Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:eh. my white kid had higher stats than that kid, and he got rejected to all those schools, too, including GA Tech.

There is no dispute: The college admission system is totally rigged against white and Asian applicants.

There are not enough black people and URMs at universities for college admissions to have any real bias against white applicants. The top 20 universities accept less than 10% of applicants and of which less than single digits go to "unqualified black students."

Yes, Asian students are being discriminated by less qualified whites getting in--- not black students. People keep ignoring this. This is why people think this whole thing is racist. Going after the less than 10% of blacks and saying you didn't get in because of them is transparent.

Noone is going after blacks. They are going after the racial discrimination. There was an explicit racial preference for blacks and hispanics, yes. But there was also discrimination against asians, they wanted diversity and there were too many asians so they limited it..

Isn't this the kid who had more than one 1600 scoring classmate in their graduating class?

99 out of 100 of the "less qualified" accepted kids are not URM. Those numbers are easy to understand. The decision to ignore them and rage at the one URM is not

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most astute observers believe that the SC decision will not ultimately change college admissions much. If the schools overtly disengage from racial proxies, studies show that blacks and Hispanics will lose out to whites and Asians. But, schools are likely to develop more ambiguous criteria that allow them to maintain the status quo or whatever profile they choose.

Yes, if they simply use SES as a proxy, they can easily keep the diversity. And I think most people are fine with SES affirmative action, but not by race.

Why is SES affirmative action okay, but not race?

Because the law does not protect the wealthy from being discriminated against. Not all discrimination is illegal, nor even “bad”. Attractive/tall people get lifelong benefits from those traits, irrespective of whether they are relevant to what they do. Entirely legally. In fact, we all discriminate every day. That’s what preferences are. It’s only when a state actor (or private actor using state resources) discriminates ON THE BASIS of a protected status (eg race, nationality, religion, gender to a lesser extent) that it becomes illegal. But any college is perfectly free and welcome to accept a 1250 SAT/3.5 GPA from a terrible rural or urban HS over a 1500/4.0 from BCC or Langley as long as race per se wasn’t a factor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m so sick and tired of Asians complaining about unfairness in America. When I look around my UMC neighborhood, Asians seem to be doing quite well. I wonder how well American students would fare in Asian schools or American workers in Asian corporations. Something tells me that it would be FAR worse for Americans in Asia than it is for Asians in America.

Americans are treated very well in Asians countries.

I’m a white American and experienced overt racism in Asia.

White Americans are usually treated very well in Asian countries.
Maybe you didn't respect the local culture or something.

Asian countries like Korea/Japan/China tend to discriminate South East Asians.

I’m the person you were asking if I respected the culture. Very much so as learning the culture was the reason I went on the trip. In one instance, we merely went into a restaurant and were told it was “not for people like us” and we had to leave.

Discrimination in South Korea/Japan/India/wherever else in the world has no relevance here at all. The issue being discussed is about Americans being discriminated in America.

Agreed but the quote in in response to a poster claiming that Americans would not be discriminated against in Asia. It’s responsive to the post but the whole line of discussion is irrelevant to the issue (like so much on DCUM).

It is kinda relevant. Though American treatment abroad doesn’t have anything to do with how American laws treat people in America, it does raise a cultural issue. Namely, immigrants to America expect to be treated better here than anywhere else in the world. Sometimes, this includes how they would be treated in their own country. As a point of personal reflection, it’s healthy for such people to consider the entitlement of their request. Literally, they are asking for their new country to treat them better than their country would treat them or their country would treat Americans. Pretty incredible when you think about it.

Ok. this is making me insane. this whole discussion is not about immigrants. About about the people of Asian extraction who are AMERICANS. US citizens. They are simply asking to not be discriminated against based on their race. NOT THEIR CITIZENSHIP.


I get it. Asian Americans will always be "perpetual foreigners" because of the way that they look... even those who have been here for 3 or 4 generations, until they start intermarrying and their children look less Asian. But they are simply. not. immigrants.

The vast majority of asian americans suing colleges for not getting in have Asian born and raised parents.

Are the parents applying the college?

What’s wrong with Georgia Tech? It’s strange to me that he thinks someone else took “his” spot; when in reality there was no spot! They do not have unlimited spots and receive way more applications than spots. He is not alone in his rejection, thousands of other kids were rejected too. Those kids didn’t throw a temper tantrum and file suit.

Florida.
Too entitled.
No mention of EC, leadership positions, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Asian American student was right and won.
Case and thread closed.

Kudos to him.

Yes, he changed the history.
People like him bring pogress to the World.

Anonymous wrote:The Asian American student was right and won.
Case and thread closed.

Kudos to him.

He wanted to major in computer science. It is hard to get into an Ivy but even harder if you want to major in computer science.

He was rejected from UC Berkeley, which hasn't used race in admission for over 25 years. Cal Tech also which tends to admit more based on GPA and test scores and not on diversity.

He doesn't come across very well in the interview I watched. He spent a lot of time growing up playing golf instead of a participating in a team sport.

Perhaps if he went to a school that was more than 2% black (Florida is 15% black) he would have put more thought into joining the lawsuit.

No one took his spot, chances are he never would have been admitted even if he had applied this year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:eh. my white kid had higher stats than that kid, and he got rejected to all those schools, too, including GA Tech.

There is no dispute: The college admission system is totally rigged against white and Asian applicants.

There are not enough black people and URMs at universities for college admissions to have any real bias against white applicants. The top 20 universities accept less than 10% of applicants and of which less than single digits go to "unqualified black students."

Yes, Asian students are being discriminated by less qualified whites getting in--- not black students. People keep ignoring this. This is why people think this whole thing is racist. Going after the less than 10% of blacks and saying you didn't get in because of them is transparent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most astute observers believe that the SC decision will not ultimately change college admissions much. If the schools overtly disengage from racial proxies, studies show that blacks and Hispanics will lose out to whites and Asians. But, schools are likely to develop more ambiguous criteria that allow them to maintain the status quo or whatever profile they choose.

Yes, if they simply use SES as a proxy, they can easily keep the diversity. And I think most people are fine with SES affirmative action, but not by race.

Why is SES affirmative action okay, but not race?

Because that's still meritocratic. A poor person who has a 1600 is a hell of a lot more impressive than one that went to Phillips Andover with multimillionaire parents that had ample resources for private tutoring.

And no, SES is not enough to keep the diversity nor should it be. There are far more poor high scoring asians than there are high scoring blacks or hispanics total.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m so sick and tired of Asians complaining about unfairness in America. When I look around my UMC neighborhood, Asians seem to be doing quite well. I wonder how well American students would fare in Asian schools or American workers in Asian corporations. Something tells me that it would be FAR worse for Americans in Asia than it is for Asians in America.

Americans are treated very well in Asians countries.

I’m a white American and experienced overt racism in Asia.

White Americans are usually treated very well in Asian countries.
Maybe you didn't respect the local culture or something.

Asian countries like Korea/Japan/China tend to discriminate South East Asians.

I’m the person you were asking if I respected the culture. Very much so as learning the culture was the reason I went on the trip. In one instance, we merely went into a restaurant and were told it was “not for people like us” and we had to leave.

Discrimination in South Korea/Japan/India/wherever else in the world has no relevance here at all. The issue being discussed is about Americans being discriminated in America.

Agreed but the quote in in response to a poster claiming that Americans would not be discriminated against in Asia. It’s responsive to the post but the whole line of discussion is irrelevant to the issue (like so much on DCUM).

It is kinda relevant. Though American treatment abroad doesn’t have anything to do with how American laws treat people in America, it does raise a cultural issue. Namely, immigrants to America expect to be treated better here than anywhere else in the world. Sometimes, this includes how they would be treated in their own country. As a point of personal reflection, it’s healthy for such people to consider the entitlement of their request. Literally, they are asking for their new country to treat them better than their country would treat them or their country would treat Americans. Pretty incredible when you think about it.

Ok. this is making me insane. this whole discussion is not about immigrants. About about the people of Asian extraction who are AMERICANS. US citizens. They are simply asking to not be discriminated against based on their race. NOT THEIR CITIZENSHIP.


I get it. Asian Americans will always be "perpetual foreigners" because of the way that they look... even those who have been here for 3 or 4 generations, until they start intermarrying and their children look less Asian. But they are simply. not. immigrants.

The vast majority of asian americans suing colleges for not getting in have Asian born and raised parents.

Anonymous wrote:This kid seems insufferable, but I kind of feel badly for him.

He has great scores and he should be very proud of himself, but if folks in his life were telling him that he was a shoo-in for an Ivy League college, then he was getting bad advice.

Very very few people can be assured of spots in the Ivy League. Kids of major (MAJOR) donors are one, kids who have won significant national prizes (ISEF Top Prize Winners) are another. But a kid with good test scores and grades? That's a crapshoot.

Similarly, whoever told him to put this out there into the world was doing him a disservice because the coverage has focused on how at least one of the schools he was rejected from doesn't use race-based admissions at all.

I don't think that is what he is arguing. The article cites he had a 20% chance anyways. He's arguing if he was black, he would have had a better chance. He wants to ensure this is being abided.

The Asian American student was right and won.
Case and thread closed.