<p>
</p>
<p>It wasn’t my intention to use the word that way, and that definition does not appear to be “official,” but nice catch!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You came up with that even though I italicized and underlined a sentence that led to my asking Bay why Larry Summers isn’t Larry Samuelson? No wonder it’s so hard for us to have a discussion.</p>
<p>The reason we can’t have a discussion is that you don’t like to answer questions.</p>
<p>fab,
Even with the name change, Larry Summers did not get into Harvard.</p>
<p>The most you can conclude from the Summers family changing their name from Samuelson is that at the time, they, like many other Jewish families, felt some potential discrimination. Other families did not - like my family of origin --and I had a maiden last name which was undeniably, recognizably Jewish (far more than a Samuelson would ever be). And this proves … what? Different Jewish people have different reactions to changing their names? Which has what to do with anything? The topic on this board is whether Asians are discriminated against unfairly in college admissions, and the historic name-changing practices of Jewish families are completely irrelevant, as interesting of a side-diversion as they may be. </p>
<p>This is your typical non-answer, fab. There is no “conclusion” about anything to be drawn from what the Summers family chose to do, and why are they looming so large anyway? They’re just one of millions of Jewish families who either chose to Americanize their names, or didn’t. Nothing more. They aren’t bellweathers or markers of anything beyond their own personal family experience.</p>
<p>And for someone who purports to be not racist, you’re dragging Jewish name changes in here as if they are meaningful or germane to the discussion, and you’re the one who accused me of “defending” the Tiger Dad simply because he happened to be Jewish and I am too in another conversation - even though I hadn’t, and felt that he was just as “bad” for allowing the Tiger Mom to do what she did to those kids. You’re the one who repeatedly steers the conversation to Jews when they aren’t the subject of this discussion. You’re the one who demonstrates a historical lack of understanding by equating the Jewish quota situation in Harvard in the 1920’s to what Asian-Americans deal with today. You’ve got some resentments there, buddy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK, first, what’s your point? Harvard isn’t everything; I didn’t even apply to Harvard when I was 17. To quote Pizzagirl, I “zigged” when everyone else “zagged,” and I finished my senior year with smiles instead of frowns. (Another reason why I’m immune to most of her favorite lines and charges to Asians.)</p>
<p>Second, I have never said that declining to self-identify and changing one’s surname means admission at Harvard. If you will re-read the CONTEXT of our discussion, you’ll find that changing one’s surname is meant to get around “C’mon, your last name is Wong, what difference does not self-identifying make?”</p>
<p>Third, Summers went to MIT, so I don’t think you should’ve used him as an example to prove your “point.”</p>
<p>I always wondered why it is not wholistic and why a word with a hole in it is used in the sense of all encompassing. Somebody along the way during the middle ages dropped the W?</p>
<p>No wonder Larry the cable guy could nt get along with Harvard faculty. They all felt superior to him what with him going to MIT.</p>
<p>Re #2324</p>
<p>Did you even read my post #2318? Does italicizing and underlining a sentence not draw your attention to it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you want to call me a racist, just say so. Please stop with this “allegedly” and “purports to be not” stuff. Of course, you should have evidence for your claim.</p>
<p>As for Rubenfeld, as I recall it, you didn’t criticize him equally until I brought it up. Feel free to dispute that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>:D<br>
Do you not wish sometimes that this was truly a courtroom?</p>
<p>Judge: *The witness will answer the question. *</p>
<p>But hey, let’s talk about Jews for a minute. As noted above, there was terrible anti-Semitism in this country in the past, and elite colleges discriminated against Jews to keep them out.</p>
<p>What happened to change this? Well, some of the colleges changed their practices. But the big change, in my opinion, is that Jews became more and more assimilated to the mainstream of American life. They moved to more places, picked up all kinds of sports and activities, learned to speak English really well, end went into all different fields of endeavor. Now, you don’t hear that much about anti-Semitism in the US (although there are still vestiges). Does anybody care that, say, Amy Winehouse is Jewish? I don’t think so. For what it’s worth, I think this is already happening with Asians as well.</p>
<p>
This is funny, coming from somebody who mentions Jian Li all the time.</p>
<p>“Holisiticity” incredible!
What about “Holisiticism”!!!</p>
<p>Sorghum, that was excellent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>FWIW, trying to play wedge politics between blacks and Jews is a time honored right-wing tradition. Otherwise, it would make little sense for Fabrizio to continually use the Jewish quota as a historic model for discrimination in college admissions since 1) it predates affirmative action by many decades 2) demonstrates that discrimination can exist independently from affirmative action and 3) shows that affirmative action is being used as a red herring in the current discussion.</p>
<p>fab,
I wasn’t trying to prove a point. This convo originated with your suggestion that applicant names be substituted with numbers. What was your point in suggesting it, if not to imply that Asians are not getting into elite colleges because of their names? Then you brought up Larry Summers as someone who changed his name (which was wrong - his father changed his name), in response to my statement that people who have extreme suspicions of discrimination can change their names like you did.</p>
<p>Why did you change your name? </p>
<p>epiphany,</p>
<p>I think fab would have been held in contempt of court by now, for repeatedly not answering the question. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What the? “Learned to speak English really well”? What is that supposed to mean? Are you channeling Alexandra Wallace?</p>
<p>And if you want to talk about “answering questions,” Hunt, let’s not forget that what started THIS current discussion:</p>
<p>Hunt: …I think that the real agenda for some people, at least, is to promote more “transparent” admissions criteria–which really has to mean primarily stats, because nothing else can be all that transparent.</p>
<p>Me: Did you have any objections to assigning each applicant a unique identifier per application cycle and limiting the infamous box to “Are you a ‘URM’? If ‘yes,’ please check one or more of the following:”?</p>
<p>Well, do you have any objections, Hunt? soomoo has indicated agreement, and the idea is similar to something epiphany in the past voiced support for. Bay, on the other hand, thinks it’s a disservice to Asian male cheerleaders who want to be teachers and white kids who learned how to speak Chinese really well. But what about you?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m right-wing (libertarian) yes, but you can’t have it both ways. Either I play ugly (identity) wedge politics, and I’m a racist; or I advocate that we be treated without regard to our racial classification, and I’m an anti-racist.</p>
<p>So make up your mind and pick one, because they can’t both be true. If you pick the first, then you have to explain why I support race-BLIND admissions and why I am arguing in favor of treatment without regard to racial classification. If you pick the second, then I expect an apology for insinuating that I play wedge politics between blacks and Jews.</p>
<p>Epiphany, that is an interesting analysis about California’s college opportunities vs those of other states vis a vis the Asian component of the population.</p>
<p>How does CA compare with Virginia? I have been quite impressed with VA’s publics, and aren’t there a number of privates, too?
To what extent is VA’s economy and therefore its public unis benefitting from its being part of the DC zone? Not that the DC unis are in Va, but one could also include schools like Georgetown, GWU, American in the same zone as the VA schools… And the MD, with its excellent publics and JHU, for instance, could also be included. All in a big blob
.
I realize that CA is also a super-size state, and there is quite an emphasis on the sciences in its economy. How does CA stack up against Texas??</p>
<p>I know this is OT. But I guess it would be interesting to see what % of populations of Va/Md/DC and TX are “Asian.” </p>
<p>TX and FL and CA would sem to have very large Hispanic populations, as well.
How do Hispanics show up at the top publics of all these states? At Stanford and UC’s?
Are URM’s going into STEM fields in CA?</p>
<p>p.s. I did not include MI despite its being an excellent state school, patly because it has already been discussed quite a bit on this thread, and partly because the state of MI is not in a strong economic condition…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It makes a lot of sense to use the Jewish quota as a historic model because many of the arguments for it were the same. The whole idea of “holistic” admissions was invented so that they could surreptitiously discriminate. The language they used then and today were remarkably similar (diversity, etc.)</p>
<p>Karabel uses the similarity between Jewish quotas and Asian discriminatino as a central theme.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK, Bay, let’s try this one more time. Ideally, I’d like for the “race box” to be done away with altogether, but as a COMPROMISE, I can accept assigning unique identifiers and modifying the box as I stated earlier.</p>
<p>You replied that everyone has the right to decline self-identification. Mokusatsu correctly noted that some surnames are highly identifiable. You correctly remembered that I changed my surname and called it an extreme measure. I then asked you why Larry Summers isn’t Larry Samuelson.</p>
<p>Your initial answer was true but missed the point. For the second time, you stopped reading too soon: Summers isn’t Samuelson because his father changed the family name. I never said Summers changed his own name; I merely asked you why he isn’t Samuelson. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I put my money where my mouth is. I don’t want to be a victim of a by definition impossible to detect “unconscious bias.” So I changed my surname.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just for the record, you never provided an answer to this question, but that is not surprising. I looked it up in an online biography, and the first reason given is that Robert, an up and coming economist, wanted to distinguish himself from his already famous older economist brother, Paul Samuelson. The book goes on to discuss the anti-Semitism faced by Paul during his career, postulating that this could also be a reason for Robert’s decision to change the family name.</p>