Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Indeed. The jews created the University of Chicago just for this reason. I personally think U. Chicago is a great University, better than HYP.

Good point

Great university, but not founded by or for Jews. John D. Rockefeller and some Baptist educational organization provided the money and Marshall Field donated the land.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Indeed. The jews created the University of Chicago just for this reason. I personally think U. Chicago is a great University, better than HYP.

Good point

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The narrative that underlies the these Asian race bias lawsuits— that Asian Americans need higher SAT scores to get into elite schools — is powerful. But it is also deeply misleading. It feeds the myth that elite universities have required scores for applicants and that meeting these requirements should guarantee acceptance. In reality, in elite admissions, a high SAT score is generally a necessary but insufficient condition.

This myth is commonly believed by many, along with a persistent belief that a perfect or near perfect SAT score, along with the appropriate extracurricular activities, a top class ranking and great AP test scores can be a golden ticket to the college of one’s choice. Unfortunately, Ivies gets thousands of applications from students who meet this profile for its limited number of spots. Most will be rejected.

The biggest problem the Asian American groups suing on this issue will have is to prove that their application, which includes interviews, and teacher recommendations, among other factors, is superior in all aspects, to others who were accepted. They will also need to prove that there is a distinct pattern or trend that shows a negative impact to Asians. Simply citing a difference in SAT scores between AAs and Asians, is not going for cut it since it's only one of many factors in decision making.

This is hard news for a lot of hard working, most likely very well deserving Asian applicants. What saddens me most about this is that inequality has brought things to the point where you have rejected Asian groups, complaining about black enrollment in Ivies based on SAT scores, when AA representation is virtually immaterial in number. Back in the day, a student rejected from Yale could go to Fordham or UMD compete in the work world and potentially reach elite income status, just as well as the Yale grad. These days, with inequality the way it is, people feel in order to make it they MUST attend an elite school. To the point where they will sue on frivolous grounds to fight for a handful a slots they feel entitled to. Such desperation. If this is where we are now, I wonder what's going to happen when a large chuck of white collar and tech jobs go away due to automation and outsourcing. Wall st, Big Law and healthcare are replacing more staff with programming every year. What will affirmative action look like then?

On a separate note, I'm quite surprised, with all these feeling of bias in admissions, that Asian groups have not created their own colleges yet. They already have a blue print from ethnic groups that, you know, actually were racial discriminated against in admissions (Jews: Brandeis, Blacks: Howard, Morehouse, etc.).

Indeed. The jews created the University of Chicago just for this reason. I personally think U. Chicago is a great University, better than HYP.

Anonymous wrote:The narrative that underlies the these Asian race bias lawsuits— that Asian Americans need higher SAT scores to get into elite schools — is powerful. But it is also deeply misleading. It feeds the myth that elite universities have required scores for applicants and that meeting these requirements should guarantee acceptance. In reality, in elite admissions, a high SAT score is generally a necessary but insufficient condition.

This myth is commonly believed by many, along with a persistent belief that a perfect or near perfect SAT score, along with the appropriate extracurricular activities, a top class ranking and great AP test scores can be a golden ticket to the college of one’s choice. Unfortunately, Ivies gets thousands of applications from students who meet this profile for its limited number of spots. Most will be rejected.

The biggest problem the Asian American groups suing on this issue will have is to prove that their application, which includes interviews, and teacher recommendations, among other factors, is superior in all aspects, to others who were accepted. They will also need to prove that there is a distinct pattern or trend that shows a negative impact to Asians. Simply citing a difference in SAT scores between AAs and Asians, is not going for cut it since it's only one of many factors in decision making.

This is hard news for a lot of hard working, most likely very well deserving Asian applicants. What saddens me most about this is that inequality has brought things to the point where you have rejected Asian groups, complaining about black enrollment in Ivies based on SAT scores, when AA representation is virtually immaterial in number. Back in the day, a student rejected from Yale could go to Fordham or UMD compete in the work world and potentially reach elite income status, just as well as the Yale grad. These days, with inequality the way it is, people feel in order to make it they MUST attend an elite school. To the point where they will sue on frivolous grounds to fight for a handful a slots they feel entitled to. Such desperation. If this is where we are now, I wonder what's going to happen when a large chuck of white collar and tech jobs go away due to automation and outsourcing. Wall st, Big Law and healthcare are replacing more staff with programming every year. What will affirmative action look like then?

On a separate note, I'm quite surprised, with all these feeling of bias in admissions, that Asian groups have not created their own colleges yet. They already have a blue print from ethnic groups that, you know, actually were racial discriminated against in admissions (Jews: Brandeis, Blacks: Howard, Morehouse, etc.).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious what these people attacking AA think should be the criteria for admission. Diversity is more than about race. I just read the story of a three - tour combat veteran admitted to Harvard who admits his HS grades and SAT scores were nothing near what the current crop of high achieving high school graduates. Did he displace some poor valedictorian who parents think their snowflake better deserved entrance. Harvard and these other schools want real people who can add some new, different perspective to a class. Automatons of the type described in William Dereszewicz's "Excellent Sheep" are not always wanted.

And this is true of any race. The paint-by-number achiever types who have never failed, taken a detour, broken a rule or had a doubt are not the kids you want in elite universities. Unfortunately, right now too many excellent sheep are getting in and more feel entitled to.

+1. Previous poster seems to hold the racist opinion that only Asians are "automatons."

In any case, to make this simpler, let's contrast two extremes: the kids of a poor Vietnamese immigrant vs the kids of a wealthy black lawyer.

Right now, race-conscious affirmative action penalizes the first and favors the second.

Why? THAT's the bias we are discussing in this thread.

Your example assumes that a poor Asian would be passed over for a rich AA based on affirmative action. In practice, thats not how it works. Both groups are under affirmative action. To expand on your example, that poor Asian with excellent scores may have been passed up by virtually any person from any race that has inferior scores, but may be superior in other areas.

Lets get something straight: Affirmative action does not = schools accepting inferior applicants simply to increase diversity. Thats not what the law says, and its not how its used in practice. Race is to be factored into the decision, as it should be, given generational impact having the lack of access has had to various minority groups in this country. Its not meant to be used as a deciding factor. As someone who has worked in college admissions for decades, I can attest to this.

Continuing with your example, in a school like Harvard, in which Asians as a whole are over-represented, that poor Vietnamese student that has an excellent profile, but didn't get accepted would have a very hard time proving that they were not accepted as a result of "race conscience" admissions, or in better terms, "race quotas."

He might have a very hard time PROVING that he was not accepted as a result of "race conscience" admissions, but following your own logic that is EXACTLY what happened. He was bundled into some "Asian" group, which some random dudes declared to be "over-represented," and that was a contributing factor to his fate. Even if on his own race-free merits he may have been superior to some admitted whites and blacks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious what these people attacking AA think should be the criteria for admission. Diversity is more than about race. I just read the story of a three - tour combat veteran admitted to Harvard who admits his HS grades and SAT scores were nothing near what the current crop of high achieving high school graduates. Did he displace some poor valedictorian who parents think their snowflake better deserved entrance. Harvard and these other schools want real people who can add some new, different perspective to a class. Automatons of the type described in William Dereszewicz's "Excellent Sheep" are not always wanted.

And this is true of any race. The paint-by-number achiever types who have never failed, taken a detour, broken a rule or had a doubt are not the kids you want in elite universities. Unfortunately, right now too many excellent sheep are getting in and more feel entitled to.

+1. Previous poster seems to hold the racist opinion that only Asians are "automatons."

In any case, to make this simpler, let's contrast two extremes: the kids of a poor Vietnamese immigrant vs the kids of a wealthy black lawyer.

Right now, race-conscious affirmative action penalizes the first and favors the second.

Why? THAT's the bias we are discussing in this thread.

Your example assumes that a poor Asian would be passed over for a rich AA based on affirmative action. In practice, thats not how it works. Both groups are under affirmative action. To expand on your example, that poor Asian with excellent scores may have been passed up by virtually any person from any race that has inferior scores, but may be superior in other areas.

Lets get something straight: Affirmative action does not = schools accepting inferior applicants simply to increase diversity. Thats not what the law says, and its not how its used in practice. Race is to be factored into the decision, as it should be, given generational impact having the lack of access has had to various minority groups in this country. Its not meant to be used as a deciding factor. As someone who has worked in college admissions for decades, I can attest to this.

Continuing with your example, in a school like Harvard, in which Asians as a whole are over-represented, that poor Vietnamese student that has an excellent profile, but didn't get accepted would have a very hard time proving that they were not accepted as a result of "race conscience" admissions, or in better terms, "race quotas."

He might have a very hard time PROVING that he was not accepted as a result of "race conscience" admissions, but following your own logic that is EXACTLY what happened. He was bundled into some "Asian" group, which some random dudes declared to be "over-represented," and that was a contributing factor to his fate. Even if on his own race-free merits he may have been superior to some admitted whites and blacks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious what these people attacking AA think should be the criteria for admission. Diversity is more than about race. I just read the story of a three - tour combat veteran admitted to Harvard who admits his HS grades and SAT scores were nothing near what the current crop of high achieving high school graduates. Did he displace some poor valedictorian who parents think their snowflake better deserved entrance. Harvard and these other schools want real people who can add some new, different perspective to a class. Automatons of the type described in William Dereszewicz's "Excellent Sheep" are not always wanted.

And this is true of any race. The paint-by-number achiever types who have never failed, taken a detour, broken a rule or had a doubt are not the kids you want in elite universities. Unfortunately, right now too many excellent sheep are getting in and more feel entitled to.

+1. Previous poster seems to hold the racist opinion that only Asians are "automatons."

In any case, to make this simpler, let's contrast two extremes: the kids of a poor Vietnamese immigrant vs the kids of a wealthy black lawyer.

Right now, race-conscious affirmative action penalizes the first and favors the second.

Why? THAT's the bias we are discussing in this thread.

Your example assumes that a poor Asian would be passed over for a rich AA based on affirmative action. In practice, thats not how it works. Both groups are under affirmative action. To expand on your example, that poor Asian with excellent scores may have been passed up by virtually any person from any race that has inferior scores, but may be superior in other areas.

Lets get something straight: Affirmative action does not = schools accepting inferior applicants simply to increase diversity. Thats not what the law says, and its not how its used in practice. Race is to be factored into the decision, as it should be, given generational impact having the lack of access has had to various minority groups in this country. Its not meant to be used as a deciding factor. As someone who has worked in college admissions for decades, I can attest to this.

Continuing with your example, in a school like Harvard, in which Asians as a whole are over-represented, that poor Vietnamese student that has an excellent profile, but didn't get accepted would have a very hard time proving that they were not accepted as a result of "race conscience" admissions, or in better terms, "race quotas."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious what these people attacking AA think should be the criteria for admission. Diversity is more than about race. I just read the story of a three - tour combat veteran admitted to Harvard who admits his HS grades and SAT scores were nothing near what the current crop of high achieving high school graduates. Did he displace some poor valedictorian who parents think their snowflake better deserved entrance. Harvard and these other schools want real people who can add some new, different perspective to a class. Automatons of the type described in William Dereszewicz's "Excellent Sheep" are not always wanted.

And this is true of any race. The paint-by-number achiever types who have never failed, taken a detour, broken a rule or had a doubt are not the kids you want in elite universities. Unfortunately, right now too many excellent sheep are getting in and more feel entitled to.

+1. Previous poster seems to hold the racist opinion that only Asians are "automatons."

In any case, to make this simpler, let's contrast two extremes: the kids of a poor Vietnamese immigrant vs the kids of a wealthy black lawyer.

Right now, race-conscious affirmative action penalizes the first and favors the second.

Why? THAT's the bias we are discussing in this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious what these people attacking AA think should be the criteria for admission. Diversity is more than about race. I just read the story of a three - tour combat veteran admitted to Harvard who admits his HS grades and SAT scores were nothing near what the current crop of high achieving high school graduates. Did he displace some poor valedictorian who parents think their snowflake better deserved entrance. Harvard and these other schools want real people who can add some new, different perspective to a class. Automatons of the type described in William Dereszewicz's "Excellent Sheep" are not always wanted.

And this is true of any race. The paint-by-number achiever types who have never failed, taken a detour, broken a rule or had a doubt are not the kids you want in elite universities. Unfortunately, right now too many excellent sheep are getting in and more feel entitled to.

+1. Previous poster seems to hold the racist opinion that only Asians are "automatons."

In any case, to make this simpler, let's contrast two extremes: the kids of a poor Vietnamese immigrant vs the kids of a wealthy black lawyer.

Right now, race-conscious affirmative action penalizes the first and favors the second.

Why? THAT's the bias we are discussing in this thread.

How? The Asian groups have made an allegation that does not hold water. No evidence at all that a poor Vietnamese person wth stellar credentials is at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the offspring of a wealth black lawyer. As noted above, the Ivies seek to create a well rounded class -- legally, they are allowed to do this.

That's your opinion, which contradicts the facts as I understand them (I'm not Asian, btw). Everything else the same, poor Vietnamese person doesn't get in, wealthy black (or white or Latino) does.