Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:identity politics, GOP style.

Well, to be fair, Identity Politics was indeed started by liberals.


Check your status here:

- black or African
- white
- Asian
- Hispanic
- Native American
- two or more races
- other
- in love with a tree
- polyamorous
- bisexual ambidextrous
- pansexual wiccan
- still deciding
- Brony


Each day, without fail, my middle school daughter would share some story about how another kid in her class has either switched gender or had embraced some other "form." I can no longer keep up.

So?

My rising junior dd recently filled out some info form on a college website. She was telling me that it not only presented about 10+ gender identity options, but the race question actually was phrased as "which race do you identify as." I suppose we can all just choose whatever we want now. It's like identity mad libs.

I fail to see the problem with this statement. I am half white and half URM. I always identify white. Remember your life experience is not universal to all.

There is an absolute in this situation. You are white and you are (unspecified?) URM. Asking what one identifies as instead of what one is implies that there is no absolute.

Even if race is removed from college applications, admissions officers will still make assumptions based on names

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:identity politics, GOP style.

Well, to be fair, Identity Politics was indeed started by liberals.


Check your status here:

- black or African
- white
- Asian
- Hispanic
- Native American
- two or more races
- other
- in love with a tree
- polyamorous
- bisexual ambidextrous
- pansexual wiccan
- still deciding
- Brony


Each day, without fail, my middle school daughter would share some story about how another kid in her class has either switched gender or had embraced some other "form." I can no longer keep up.

So?

My rising junior dd recently filled out some info form on a college website. She was telling me that it not only presented about 10+ gender identity options, but the race question actually was phrased as "which race do you identify as." I suppose we can all just choose whatever we want now. It's like identity mad libs.

I fail to see the problem with this statement. I am half white and half URM. I always identify white. Remember your life experience is not universal to all.

Asian parents come with a very high education attainment than average whites. Have you been watching the spelling bee or National science/math competitions? Asians top these disproportional to their 5% population. Asian Indians have been winning spelling bees every year for a decade now. The competition is only among Asian Indians because they have created the eco system to keep winning this. Many whites discount these as nothing more than memorizing words BUT it creates a culture of dedication to education, focus and competitive spirit that is applied to everything in life and they go on to be successful in college and career as doctors, engineers, lawyers and entrepreneurs. If there is no affirmative action, Asians will take over 50% of seats in every top 25 college in America?

I am sure you will be totally fine with it because you want it to be all merit based right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm generally pro-affirmative action but wouldn't a policy of affirmative action based on income work to accomplish the same goals AND take the wind out of the sails of the white nationalists?

I agree with this theoretically. But the issue is how do you prove someone is from poor socio-economic background. Income can be fudged many ways and wealthy whites/asians will work with their accountants to make themselves "financially look poor" for couple of years before their kids apply. Also does income alone change the social background of blacks? No. Many lower middle income or middle income blacks still live in a majority black neighborhood for family reasons.

How do you "prove" someone is a non-Asian person of color?

You can't and thats why admissions is not a clear Black/white issue and will always have shades of grey. So admissions will always be contentious no matter what the ratio is AS LONG AS it is viewed as a Zero-sum game. But it is not zero sum game because there is not just one great school. And with competition many previously lesser school starts getting better. So its not the end of the world UNLESS it is viewed with a racial zero-sum game of a black man's gain is a white man's loss. The administration wants to create that view for political purposes.

Anonymous wrote:Very outdated stereotypes about Asian-Americans, pp. Calling multiple, very different cultures all cheaters. Claiming Asian-Americans don't do sports. Do you even know any Asian-American kids?

I have one kid at Oakton HS and one at TJ. These are not assumptions.

Do some races find affirmative action to be insulting? The assumption that some races are less capable and therefore need lower criteria based only on the color of their skin seems an awful lot like racism.

Very outdated stereotypes about Asian-Americans, pp. Calling multiple, very different cultures all cheaters. Claiming Asian-Americans don't do sports. Do you even know any Asian-American kids?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm generally pro-affirmative action but wouldn't a policy of affirmative action based on income work to accomplish the same goals AND take the wind out of the sails of the white nationalists?

I agree with this theoretically. But the issue is how do you prove someone is from poor socio-economic background. Income can be fudged many ways and wealthy whites/asians will work with their accountants to make themselves "financially look poor" for couple of years before their kids apply. Also does income alone change the social background of blacks? No. Many lower middle income or middle income blacks still live in a majority black neighborhood for family reasons.

Therein lies the issue. Everyone is looking for a leg up, no one wants to actually do the work to get ahead.

What do you mean by "do the work to get ahead" ? Define that? Asians also top any admission tests and do plenty of "extra-curricular" activities. So are you ok if Asians are over 50% in any top school, because based on any objective measure they sure deserve it.

If they can rise above the culture of cheating, and if they are Asian Americans as opposed to international students, I feel that they deserve what they earn. Many Asian American families I know forbid sports and other pursuits and require the children to devote 99% of their free time to academics. That is not a lifestyle I would choose, but I assume children of any race would excel in academics with that strategy. I prioritize a well rounded and less stressful childhood over such an academic focus, and I am willing to allow my kids to "suffer" through less than an elite college in order to allow them other pursuits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out this chart to see exactly how this effect plays out in admissions to medical schools.



Article discussing it is here:

http://www.aei.org/publication/acceptance-rates-at-us-medical-schools-in-2015-reveal-ongoing-discrimination-against-asian-americans-and-whites/

You seem to believe this chart demonstrates a problem But it's important that we have doctors from different backgrounds/experiences, because it absolutely affects their practice of medicine and their ability to connect with patients. Men on average have higher MCAT scores than women--should they get preference in med school admissions? Isn't it important that we have female doctors as well as male ones?

There is so much that goes into being a good doctor that is not about achievement scores. You need some baseline level of intelligence to be a good doctor, but beyond that baseline, being a good doctor is about so much more than test scores or even innate intelligence--perhaps especially in the primary care specialties, where we have a shortage of providers. In fact, as discussed in the piece below, personality tests are more highly correlated with medical school success than are measures of cognition.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/health/14chen.html

High performance on multiple choice tests is not what makes someone a good doctor.

So someone having dark pigmentation in their skin helps you determine that he or she has these other important, non-score-related traits?

No, but recommendations, volunteer work and extracurriculars, and interviews might.

Am I to believe that there is such a high concentration of these other good traits among Hispanics and Blacks compared to Whites and Asians that they get accepted into medical school at 5-10x the rate with similar college grades and MCAT scores?

The AEI article takes data from the American Association of Medical Colleges and reformats it in the most inflammatory way possible, and then leaves off some pretty critical information. The original data from the American Association of Medical Colleges can be found here:

https://www.aamc.org/download/321498/data/factstablea18.pdf

And specifically, if you look at this table, some crucial facts can be gleaned:

https://www.aamc.org/download/321498/data/factstablea18.pdf



The average total MCAT score of applicants:

All applicants--501.8
White--504.0
Asian--503.1
Hispanic--496.2
Black--494.1

IOW, the average black applicant had an MCAT score that was 2 percent lower than the average white applicant. Not exactly scandalous.

What is also shown in this table (conveniently omitted from the AEI piece), is the racial make-up of the total applicant pool and the total matriculant pool:

All applicants--53,042
White--25,544 (48%)
Asian--10,906 (21%)
Hispanic--3,300 (6%)
Black--4,344 (8%)
Mixed race/ethnicity--4,734 (9%)

All matriculants--21,030
White--10,828 (51%)
Asian--4,475 (21%)
Hispanic--1,335 (6%)
Black--1,497 (7%)
Mixed race/ethnicity--1,858 (9%)

So admission rates (matriculants divided by applicants) are:

White--42%
Asian--41%
Hispanic--40%
Black--34%
Mixed race/ethnicity--39%

And the average total MCAT scores of matriculants are:

White--510.1
Asian--510.5
Hispanic--503.0
Black--502.5
Mixed race/ethnicity--508.1

In 2016-2017, the average black matriculant had a total MCAT score that was 1.5 percent lower than the average white matriculant.

Happy to be corrected if my math or reading of the AAMC's data is off.

Anonymous wrote:So I assume everyone who is opposed to affirmative action is also opposed to legacy admissions getting a leg up, right?

Why should Johnny get preference in admissions over Jamal or Jing or Jessie just because his parents went to that school.

Ofcourse not, then whats the point in paying the schools all 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:Cal tech admissions model for all schools.

Cal Tech is 29% whites, 41% Asian and 16% URM.

MIT is 35% white, 26% Asian, and 20% URM.

All the white people clebrating this need to take a minute and realize that if college admissions were truly race blind, there would be fewer whites and fewer URMs, and a lot more Asians. Right now, Asians are the group that takes a hit on college admissions, not whites. And both of the big lawsuits out there on race based admissions are brought by Asian Americans-- not whites.

Bingo. This is what many people are not getting. The affirmative action takes from Asians and gives it to Whites, Blacks and Hispanics. I am of Asian origin and honestly the really good asian students get through to top public schools like Berkley, UNC, UVA, Michigan etc EVEN IF they are rejected admission to Ivies. They do just fine in the end.

So I am for AA but it should be based on Socio-Economic factors with income as a big factor.

No. What you are not getting is that many people oppose race-based preferences in admissions for principled reasons - regardless of whether Asian Americans or anyone else might benefit most from their removal.

You didn't read my last sentence. Without Affirmative action many blacks and hispanics coming from disadvantaged background will never move up. College is ONLY one aspect of life NOT ALL for the wealthy and upper middle class. Students coming from a high social class get to where they want regardless of which college they go to. Thats not the case for many blacks if they never get to college and finish college because they get sucked right back into the gloom of their neighborhood.

They will "never" move up? Wow. If you think race-based preferences to college are the ONLY shot they will ever have in their entire lives, you have a terribly cynical and sad view of these kids and their potential. Certainly, there are other ways for them to succeed in life and for us to help them succeed.

Not to mention, you haven't accounted for mismatch theory, whereby there is good reason to believe that students do better when placed with peers who have similar grades and test scores as them.

(Also, you're just casually trying to slip in the whole "disadvantaged background" qualifier. Race-based preferences pertain to race, not other factors like socioeconomic background.)

Well the "never move up" pertains to most not all as there are exceptions to any rule. College is a real stepping stone for someone coming from a poor socio -economic background. And yes blacks and hispanics OVERWHELMINGLY come from disadvantaged backgrounds. So there is a co-relation between race and socio-economic background. Race along with socio-economic background is what the schools use for admissions, not race alone. But since the majority of blacks and hispanics qualify based on socio-economic status then race is a clear marker. UNTIL they improve their socio-economic status significantly then they deserve a helping hand in admissions. Many of them more than catch up while in college because it was their environment that was holding them back not lack of ability or effort.

If blacks and Hispanics OVERWHELMINGLY come from disadvantages backgrounds, as you say, then then would continue to benefit from affirmative action if it were based on income, not race. Why should a poor black or Hispanic be advantaged over a poor white Asian, or Jew?

Also, why should a rich black or hispanic be advantaged over a poor white, Jew, or Asian?

Do you have reading comprehension issues? Race is one of the criteria and not ONLY criterion used for admissions. There is no algorithm which includes various factors such as income, historical injustices, social status, family assets, Family alumni history, various scores, GPA, extra curricular activities etc. The issue is how do you allocate weight to each of these factors. So admissions is highly subjective and will always remain so. But the point being elite schools should not be like 75% asian, 20% white and the rest blacks and hispanics. Without Affirmative action thats how it will be. Asians come with so many advantages that the blacks or even whites simply can't match. The schools want to have a more balanced mix and they should have that right.

As far as I can tell, no one has suggested race is the only criteria used for admissions.

Then why are people against affirmative action if RACE is not the Only criterion for admission?

It could be because they are against giving advantages to certain people based on the color of their skin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all the pious, I hate discrimination in all forms. This should stop, even if it hurts white folks-- riddle me this.

Why do the title to this thread-- and the statements by the DOJ-- read "anti-white" discrimination and not "discrimination" or "anti-Asian discrimination," or even "Pro AA and Hispanic Bias,"when Asian students are held to higher standards, and objectively suffer more "discrimination" than whites?

Why is this new movement only for whites, and not for Asians? Or against discrimination in all forms? Because the DOJ says they are only looking at "anti-white" discrimination. As if the even worse anti-Asian discrimination is A Ok".



Dog whistle to a base that is losing patience with the Trump Train, maybe?

#MAGA

Racial wedge is the motivation for this. This administration knows it can't win the next term with its policies. There is an overt( no more covert dog whistles) to separate the whites from the non-whites and get the whites to vote for Trump based on mostly manufactured racial grievances. This is not good for the country's unity and democracy. Hopefully the educated whites will see through this and not fall for it.

+1 Divide and conquer is their MO.

Yep. Same strategy used by liberals who promote identity politics.

If there is pandering to white nationalists and racists or whites in general WHY is that not identity politics? Blacks have historical disadvantages due to slavery, jim crow and adverse social background to this day. Heck even today, they don't even get as many interview calls as whites with the same resume but only names changed. So yes an average black is disadvantaged compared to an average white.

So I assume everyone who is opposed to affirmative action is also opposed to legacy admissions getting a leg up, right?

Why should Johnny get preference in admissions over Jamal or Jing or Jessie just because his parents went to that school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cal tech admissions model for all schools.

Cal Tech is 29% whites, 41% Asian and 16% URM.

MIT is 35% white, 26% Asian, and 20% URM.

All the white people clebrating this need to take a minute and realize that if college admissions were truly race blind, there would be fewer whites and fewer URMs, and a lot more Asians. Right now, Asians are the group that takes a hit on college admissions, not whites. And both of the big lawsuits out there on race based admissions are brought by Asian Americans-- not whites.

Bingo. This is what many people are not getting. The affirmative action takes from Asians and gives it to Whites, Blacks and Hispanics. I am of Asian origin and honestly the really good asian students get through to top public schools like Berkley, UNC, UVA, Michigan etc EVEN IF they are rejected admission to Ivies. They do just fine in the end.

So I am for AA but it should be based on Socio-Economic factors with income as a big factor.

No. What you are not getting is that many people oppose race-based preferences in admissions for principled reasons - regardless of whether Asian Americans or anyone else might benefit most from their removal.

You didn't read my last sentence. Without Affirmative action many blacks and hispanics coming from disadvantaged background will never move up. College is ONLY one aspect of life NOT ALL for the wealthy and upper middle class. Students coming from a high social class get to where they want regardless of which college they go to. Thats not the case for many blacks if they never get to college and finish college because they get sucked right back into the gloom of their neighborhood.

They will "never" move up? Wow. If you think race-based preferences to college are the ONLY shot they will ever have in their entire lives, you have a terribly cynical and sad view of these kids and their potential. Certainly, there are other ways for them to succeed in life and for us to help them succeed.

Not to mention, you haven't accounted for mismatch theory, whereby there is good reason to believe that students do better when placed with peers who have similar grades and test scores as them.

(Also, you're just casually trying to slip in the whole "disadvantaged background" qualifier. Race-based preferences pertain to race, not other factors like socioeconomic background.)

Well the "never move up" pertains to most not all as there are exceptions to any rule. College is a real stepping stone for someone coming from a poor socio -economic background. And yes blacks and hispanics OVERWHELMINGLY come from disadvantaged backgrounds. So there is a co-relation between race and socio-economic background. Race along with socio-economic background is what the schools use for admissions, not race alone. But since the majority of blacks and hispanics qualify based on socio-economic status then race is a clear marker. UNTIL they improve their socio-economic status significantly then they deserve a helping hand in admissions. Many of them more than catch up while in college because it was their environment that was holding them back not lack of ability or effort.

If blacks and Hispanics OVERWHELMINGLY come from disadvantages backgrounds, as you say, then then would continue to benefit from affirmative action if it were based on income, not race. Why should a poor black or Hispanic be advantaged over a poor white Asian, or Jew?

Also, why should a rich black or hispanic be advantaged over a poor white, Jew, or Asian?

Do you have reading comprehension issues? Race is one of the criteria and not ONLY criterion used for admissions. There is no algorithm which includes various factors such as income, historical injustices, social status, family assets, Family alumni history, various scores, GPA, extra curricular activities etc. The issue is how do you allocate weight to each of these factors. So admissions is highly subjective and will always remain so. But the point being elite schools should not be like 75% asian, 20% white and the rest blacks and hispanics. Without Affirmative action thats how it will be. Asians come with so many advantages that the blacks or even whites simply can't match. The schools want to have a more balanced mix and they should have that right.

As far as I can tell, no one has suggested race is the only criteria used for admissions.

Then why are people against affirmative action if RACE is not the Only criterion for admission?