Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster here:

How about:

Children of one race,
Adopted by parents of another race (last name reflects parents’ (well, father’s) race,
Adopted not as infants but a few years later as young children,
With physical special needs,
Later found to also have learning disabilities.

These are my kids and where do they fit in for purposes such as college applications?

(After mannnny years and expenses and tears and specialists, appear “normal” (whatever that means) for all intents and purposes).

Don’t students have the option of declining to answer the race question?

I do not know? We are not quite at this stage yet but I have been wondering? And, if so, should they do that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Would you be okay with job applicants of certain racial backgrounds being less likely to get jobs than equally qualified candidates of different backgrounds because the company desires diverse employees? I'm not necessarily arguing against what you're saying. Just curious.

Not the PP, but yes, I would be comfortable with the following: Two equally qualified candidates, one of whom is demographically similar to existing staff, and one of whom represents an identity not currently represented. The latter gets the job on the basis of bringing a new perspective, which can only be good for business.

To be more concrete, let’s say 1 is a Jew and 1 Indian American (or Black, or Hispanic...) Because 2% Jews are are already over represented at Harvard, you would pick against the Jewish student.

If all else is equal, then yes, you should choose the one from the underrepresented group. Was this question supposed to be some kind of a gotcha? -a Jewish person

Who said “all else being equal?” The H lawsuit presupposes Asians with superior stats.

Stats aren’t everything. That’s the thing. And where the Tiger mommies go wrong.

Stats aren’t everything cuz it’s “holistic.” That’s where H goes wrong. All their URM grads are holding less than perfect sheepskin cuz stats aren’t everything. It’s “holistic” where the society at large evaluate their URM graduates who can’t perform as well as UCLA or UC Berkeley grads.

Well, your behavior in this thread and the demonstration of the poor way in which you think is a big clue why your child would be passed over, assuming your child exhibits similar characteristics and tendencies. You, simply, are not elite college material. Your child probably is not, either.

It’s a fact that URMs with H degrees don’t have the same life outcome as whites.

As another PP mentioned, this is due to systemic racism.

Employers are simply discounting the Harvard premium when factoring in Harvard URMs, legacies, sports, etc.

Got data? Sounds like wishful thinking. The Harvard students in those categories have their pick of top firms/positions. Many of the legacies and athletes are well liked and know how to read. On top of that, they come off as much more intelligent than average or even above-average state school kids.

There’s an article posted above that shows Harvard isn’t all that. Harvard law and medical schools routinely reject Harvard undergrads.

Anonymous wrote:I find it hilarious everyone mentioning URM's as the reason Asians are discriminated against.

No, Asians are not getting discriminated against only URM's, they are being discriminated against when compared to white Americans, despite white Americans being vastly in control of the US government/industry/economy/culture/etc.

It's pretty much a way to keep the wealthy whites in power throughout industries through legacy admissions, donor admissions and esoteric sports admissions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Would you be okay with job applicants of certain racial backgrounds being less likely to get jobs than equally qualified candidates of different backgrounds because the company desires diverse employees? I'm not necessarily arguing against what you're saying. Just curious.

Not the PP, but yes, I would be comfortable with the following: Two equally qualified candidates, one of whom is demographically similar to existing staff, and one of whom represents an identity not currently represented. The latter gets the job on the basis of bringing a new perspective, which can only be good for business.

To be more concrete, let’s say 1 is a Jew and 1 Indian American (or Black, or Hispanic...) Because 2% Jews are are already over represented at Harvard, you would pick against the Jewish student.

If all else is equal, then yes, you should choose the one from the underrepresented group. Was this question supposed to be some kind of a gotcha? -a Jewish person

Who said “all else being equal?” The H lawsuit presupposes Asians with superior stats.

Stats aren’t everything. That’s the thing. And where the Tiger mommies go wrong.

Stats aren’t everything cuz it’s “holistic.” That’s where H goes wrong. All their URM grads are holding less than perfect sheepskin cuz stats aren’t everything. It’s “holistic” where the society at large evaluate their URM graduates who can’t perform as well as UCLA or UC Berkeley grads.

Well, your behavior in this thread and the demonstration of the poor way in which you think is a big clue why your child would be passed over, assuming your child exhibits similar characteristics and tendencies. You, simply, are not elite college material. Your child probably is not, either.

It’s a fact that URMs with H degrees don’t have the same life outcome as whites.

As another PP mentioned, this is due to systemic racism.

And in this case stems from the systemic racism against Asians in higher ed.

When you discount an entire group of people whose ancestors come from 50 very different countries with thousands of different ethnic groups and hold them to higher standards than another group of people that can get in with lesser standards- employers know. It’s no secret.

The accounts for diversity in employment are based on all things equal. Two candidates with equal stats and you want diversity then you go with the candidate that fits that.
College is not all things equal therefore when going for diversity it’s unequal. It’s expecting the Asian kid to work much harder for the same shot at admission.

As Harvard practices “holistic” criteria, so do the employers. Can you blame them? Even H law school and H medical school do not choose their classes entirely from Harvard undergrads. They routinely reject Harvard grads in favor lesser private or public colleges and unis.

What employers practice “holistic” criteria? Which employer clearly states under requirements, skills that there are different based on race- more higher skills expected of one ethnic group and lesser skills for another ethnic group as requirements for APPLICATION.

Schools like Harvard and many state schools too, require certain numbers from Asian applicants that they do not require of other races, just to make it into a review pile.

And these are KIDS not adults. They may be 18 when they go to college but they are high schoolers during this application process. They are kids subject to systemic racism as individuals because of their race.

I’m sure you have no sympathy for Asian kids being taught from a young age that they will always be judged and made fun of for the way they look, their ancestral culture and heritage, by teachers and their friends’ parents, but also by college admissions and employers. That there will not be any ‘woke’ SJW that care about them. And there will not be multi-race protests or marches to combat the racism they face.

Because racism and stereotyping against Asians is societally acceptable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Would you be okay with job applicants of certain racial backgrounds being less likely to get jobs than equally qualified candidates of different backgrounds because the company desires diverse employees? I'm not necessarily arguing against what you're saying. Just curious.

Not the PP, but yes, I would be comfortable with the following: Two equally qualified candidates, one of whom is demographically similar to existing staff, and one of whom represents an identity not currently represented. The latter gets the job on the basis of bringing a new perspective, which can only be good for business.

To be more concrete, let’s say 1 is a Jew and 1 Indian American (or Black, or Hispanic...) Because 2% Jews are are already over represented at Harvard, you would pick against the Jewish student.

If all else is equal, then yes, you should choose the one from the underrepresented group. Was this question supposed to be some kind of a gotcha? -a Jewish person

Who said “all else being equal?” The H lawsuit presupposes Asians with superior stats.

Stats aren’t everything. That’s the thing. And where the Tiger mommies go wrong.

Stats aren’t everything cuz it’s “holistic.” That’s where H goes wrong. All their URM grads are holding less than perfect sheepskin cuz stats aren’t everything. It’s “holistic” where the society at large evaluate their URM graduates who can’t perform as well as UCLA or UC Berkeley grads.

Well, your behavior in this thread and the demonstration of the poor way in which you think is a big clue why your child would be passed over, assuming your child exhibits similar characteristics and tendencies. You, simply, are not elite college material. Your child probably is not, either.

It’s a fact that URMs with H degrees don’t have the same life outcome as whites.

As another PP mentioned, this is due to systemic racism.

Employers are simply discounting the Harvard premium when factoring in Harvard URMs, legacies, sports, etc.

Got data? Sounds like wishful thinking. The Harvard students in those categories have their pick of top firms/positions. Many of the legacies and athletes are well liked and know how to read. On top of that, they come off as much more intelligent than average or even above-average state school kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Would you be okay with job applicants of certain racial backgrounds being less likely to get jobs than equally qualified candidates of different backgrounds because the company desires diverse employees? I'm not necessarily arguing against what you're saying. Just curious.

Not the PP, but yes, I would be comfortable with the following: Two equally qualified candidates, one of whom is demographically similar to existing staff, and one of whom represents an identity not currently represented. The latter gets the job on the basis of bringing a new perspective, which can only be good for business.

To be more concrete, let’s say 1 is a Jew and 1 Indian American (or Black, or Hispanic...) Because 2% Jews are are already over represented at Harvard, you would pick against the Jewish student.

If all else is equal, then yes, you should choose the one from the underrepresented group. Was this question supposed to be some kind of a gotcha? -a Jewish person

Who said “all else being equal?” The H lawsuit presupposes Asians with superior stats.

Stats aren’t everything. That’s the thing. And where the Tiger mommies go wrong.

Stats aren’t everything cuz it’s “holistic.” That’s where H goes wrong. All their URM grads are holding less than perfect sheepskin cuz stats aren’t everything. It’s “holistic” where the society at large evaluate their URM graduates who can’t perform as well as UCLA or UC Berkeley grads.

Well, your behavior in this thread and the demonstration of the poor way in which you think is a big clue why your child would be passed over, assuming your child exhibits similar characteristics and tendencies. You, simply, are not elite college material. Your child probably is not, either.

It’s a fact that URMs with H degrees don’t have the same life outcome as whites.

As another PP mentioned, this is due to systemic racism.

And in this case stems from the systemic racism against Asians in higher ed.

When you discount an entire group of people whose ancestors come from 50 very different countries with thousands of different ethnic groups and hold them to higher standards than another group of people that can get in with lesser standards- employers know. It’s no secret.

The accounts for diversity in employment are based on all things equal. Two candidates with equal stats and you want diversity then you go with the candidate that fits that.
College is not all things equal therefore when going for diversity it’s unequal. It’s expecting the Asian kid to work much harder for the same shot at admission.

As Harvard practices “holistic” criteria, so do the employers. Can you blame them? Even H law school and H medical school do not choose their classes entirely from Harvard undergrads. They routinely reject Harvard grads in favor lesser private or public colleges and unis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Would you be okay with job applicants of certain racial backgrounds being less likely to get jobs than equally qualified candidates of different backgrounds because the company desires diverse employees? I'm not necessarily arguing against what you're saying. Just curious.

Not the PP, but yes, I would be comfortable with the following: Two equally qualified candidates, one of whom is demographically similar to existing staff, and one of whom represents an identity not currently represented. The latter gets the job on the basis of bringing a new perspective, which can only be good for business.

To be more concrete, let’s say 1 is a Jew and 1 Indian American (or Black, or Hispanic...) Because 2% Jews are are already over represented at Harvard, you would pick against the Jewish student.

If all else is equal, then yes, you should choose the one from the underrepresented group. Was this question supposed to be some kind of a gotcha? -a Jewish person

Who said “all else being equal?” The H lawsuit presupposes Asians with superior stats.

Stats aren’t everything. That’s the thing. And where the Tiger mommies go wrong.

Stats aren’t everything cuz it’s “holistic.” That’s where H goes wrong. All their URM grads are holding less than perfect sheepskin cuz stats aren’t everything. It’s “holistic” where the society at large evaluate their URM graduates who can’t perform as well as UCLA or UC Berkeley grads.

Well, your behavior in this thread and the demonstration of the poor way in which you think is a big clue why your child would be passed over, assuming your child exhibits similar characteristics and tendencies. You, simply, are not elite college material. Your child probably is not, either.

It’s a fact that URMs with H degrees don’t have the same life outcome as whites.

As another PP mentioned, this is due to systemic racism.

Employers are simply discounting the Harvard premium when factoring in Harvard URMs, legacies, sports, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My friend whose son is half-Chinese said he is going to identify as white on his college applications.

Ours too. Fortunately their last name (which is Asian) could also be Scandinavian.

I’m asian. DS has a white last name and the first name doesn’t give any details.

Generally speaking, your best odds of admission are:
Black
Hispanic
White
Asian

So if you are half Black/Asian, it's a no-brainer which box to check. Does anyone know to what extent these quotas are enforced?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster here:

How about:

Children of one race,
Adopted by parents of another race (last name reflects parents’ (well, father’s) race,
Adopted not as infants but a few years later as young children,
With physical special needs,
Later found to also have learning disabilities.

These are my kids and where do they fit in for purposes such as college applications?

(After mannnny years and expenses and tears and specialists, appear “normal” (whatever that means) for all intents and purposes).

Don’t students have the option of declining to answer the race question?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My friend whose son is half-Chinese said he is going to identify as white on his college applications.

Ours too. Fortunately their last name (which is Asian) could also be Scandinavian.

I’m asian. DS has a white last name and the first name doesn’t give any details.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster here:

How about:

Children of one race,
Adopted by parents of another race (last name reflects parents’ (well, father’s) race,
Adopted not as infants but a few years later as young children,
With physical special needs,
Later found to also have learning disabilities.

These are my kids and where do they fit in for purposes such as college applications?

(After mannnny years and expenses and tears and specialists, appear “normal” (whatever that means) for all intents and purposes).

Anonymous wrote:New poster here:

How about:

Children of one race,
Adopted by parents of another race (last name reflects parents’ (well, father’s) race,
Adopted not as infants but a few years later as young children,
With physical special needs,
Later found to also have learning disabilities.

These are my kids and where do they fit in for purposes such as college applications?