<p>It’s a good question, collegeinusa.</p>
<p>I hope you get some straight answers.</p>
<p>collegeinusa:</p>
<p>I’m a Japanese student at a T5 college. While nbachris’s comment could be considered rude, given its context I do not believe it was. By “yellow peril”, nbachris meant to convey the historical fear that some whites have of Asians displacing their position in society. He meant that if Americans are ready for merit, they should be prepared for 50% Asian enrollment at all of America’s best universities. Pure, objective merit doesn’t favor whites. It favors Asians - a lot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would anyone expect any other outcome? The elites are far more likely to be in the position to benefit from Affirmative Action. The fact that a black student is slightly more likely to squeeze into Harvard with a 1350/1600 means absolutely nothing to all but maybe a 1000 blacks a year.</p>
<p>If you remove athletic recruiting from college admissions, you will be hurting URMs, too.</p>
<p>According to the NCAA, student athletes graduate nearly at the same levels as their peers. With the exception, only, of those who play football and basketball at the college level, which have a much lower graduation rate, unfortunately.</p>
<p>These are two huge revenue generating sports in colleges, and ones that often require students to spend more time in practices and games than in the classroom or in their studies.</p>
<p>Naerl:</p>
<p>I have two kids in HY. I can read what he said. I did not oppose his views on AA. </p>
<p>I have a problem with word “Yellow Peril” as they think chinese are going to detroy other people. When I was a TA in a top 10 university, people made fun of my fellow chinese graduate students by calling them “Yellow Peril”. Scion ago, most of the chinse who came as graduate students have severe problems with English that we tried to compensate with Quantitaive skills. people made fun of us by calling us “Yellow Perils.”</p>
<p>I think we all have to be sensitive to how these kinds of racially charged terms can be taken - whether in jest, or in all seriousness.</p>
<p>collegeinusa:</p>
<p>That’s cool that you have two kids in HY. I attend one of those schools so one of your kids might be a friend of mine. We’re a tight community. :-)</p>
<p>Yellow Peril doesn’t just describe the Chinese. It describes all Asians. It doesn’t connote destruction so much as it connotes displacement. When whites used Yellow Peril, they weren’t worried about Asian’s destroying them* They’re worried about us overrunning their elite universities and executive board rooms. If you’ve been to graduate school you know that we’re very well represented, especially in the sciences and engineering. In some top programs, we’re the majority. If undergraduate colleges were as meritocratic as graduate admissions, we might be the majority at many of the top colleges. If you’re afraid of Asians taking a disproportionately large amount of seats at the best universities and firms and jobs, you’re afraid of the “Yellow Peril”. You’ve got that age old fear of Asians taking over anything and everything that requires a sharp mind.</p>
<p>Unless they were talking about Japanese Armament, in which case they were worried about Asians destroying them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Try me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe, but I personally am not arguing for a “pure, objective merit”-based system. I’m saying we should ditch racial and gender preferences. You can keep other subjective criteria, like essays, extracurriculars, recommendations, leadership, character, personal qualities, and so forth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know why anyone would! Yet, you’d be surprised to know how common it is to encounter statements like, “I support affirmative action because I want to give those poor kids from the ghetto a chance.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’d be hurting some URMs, but you’d be hurting a lot more white students. The student:athlete ratio is a lot lower for black students than it is for white students. Black students are only really being recruited for three sports: football, basketball, and track.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If that makes them meritorious then Affirmative Action isn’t that big of a problem at the top colleges. According to JBHE, African-American students graduate at nearly the same levels as their peers at the most elite colleges.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A recruited football or basketball player is a lot more likely to have a shaky foundational education than a tennis player. Your pulling talent from essentially two different socioeconomic groups with different educational opportunities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ain’t that the truth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Historically speaking, all the criteria you just listed were implemented into the admissions process by universities like Harvard and Yale in the early 20th century when Jews threatened to displace Gentile whites. My problem with those criteria are that they threaten to artificially limit Asian enrollment while decreasing minority enrollment under the guise of a more meritocratic system. Such a system wouldn’t really be more meritorious - at least not to guys like me - but it would be a whole lot less colorful. I personally don’t see the benefit. For me, if Asian enrollment has to be capped, I’d prefer it be capped for the sake of diversity. At least I get something out of diversity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, you are right. Prior to the 1920s, we used to have the same admissions system as the rest of the world: tests determine your life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you mean that the subjective criteria I mentioned threaten to limit Asian enrollment but actually limit “underrepresented” minority enrollment?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When you say, “Such a system…,” do you mean the same system that is currently practiced by many elite universities sans racial and gender preferences? If so, are you acknowledging that racial classification is a pretty big factor?</p>
<p>As a libertarian, I hate identity politics. And as someone who believes that racial classification has no biological basis, it pains me to say the following: I can’t believe you, a Japanese, actually support capping Asian enrollment for any reason. I can’t believe you buy into the argument that it’s actually possible to have “too many” Asians. Say it ain’t so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’d be incorrect.</p>
<p>Reasoning - </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Playing on the streets in Harlem isn’t a verifiable cridential. Taking standardized testing and going to prep school is.</p></li>
<li><p>Harlem is dangerous for white kids, prep school is completely safe for minorities.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>You get what you earn, that’s America for you. Got to love Lady Liberty.</p>
<p>Also, NearL, if you don’t mind, please elaborate on why I shouldn’t be prepared to make the argument that affirmative action for Chinese and Japanese is as justified as it is for Hispanics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A system sans racial and gender considerations wouldn’t be much more meritorious without one. By writing that I am not acknowledging that racial classification is a big factor in admissions. For the individual applicant it’s usually just another part of a student profile that may or may not tip an applicant toward enrollment. </p>
<p>I do think that racial classification is a pretty big factor in life. If being in a diverse environment has taught me anything, it’s that some races are treated in a different, appreciably worse, manner.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can probably afford to hate identity politics. I don’t think certain minorities can afford to do so - people will notice their race whether they believe that their above racial politics or not. If Ward Connerly walks into a store at night, he’s still subject to be followed. The guy following him won’t care whether or not Connerly identifies with black people politically. Connerly will just be a black guy walking around a store at night, and to some people that situation warrant suspicion. </p>
<p>I never supported capping Asian enrollment. I just realize that ‘subjective’ criteria (and to a lesser extent, socioeconomic affirmative action) are measures to ensure a white majority and cap Asian enrollment. I argue that, if people must cap Asian enrollment, at least make the class colorful and interesting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Harlem is no more dangerous for white kids than it is for black kids. In case you haven’t noticed, most crime committed in Harlem is against people that live in Harlem and people that look like they live in Harlem. At most a white kid might feel excluded and out of place there. But a minority might also feel excluded and out of place in a mostly white prep school, too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…and after we found out that tests didn’t result in the desired outcomes for Gentile whites, we changed the rules - but only under those conditions.</p>
<p>NearL</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People who are AA graduating by avoiding tough qunatitaive program in math/econ/physics.</p>
<p>Q. How many AA students are enrolled in math/Physics program?
A. On the whole AA% basis very low - most go to non qunat basis program or graduting in easy program such as govrenment, AA studies etc.</p>
<p>Q. How many AA student in economics program take hard math courses in economics?
A. To graudate with higher GPA, most AA enroll non math based program and take barely math 19 to gradaute. You will find rarely, you will find anyone to take math 23 or higher. There are some excption to the rule but overall percaentage basis they do not take math based classes. This is aplicable to rich white and rich asian students too.</p>
<p>AA Kids who atteneded private prep schools and have relatively higher socioeconomic conditions compare to their friedns who come from a much poor background then them avoid math based classes just like rich white stduents. I am not talking about poor inner city AA kids who came to IVY leauge based on merits (they came despite having biiger odds against them) as compares to rich AA kids who came due to quota system.</p>
<p>AA system helps rich minorities AA kids more than poor inner city AA kids</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But you said that “Such a system [ie. same as what we have today minus racial and gender preferences]…would be a whole lot less colorful.” How do you reconcile that with your “not acknowledging that racial classification is a big factor in admissions”? </p>
<p>Also, did you mean that the subjective criteria I mentioned threaten to limit Asian enrollment but actually limit “underrepresented” minority enrollment?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not going to claim that any of my racial profiling experiences are as bad as what some blacks may have to suffer through. Now having said that, a few years back, one of my friends gave me a ride home on the day that high school got out for summer. The parking lot was packed with cars trying to get out, so policemen were directing traffic. My friend switched lanes in an attempt to get out faster. A policeman came over and told him, “Since you’re such a smartass, you can wait until he [another car that came after us on the previous lane] goes first.” Right after he said that, an SUV with four black students and music blaring did the same thing my friend did; the driver switched lanes. But this time, the policeman didn’t do anything. He wasn’t afraid of two Chinese students, but he was afraid of four black students. I’ll never forget the look on his face; he went from hard to soft in less than second.</p>
<p>You may think that supporting racial preferences to create diversity will enable cross-racial understanding, but as Justice Kennedy as written, “To make race matter now so that it might not matter later may entrench the very prejudices we seek to overcome.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What kind of a white majority are we talking about here? Harvard sons or Jews? Subjective criteria don’t necessarily harm Asians.</p>
<p>
The top school with the highest yield rate among black students is MIT.</p>
<p>Kyōdai, don’t tell me that you were bluffing when you said I shouldn’t be prepared to make the argument that affirmative action for Chinese and Japanese is as justified as it is for Hispanics…</p>