Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought below was an interesting perspective from a Yahoo poster. Usually Yahoo comments are despicably racist but I thought this comment was interesting even though I disagree on one of his opinions.

• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
WJ Alden • 17 hours ago
As a private university, Harvard should have the right o admit whomever it wants. Of course most people at Harvard don't think businesses should have the right to hire whomever they want, so I guess they can't use that argument.

However, while Asians in the US may do better, on average, than non-Asians, they do not outperform the rest of us to a degree that suggests they should be >20% of Ivy League student bodies. Whether in politics, business, or culture, the evidence just isn't there. Are universities supposed to stick purely to grades and test scores - on which Asians do really, really well - to decide whom to admit, or can they look at post-college performance to understand that those aren't great predictors of our future elite?

If you look at just grades and test scores you could probably make a strong case that elite universities are discriminating against Asians. A look at post-college success, though, greatly weakens the case.

Of course not. It's still white's world out there. I must tell you, I am tired of people making Asian kids so one dimentional - like they can't do anything other than GPA and test scores. The fact that they perform at a higher level (w/ GPA/test scores) doesn't mean they can't do other things.

What else can they do?

Anec-data here....

The Val of my DD's high school class was Asian. Of course, he had the 4.0 unweighted GPA, 5s in 7+ APs, and the 2300 plus SAT I/800 SAT IIs. But on top of that, he was a varsity swimmer at a state-qualifying level (24 hour/week commitment in season, 15/hour/week out of season), president of two clubs, NHS, firsts in state science fair every year. He also had a part time job (lifeguarding).

Shut out of every Ivy.

As CalTech becomes increasingly Asian (over 60% to date), just how many students, Asian and non-Asian with the credentials you listed above will be shut out of not just CalTech but of every Ivy? Even if it were 100%, there are just so many seats. Then what?

Also, the credentials you listed above are not unusual, not by a long shot. Mosey on over to College Confidential. Those attributes are becoming a dime a dozen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought below was an interesting perspective from a Yahoo poster. Usually Yahoo comments are despicably racist but I thought this comment was interesting even though I disagree on one of his opinions.

• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
WJ Alden • 17 hours ago
As a private university, Harvard should have the right o admit whomever it wants. Of course most people at Harvard don't think businesses should have the right to hire whomever they want, so I guess they can't use that argument.

However, while Asians in the US may do better, on average, than non-Asians, they do not outperform the rest of us to a degree that suggests they should be >20% of Ivy League student bodies. Whether in politics, business, or culture, the evidence just isn't there. Are universities supposed to stick purely to grades and test scores - on which Asians do really, really well - to decide whom to admit, or can they look at post-college performance to understand that those aren't great predictors of our future elite?

If you look at just grades and test scores you could probably make a strong case that elite universities are discriminating against Asians. A look at post-college success, though, greatly weakens the case.

Of course not. It's still white's world out there. I must tell you, I am tired of people making Asian kids so one dimentional - like they can't do anything other than GPA and test scores. The fact that they perform at a higher level (w/ GPA/test scores) doesn't mean they can't do other things.

What else can they do?

Anec-data here....

The Val of my DD's high school class was Asian. Of course, he had the 4.0 unweighted GPA, 5s in 7+ APs, and the 2300 plus SAT I/800 SAT IIs. But on top of that, he was a varsity swimmer at a state-qualifying level (24 hour/week commitment in season, 15/hour/week out of season), president of two clubs, NHS, firsts in state science fair every year. He also had a part time job (lifeguarding).

Shut out of every Ivy.

As CalTech becomes increasingly Asian (over 60% to date), just how many students, Asian and non-Asian with the credentials you listed above will be shut out of not just CalTech but of every Ivy? Even if it were 100%, there are just so many seats. Then what?

Also, the credentials you listed above are not unusual, not by a long shot. Mosey on over to College Confidential. Those attributes are becoming a dime a dozen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG. No one who reads Michelle Obama's senior thesis can reasonably come away without thinking she deserved to attend an Ivy. I had no idea it was that bad on virtually every level.

Yes, an Asian or Jewish student with higher SATs and a demonstrated ability to compose an English sentence was more deserving of her place at Princeton.

Nor, for that matter, do I. But, then, I didn't.

Should be "No one who reads Michelle Obama's senior thesis can reasonably come away without thinking she did not deserve to attend an Ivy."

And no one who reviews George W. Bush's academic record can reasonably come away without thinking he did not deserve to attend an Ivy.

At least we know that Bush cracked 1200 on his SATs, which made him a viable legacy candidate for Yale back in the 1960s. Michelle Robinson applied to Princeton roughly 20 years later, when admissions were more competitive, but the poor quality of her thesis suggests that she neither belonged at an Ivy nor benefited from an Ivy education. I mean, you can find her senior thesis on-line and read it. It's an exercise in poorly written navel-gazing, not scholarship. A more qualified Asian student surely would have come up with something more impressive.

Oh, sure. Let's see if we can find some Asian Ivy grad's thesis and crap on it now. Really? That's your example? You find one URM thesis and make fun of it? You are so desperate.
I just skimmed it, and it's a typical sociology thesis. I'm not a fan of sociology as a discipline, because it's too fuzzy for me. But you could find thousands of similar sociology theses by people of many races and they'd look similar. The writing itself is perfectly competent. You don't like the subject matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought below was an interesting perspective from a Yahoo poster. Usually Yahoo comments are despicably racist but I thought this comment was interesting even though I disagree on one of his opinions.

• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
WJ Alden • 17 hours ago
As a private university, Harvard should have the right o admit whomever it wants. Of course most people at Harvard don't think businesses should have the right to hire whomever they want, so I guess they can't use that argument.

However, while Asians in the US may do better, on average, than non-Asians, they do not outperform the rest of us to a degree that suggests they should be >20% of Ivy League student bodies. Whether in politics, business, or culture, the evidence just isn't there. Are universities supposed to stick purely to grades and test scores - on which Asians do really, really well - to decide whom to admit, or can they look at post-college performance to understand that those aren't great predictors of our future elite?

If you look at just grades and test scores you could probably make a strong case that elite universities are discriminating against Asians. A look at post-college success, though, greatly weakens the case.

Of course not. It's still white's world out there. I must tell you, I am tired of people making Asian kids so one dimentional - like they can't do anything other than GPA and test scores. The fact that they perform at a higher level (w/ GPA/test scores) doesn't mean they can't do other things.

What else can they do?

Anec-data here....

The Val of my DD's high school class was Asian. Of course, he had the 4.0 unweighted GPA, 5s in 7+ APs, and the 2300 plus SAT I/800 SAT IIs. But on top of that, he was a varsity swimmer at a state-qualifying level (24 hour/week commitment in season, 15/hour/week out of season), president of two clubs, NHS, firsts in state science fair every year. He also had a part time job (lifeguarding).

Shut out of every Ivy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought below was an interesting perspective from a Yahoo poster. Usually Yahoo comments are despicably racist but I thought this comment was interesting even though I disagree on one of his opinions.

• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
WJ Alden • 17 hours ago
As a private university, Harvard should have the right o admit whomever it wants. Of course most people at Harvard don't think businesses should have the right to hire whomever they want, so I guess they can't use that argument.

However, while Asians in the US may do better, on average, than non-Asians, they do not outperform the rest of us to a degree that suggests they should be >20% of Ivy League student bodies. Whether in politics, business, or culture, the evidence just isn't there. Are universities supposed to stick purely to grades and test scores - on which Asians do really, really well - to decide whom to admit, or can they look at post-college performance to understand that those aren't great predictors of our future elite?

If you look at just grades and test scores you could probably make a strong case that elite universities are discriminating against Asians. A look at post-college success, though, greatly weakens the case.

Of course not. It's still white's world out there. I must tell you, I am tired of people making Asian kids so one dimentional - like they can't do anything other than GPA and test scores. The fact that they perform at a higher level (w/ GPA/test scores) doesn't mean they can't do other things.

What else can they do?

Anec-data here....

The Val of my DD's high school class was Asian. Of course, he had the 4.0 unweighted GPA, 5s in 7+ APs, and the 2300 plus SAT I/800 SAT IIs. But on top of that, he was a varsity swimmer at a state-qualifying level (24 hour/week commitment in season, 15/hour/week out of season), president of two clubs, NHS, firsts in state science fair every year. He also had a part time job (lifeguarding).

Shut out of every Ivy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought below was an interesting perspective from a Yahoo poster. Usually Yahoo comments are despicably racist but I thought this comment was interesting even though I disagree on one of his opinions.

• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
WJ Alden • 17 hours ago
As a private university, Harvard should have the right o admit whomever it wants. Of course most people at Harvard don't think businesses should have the right to hire whomever they want, so I guess they can't use that argument.

However, while Asians in the US may do better, on average, than non-Asians, they do not outperform the rest of us to a degree that suggests they should be >20% of Ivy League student bodies. Whether in politics, business, or culture, the evidence just isn't there. Are universities supposed to stick purely to grades and test scores - on which Asians do really, really well - to decide whom to admit, or can they look at post-college performance to understand that those aren't great predictors of our future elite?

If you look at just grades and test scores you could probably make a strong case that elite universities are discriminating against Asians. A look at post-college success, though, greatly weakens the case.

Of course not. It's still white's world out there. I must tell you, I am tired of people making Asian kids so one dimentional - like they can't do anything other than GPA and test scores. The fact that they perform at a higher level (w/ GPA/test scores) doesn't mean they can't do other things.

What else can they do?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As long as there are quotas, there will be URMs admitted who are lesser qualified than other candidates. As long as this occurs, some people will reasonably wonder if their race gave them the edge in admissions.

We has an AA law clerk from Harvard who came across as less than intelligent & ended up not being offered a job. I hated myself for it, but I couldn't help but wonder if her race got her admitted. She was quite unimpressive.

Is this the only black person you've worked with? Cause that could be the problem right there.

No... Are you implying that I didn't think she was intelligent because she's black? I've worked with brilliant black people (who happened to not be Harvard grads), brilliant white people, brilliant Asian people and less than brilliant of these too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As long as there are quotas, there will be URMs admitted who are lesser qualified than other candidates. As long as this occurs, some people will reasonably wonder if their race gave them the edge in admissions.

We has an AA law clerk from Harvard who came across as less than intelligent & ended up not being offered a job. I hated myself for it, but I couldn't help but wonder if her race got her admitted. She was quite unimpressive.

Is this the only black person you've worked with? Cause that could be the problem right there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As long as there are quotas, there will be URMs admitted who are lesser qualified than other candidates. As long as this occurs, some people will reasonably wonder if their race gave them the edge in admissions.

We has an AA law clerk from Harvard who came across as less than intelligent & ended up not being offered a job. I hated myself for it, but I couldn't help but wonder if her race got her admitted. She was quite unimpressive.

Is this the only black person you've worked with? Cause that could be the problem right there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an Ivy grad and I'm uncomfortable with policies that explicitly limit acceptances based on racial identification. I'm equally uncomfortable with policies that explicitly privilege admissions based on racial identification.

My children are half Caucasian, half non-Caucasian. If the other half is Latino or African-American, they get a leg up. If it is Asian, they get discriminated against. Seems wildly un-American to me.

Would it be more American to have the Elite colleges consist of 50 percent Asians, 48 percent whites, and two percent combo of AA and Hispanics? In a country that looks nothing like that?

If that's who gets in by merit then yes.

Anonymous wrote:As long as there are quotas, there will be URMs admitted who are lesser qualified than other candidates. As long as this occurs, some people will reasonably wonder if their race gave them the edge in admissions.

We has an AA law clerk from Harvard who came across as less than intelligent & ended up not being offered a job. I hated myself for it, but I couldn't help but wonder if her race got her admitted. She was quite unimpressive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an Ivy grad and I'm uncomfortable with policies that explicitly limit acceptances based on racial identification. I'm equally uncomfortable with policies that explicitly privilege admissions based on racial identification.

My children are half Caucasian, half non-Caucasian. If the other half is Latino or African-American, they get a leg up. If it is Asian, they get discriminated against. Seems wildly un-American to me.

Would it be more American to have the Elite colleges consist of 50 percent Asians, 48 percent whites, and two percent combo of AA and Hispanics? In a country that looks nothing like that?

If that's who gets in by merit then yes.

Anonymous wrote:The sports analogies are stupid. Fundamentally different missions. Only mission of sports is to make money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an Ivy grad and I'm uncomfortable with policies that explicitly limit acceptances based on racial identification. I'm equally uncomfortable with policies that explicitly privilege admissions based on racial identification.

My children are half Caucasian, half non-Caucasian. If the other half is Latino or African-American, they get a leg up. If it is Asian, they get discriminated against. Seems wildly un-American to me.

Would it be more American to have the Elite colleges consist of 50 percent Asians, 48 percent whites, and two percent combo of AA and Hispanics? In a country that looks nothing like that?

Not PP but what's wrong with that if it reflects the most qualified students?

By what measure? Standardized test scores? With no concept of the myriad advantages that led to those test scores?

By any transparent measure.

So what besides standardized test scores? Surely you don't mean to include grades, which obviously mean different things from different schools. Really you do you just mean standardized test scores. Which completely ignores the disparate impact that those tests have on different populations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an Ivy grad and I'm uncomfortable with policies that explicitly limit acceptances based on racial identification. I'm equally uncomfortable with policies that explicitly privilege admissions based on racial identification.

My children are half Caucasian, half non-Caucasian. If the other half is Latino or African-American, they get a leg up. If it is Asian, they get discriminated against. Seems wildly un-American to me.

Would it be more American to have the Elite colleges consist of 50 percent Asians, 48 percent whites, and two percent combo of AA and Hispanics? In a country that looks nothing like that?