Anonymous
08/18/2015 11:24
Subject: Some facts about Holistic Admissions Criteria from Stanford Daily
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wonder if we would ever had all our great high school movies - "Fast Times at Ridgemont High," "Rock n Roll High School," "Ferris Buehler's Day Off," "The Breakfast Club," "Sixteen Candles," etc. if our high schools were Asian only! My favorite Asian character? Long Duk Dong in "Sixteen Candles." Hilarious!
The ivy league would not turn 100% asian if it was race blind. It would go from 15-20% asian to 35%..maybe 40% tops.
Agreed.
Even Asians do not want 100% Asians for top colleges. Not even 50%. Many Asians do not like the fact that TJ is 65% Asians.
Anonymous
08/18/2015 09:10
Subject: Some facts about Holistic Admissions Criteria from Stanford Daily
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wonder if we would ever had all our great high school movies - "Fast Times at Ridgemont High," "Rock n Roll High School," "Ferris Buehler's Day Off," "The Breakfast Club," "Sixteen Candles," etc. if our high schools were Asian only! My favorite Asian character? Long Duk Dong in "Sixteen Candles." Hilarious!
The ivy league would not turn 100% asian if it was race blind. It would go from 15-20% asian to 35%..maybe 40% tops.
Agreed.
Anonymous
08/18/2015 09:08
Subject: Some facts about Holistic Admissions Criteria from Stanford Daily
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am about 100 pages into The Gatekeepers, a book by a NYT education writer who tracked Wesleyan admissions one year. It's exactly as I assumed - admissions officers trying to score the best token minorities (Native American? BIG win), so they can round out their classes like the cast of Barney. They admit the door opens 'wider' for some token applicants, slams shut for others - despite high qualifications, there are just 'too many of their kind'. Whatever ups their rankings, is of course, welcomed. In addition, the admissions officers at Wesleyan and other colleges are convinced that earlier Supreme Court rulings actually gave them carte blanche permission to discriminate.
These policies stayed more hush-hush in the past, with admissions offices quickly shredding files, etc. afterwards to hide how they did things. Now, as politics has become more progressive, colleges are unabashedly speaking up. And are unapologetic when some get upset about their blatant racism - it is those complaining that are the racists in their minds.
Is it no surprise colleges are now being sued and the Supreme Court is looking at the Fisher case for the second time? This progressive madness has to stop. If racism was wrong back in the day, it's still wrong. Furthermore, racial balancing, which is exactly what schools are boldly practicing now, was determined to be unconstitutional in the Grutter decision.
I fully expect that Obama will give a little threatening talk before the SC rules on this case, because it's thought that the SC will in fact rule in favor of Fisher.
Think Progress certainly thinks so:
http://thinkprogress.org/education/2015/06/29/3675053/bad-news-affirmative-action-us-supreme-court-will-rehear-fisher-v-university-texas/
I hope they are correct.
the scope of fisher at the widest possible ruling IMO will still only affect so-called public institutions (even though privates take plenty of federal dollars as well).
Directly, yes. But it's a start. And it will scare the hell out of privates.
Anonymous
08/18/2015 07:25
Subject: Some facts about Holistic Admissions Criteria from Stanford Daily
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wonder if we would ever had all our great high school movies - "Fast Times at Ridgemont High," "Rock n Roll High School," "Ferris Buehler's Day Off," "The Breakfast Club," "Sixteen Candles," etc. if our high schools were Asian only! My favorite Asian character? Long Duk Dong in "Sixteen Candles." Hilarious!
The ivy league would not turn 100% asian if it was race blind. It would go from 15-20% asian to 35%..maybe 40% tops.
Maybe not. Depends what they were looking for.
maybe not as you don't think it would go that high with race blind or maybe not as in you think it'll be even higher than 35-40% race blind?
IMO that's the natural ceiling given how cal, ucla, and caltech look. It cannot go higher.
Anonymous
08/17/2015 20:58
Subject: Some facts about Holistic Admissions Criteria from Stanford Daily
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wonder if we would ever had all our great high school movies - "Fast Times at Ridgemont High," "Rock n Roll High School," "Ferris Buehler's Day Off," "The Breakfast Club," "Sixteen Candles," etc. if our high schools were Asian only! My favorite Asian character? Long Duk Dong in "Sixteen Candles." Hilarious!
The ivy league would not turn 100% asian if it was race blind. It would go from 15-20% asian to 35%..maybe 40% tops.
Maybe not. Depends what they were looking for.
Anonymous
08/17/2015 20:41
Subject: Some facts about Holistic Admissions Criteria from Stanford Daily
Anonymous wrote:I wonder if we would ever had all our great high school movies - "Fast Times at Ridgemont High," "Rock n Roll High School," "Ferris Buehler's Day Off," "The Breakfast Club," "Sixteen Candles," etc. if our high schools were Asian only! My favorite Asian character? Long Duk Dong in "Sixteen Candles." Hilarious!
The ivy league would not turn 100% asian if it was race blind. It would go from 15-20% asian to 35%..maybe 40% tops.
Anonymous
08/17/2015 19:30
Subject: Some facts about Holistic Admissions Criteria from Stanford Daily
I wonder if we would ever had all our great high school movies - "Fast Times at Ridgemont High," "Rock n Roll High School," "Ferris Buehler's Day Off," "The Breakfast Club," "Sixteen Candles," etc. if our high schools were Asian only! My favorite Asian character? Long Duk Dong in "Sixteen Candles." Hilarious!
Anonymous
08/17/2015 19:19
Subject: Some facts about Holistic Admissions Criteria from Stanford Daily
Anonymous wrote:I am about 100 pages into The Gatekeepers, a book by a NYT education writer who tracked Wesleyan admissions one year. It's exactly as I assumed - admissions officers trying to score the best token minorities (Native American? BIG win), so they can round out their classes like the cast of Barney. They admit the door opens 'wider' for some token applicants, slams shut for others - despite high qualifications, there are just 'too many of their kind'. Whatever ups their rankings, is of course, welcomed. In addition, the admissions officers at Wesleyan and other colleges are convinced that earlier Supreme Court rulings actually gave them carte blanche permission to discriminate.
These policies stayed more hush-hush in the past, with admissions offices quickly shredding files, etc. afterwards to hide how they did things. Now, as politics has become more progressive, colleges are unabashedly speaking up. And are unapologetic when some get upset about their blatant racism - it is those complaining that are the racists in their minds.
Is it no surprise colleges are now being sued and the Supreme Court is looking at the Fisher case for the second time? This progressive madness has to stop. If racism was wrong back in the day, it's still wrong. Furthermore, racial balancing, which is exactly what schools are boldly practicing now, was determined to be unconstitutional in the Grutter decision.
I fully expect that Obama will give a little threatening talk before the SC rules on this case, because it's thought that the SC will in fact rule in favor of Fisher.
Think Progress certainly thinks so:
http://thinkprogress.org/education/2015/06/29/3675053/bad-news-affirmative-action-us-supreme-court-will-rehear-fisher-v-university-texas/
I hope they are correct.
the scope of fisher at the widest possible ruling IMO will still only affect so-called public institutions (even though privates take plenty of federal dollars as well).
Anonymous
08/17/2015 19:17
Subject: Some facts about Holistic Admissions Criteria from Stanford Daily
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I have great respect for some of government employees I've met, but the fact remains: civil servants do not risk their lives.
Tell that to the 100+ stars on the north wall in OHB or Chris Stevens and other FSO's killed.
CIA, FBI, Secret Service etc are not exactly civilians. I thought the difference between a lifetime desk job and going into harm's way in the service of one's country was clear.
CIA and DOJ are explicitly civil service agencies. There are plenty of desk riders at both.
So waht you are saying it is less about civil service vs. military but who goes out in the field the most. In that case, the PP would also be one of those types that ranks 'service to country' based on how dangerous their missions were - which is an asinine definition.
Anonymous
08/17/2015 18:55
Subject: Some facts about Holistic Admissions Criteria from Stanford Daily
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I have great respect for some of government employees I've met, but the fact remains: civil servants do not risk their lives.
Tell that to the 100+ stars on the north wall in OHB or Chris Stevens and other FSO's killed.
CIA, FBI, Secret Service etc are not exactly civilians. I thought the difference between a lifetime desk job and going into harm's way in the service of one's country was clear.
Anonymous
08/17/2015 18:15
Subject: Some facts about Holistic Admissions Criteria from Stanford Daily
I am about 100 pages into The Gatekeepers, a book by a NYT education writer who tracked Wesleyan admissions one year. It's exactly as I assumed - admissions officers trying to score the best token minorities (Native American? BIG win), so they can round out their classes like the cast of Barney. They admit the door opens 'wider' for some token applicants, slams shut for others - despite high qualifications, there are just 'too many of their kind'. Whatever ups their rankings, is of course, welcomed. In addition, the admissions officers at Wesleyan and other colleges are convinced that earlier Supreme Court rulings actually gave them carte blanche permission to discriminate.
These policies stayed more hush-hush in the past, with admissions offices quickly shredding files, etc. afterwards to hide how they did things. Now, as politics has become more progressive, colleges are unabashedly speaking up. And are unapologetic when some get upset about their blatant racism - it is those complaining that are the racists in their minds.
Is it no surprise colleges are now being sued and the Supreme Court is looking at the Fisher case for the second time? This progressive madness has to stop. If racism was wrong back in the day, it's still wrong. Furthermore, racial balancing, which is exactly what schools are boldly practicing now, was determined to be unconstitutional in the Grutter decision.
I fully expect that Obama will give a little threatening talk before the SC rules on this case, because it's thought that the SC will in fact rule in favor of Fisher.
Think Progress certainly thinks so:
http://thinkprogress.org/education/2015/06/29/3675053/bad-news-affirmative-action-us-supreme-court-will-rehear-fisher-v-university-texas/
I hope they are correct.
These policies stayed more hush-hush in the past, with admissions offices quickly shredding files, etc. afterwards to hide how they did things. Now, as politics has become more progressive, colleges are unabashedly speaking up. And are unapologetic when some get upset about their blatant racism - it is those complaining that are the racists in their minds.
Is it no surprise colleges are now being sued and the Supreme Court is looking at the Fisher case for the second time? This progressive madness has to stop. If racism was wrong back in the day, it's still wrong. Furthermore, racial balancing, which is exactly what schools are boldly practicing now, was determined to be unconstitutional in the Grutter decision.
I fully expect that Obama will give a little threatening talk before the SC rules on this case, because it's thought that the SC will in fact rule in favor of Fisher.
Think Progress certainly thinks so:
http://thinkprogress.org/education/2015/06/29/3675053/bad-news-affirmative-action-us-supreme-court-will-rehear-fisher-v-university-texas/
I hope they are correct.
Anonymous
08/17/2015 15:16
Subject: Some facts about Holistic Admissions Criteria from Stanford Daily
Anonymous wrote:What is OHB?
CIA Langley facility has two major buildings OHB (original headquarters building) and NHB (new headquarters building). OHB is the one closer to dolley madison and is flat looking and NHB is the glass clad facility in the back that's taller. OHB is the building that has the Memorial Wall.
Anonymous
08/17/2015 15:11
Subject: Some facts about Holistic Admissions Criteria from Stanford Daily
What is OHB?
Anonymous
08/16/2015 05:01
Subject: Some facts about Holistic Admissions Criteria from Stanford Daily
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I am curious among the elite schools how the military academies rank in terms of Asian admissions? Maybe our Asian friends should be pushing their students in that direction too. After all, you get a free education at among the top schools in America and guaranteed employment afterward and an alumni network that will tie you into the top ranks in politics and business in America.
It's a generalization, but military service is not big with the Asian families I've known.
Well, the point of military is to serve their country, which is contrary to Asians' focus on winning the prize.
Well I've met a lot of indian americans in government service - state, cia, treasury so it isn't an issue of 'service to country'.
Or do you view military service has a higher calling than civil service?
I have great respect for some of government employees I've met, but the fact remains: civil servants do not risk their lives.
Tell that to the 100+ stars on the north wall in OHB or Chris Stevens and other FSO's killed.
Anonymous
08/15/2015 21:19
Subject: Some facts about Holistic Admissions Criteria from Stanford Daily
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
It's a generalization, but military service is not big with the Asian families I've known.
Well, the point of military is to serve their country, which is contrary to Asians' focus on winning the prize.
Well I've met a lot of indian americans in government service - state, cia, treasury so it isn't an issue of 'service to country'.
Or do you view military service has a higher calling than civil service?
I have great respect for some of government employees I've met, but the fact remains: civil servants do not risk their lives.