believes they are being discriminated against, and 2) believe “merit” = “test scores.” Prove me wrong.

Read the data. They’re higher rated on academic and extracurricular ratings. What do you mean by merit? The ability to throw a lacrosse ball?

If you don’t think Asian american applicants are disadvantaged in the process vis a vis all other groups then there is no point to trying to convince you.

This is obvious. I am amazed by the deniers.

The Harvard case exposed it, with actual data to back it up.

The most amazing thing was those Personality scores -- interviewers gave Asian Americans the same scores on average as other groups, but admissions staff who had never met them gave them way worse scores in order to penalize them.

What a shameful scam.

The question no one answers and people pretend they don’t understand, repeated again:

While it appears that way when you look at just Harvard and a single-digit number of other colleges, isn’t the exact opposite at 99% of all other colleges where Asian is an URM?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe the reason this person does not accept your point is that they are 1) Asian American who believes they are being discriminated against, and 2) believe “merit” = “test scores.” Prove me wrong.

Read the data. They’re higher rated on academic and extracurricular ratings. What do you mean by merit? The ability to throw a lacrosse ball?

If you don’t think Asian american applicants are disadvantaged in the process vis a vis all other groups then there is no point to trying to convince you.

This is obvious. I am amazed by the deniers.

The Harvard case exposed it, with actual data to back it up.

The most amazing thing was those Personality scores -- interviewers gave Asian Americans the same scores on average as other groups, but admissions staff who had never met them gave them way worse scores in order to penalize them.

What a shameful scam.

Obviously, since almost all attributes are correlated with race, the only fair way to offer admission is by a draw from a hat. Using academic performance or testing, athletic performance, donation history, legacies, or parental employment gives an unfair, and probably racially-motivated, advantage to someone that is not available to others.

Anonymous wrote: What do you think of the children of faculty and staff getting those preferences?

It's exceedingly unfair.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe the reason this person does not accept your point is that they are 1) Asian American who believes they are being discriminated against, and 2) believe “merit” = “test scores.” Prove me wrong.

Read the data. They’re higher rated on academic and extracurricular ratings. What do you mean by merit? The ability to throw a lacrosse ball?

If you don’t think Asian american applicants are disadvantaged in the process vis a vis all other groups then there is no point to trying to convince you.

DP here. I realize this might not make sense to you, but Harvard values the leadership qualities that many athletes exhibit and those qualities go way beyond the ability to throw a ball. Harvard is not only about producing academics, it is also very much about producing leaders.

The fact that you think Harvard simply values the ability to throw a ball indicates that you don’t really have an understanding of the role sports participation plays in developing leadership qualities in young people. Suffice to say that Harvard sees high level sports participation as desirable in their students for a variety of reasons, both in the present and in their future potential as citizen-leaders.

It is really crazy that colleges and universities around the world manage to develop the future leaders of their countries without recruiting athletes. How do they do it. I mean Oxford and Cambridge must just turn out a bunch of followers who end up working for all those ex-football players.

Sure, and they have chosen to do things differently. Oxford and Cambridge do not recruit athletes. In another example, Oxford and Cambridge students study one subject area for three years and do not have to fulfill distribution requirements. US colleges typically require their students to take a broad range of courses and then choose a major. These schools have different approaches to education.

Colleges and universities have different ways and different ways of doing things. Students should spend time researching schools and figure out what they like and what kind of school is a good fit for them. Kids need to decide what kind of a school they would get the most out of and proceed accordingly in the application process.

There is not only one way to produce leaders. Harvard has its way, Oxford has its way. Every college is not like every other college and does not need to be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe the reason this person does not accept your point is that they are 1) Asian American who believes they are being discriminated against, and 2) believe “merit” = “test scores.” Prove me wrong.

Read the data. They’re higher rated on academic and extracurricular ratings. What do you mean by merit? The ability to throw a lacrosse ball?

If you don’t think Asian american applicants are disadvantaged in the process vis a vis all other groups then there is no point to trying to convince you.

DP here. I realize this might not make sense to you, but Harvard values the leadership qualities that many athletes exhibit and those qualities go way beyond the ability to throw a ball. Harvard is not only about producing academics, it is also very much about producing leaders.

The fact that you think Harvard simply values the ability to throw a ball indicates that you don’t really have an understanding of the role sports participation plays in developing leadership qualities in young people. Suffice to say that Harvard sees high level sports participation as desirable in their students for a variety of reasons, both in the present and in their future potential as citizen-leaders.

It is really crazy that colleges and universities around the world manage to develop the future leaders of their countries without recruiting athletes. How do they do it. I mean Oxford and Cambridge must just turn out a bunch of followers who end up working for all those ex-football players.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe the reason this person does not accept your point is that they are 1) Asian American who believes they are being discriminated against, and 2) believe “merit” = “test scores.” Prove me wrong.

Read the data. They’re higher rated on academic and extracurricular ratings. What do you mean by merit? The ability to throw a lacrosse ball?

If you don’t think Asian american applicants are disadvantaged in the process vis a vis all other groups then there is no point to trying to convince you.

At all colleges?

Please answer.

At Harvard and other sub 10% schools - the title of thread should be a clue for you

Ah, so its only a handful of colleges affecting a few hundred students, and for this you want to make it more difficult for thousands of students at all other colleges (including many, many other Asian students). Makes perfect sense.

You’ve completely lost me at this point. I’m not even sure what we are arguing about.

Yes, your lack of understanding is painfully apparent.

Because I don’t understand gibberish? Guilty as charged.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe the reason this person does not accept your point is that they are 1) Asian American who believes they are being discriminated against, and 2) believe “merit” = “test scores.” Prove me wrong.

Read the data. They’re higher rated on academic and extracurricular ratings. What do you mean by merit? The ability to throw a lacrosse ball?

If you don’t think Asian american applicants are disadvantaged in the process vis a vis all other groups then there is no point to trying to convince you.

DP here. I realize this might not make sense to you, but Harvard values the leadership qualities that many athletes exhibit and those qualities go way beyond the ability to throw a ball. Harvard is not only about producing academics, it is also very much about producing leaders.

The fact that you think Harvard simply values the ability to throw a ball indicates that you don’t really have an understanding of the role sports participation plays in developing leadership qualities in young people. Suffice to say that Harvard sees high level sports participation as desirable in their students for a variety of reasons, both in the present and in their future potential as citizen-leaders.

Oh the athletes as leaders trope. Well there are plenty of kids who apply to Harvard who play sports in high school but were not recruited and thus don’t get the immense benefit of the athletic preference. I’m pretty sure it’s not based on their perceived leadership skills but on their ability to throw a ball. So nice try but that’s what it is based on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe the reason this person does not accept your point is that they are 1) Asian American who believes they are being discriminated against, and 2) believe “merit” = “test scores.” Prove me wrong.

Read the data. They’re higher rated on academic and extracurricular ratings. What do you mean by merit? The ability to throw a lacrosse ball?

If you don’t think Asian american applicants are disadvantaged in the process vis a vis all other groups then there is no point to trying to convince you.

DP here. I realize this might not make sense to you, but Harvard values the leadership qualities that many athletes exhibit and those qualities go way beyond the ability to throw a ball. Harvard is not only about producing academics, it is also very much about producing leaders.

The fact that you think Harvard simply values the ability to throw a ball indicates that you don’t really have an understanding of the role sports participation plays in developing leadership qualities in young people. Suffice to say that Harvard sees high level sports participation as desirable in their students for a variety of reasons, both in the present and in their future potential as citizen-leaders.