<p>
That should be an interesting statistical adjustment.</p>
<p>Has this thread now touched on every single hotly and continually debated topic yet? </p>
<p>Affirmative action, STEM vs other majors, do you need an Ivy pedigree to get a decent job, what is the importance of the SAT in college admissions, is the SAT score predictive of college performance, “tiger” parents, etc. etc.</p>
<p>Maybe a thousand more posts and we can consolidate the forum into one thread. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do. However, that doesn’t take away from my point. If a small LAC has a mix of majors that produce few investment bankers, and an Asian (or otherwise) kid wants to become an investment banker and hence shuns the small LAC, the kid is making a completely rational decision. No amount of hand waving and belly aching about how the kid is not considering the potential to have an excellent LA education and looking beyond HYPSM will change the fact that the kid’s decision was completely rational. (S)he is not looking for a LA education that have a high odd of not leading to a investment banking career. It is really as simple as that.</p>
<p>As for SATs, I think they are a joke. So are the other exams like GRE and GMAT. It it were up to me, I would scratch all that, and have an unified high school exam covering all kids across the country (like the IB exam, for example).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure how it works, but don’t you have to have standing to appeal a ruling? Out here in California only the governor could appeal the ruling against Prop 8 and he chose not to.</p>
<p>but in this case I’m not sure how they define who has standing. Well, in all cases actually, I know very little about it.</p>
<p>Like I said, my knowledge of the law basically ends at “Don’t run that red light.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think what this thread has not discussed is respect for other people’s choices. There is a group who feel free to disparage the choices made by Asians. They need to understand the concept of a free country. Apparently their liberal arts educations failed to instill this spirit of respect for choice in them, and instead made them doctrinaire.</p>
<p>
Okay. One more topic down.</p>
<p>
Hmmm. I guess they shouldn’t feel free in this free country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmm. Freedom to criticize other people’s freedom … and shut out other people’s freedom through AA. Now that’s the epitome of freedom indeed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On a serious note, I certainly wouldn’t disparage anyone’s choice to take up science or technology. It would be a little silly since I studied those subjects.</p>
<p>But I can understand why a university might be concerned about having everyone major in the same fields. It’s tough to keep an area of scholarship alive if nobody wants to study it. And I certainly appreciate the arts, humanities and social sciences. If it weren’t for social scientists we wouldn’t have all those comprehensive studies on admissions policy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know about shutting out people’s freedom through AA. That’s an activity, not speech. That isn’t what you mentioned in the quote I referenced. But as far as the freedom to criticize other people’s choices - yes, the ability to do that is a hallmark of a free society. Unless you think censoring their opinions is what freedom is all about.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps the first question to ask is why no one wants to study it.</p>
<p>
What are you talking about?</p>
<p>My guarantee stands. [United</a> States Code: Title 28,1254. Courts of appeals; certiorari; certified questions](<a href=“http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001254----000-.html]United”>28 U.S. Code § 1254 - Courts of appeals; certiorari; certified questions | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As a left libertarian I believe that if someone else’s choice is not breaking the law, and is not infringing on my freedom, I have no right to criticize that choice. I may not like it, I may not follow it, but criticizing that is fundamentally unAmerican. Case in point, gay marriage.</p>
<p>Not to mention that criticizing other people’s choices is fruitless. Pizzagirl - for example - can keep getting upset that Asians overwhelming want to study STEM instead of theology, but she cannot do anything to change that. So why bother?</p>
<p>I have nothing against anyone studying theology, of course. However, if someone with a poorer overall student portfolio displaces someone with an overall stronger student portfolio, simply on the ground that the former wants to study theology and the latter STEM, that is unfair in my view. Still, I am OK to put up with that, as it is not illegal.</p>
<p>But if the decision combines the choice of major with race, that’s patently illegal. I cannot for the life of me understand how some Americans can support that, while also supporting AA.</p>
<p>
Fair point. I should rephrase my statement. Not that nobody wants to study it, but that the people who do want to study it are not afforded the opportunity. In other words, if the school has a choice between admitting someone wishing to study French, and someone wishing to study engineering, all other criteria being equal, and assuming they have a full contingent of engineering students, IMO they are within their rights to give preference to the student wishing to study French.</p>
<p>
Huh? So you would make it illegal? That does not comport with any notion of freedom I know. </p>
<p>BTW. Thus far, AA is still legal, but you seem to have no problem criticizing that choice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you saying Ward Connerly will not file a writ of certiorari?</p>
<p>
Was Ward Connerly a party to the action? Does that matter? I would be interested to hear more clarification from mokusatsu. He/she seems to know a lot about this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The highlighted part is the key. However, there has been several (anecdotal) comments from admissions officers that they give preference to non-STEM majors even when all other criteria are not equal, as otherwise non-STEM majors will be rooted out of LA institutions. The usual ground for justifying such nonsense is that STEM majors lack texture.</p>
<p>I wonder what texture is? Can someone develop some texture with a pumice stone?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh no, I wouldn’t make it illegal. I would just continue to be bemused and shake my head.</p>
<p>It’s funny how AA started and what it has now become.</p>
<p>The term “affirmative action” was first used in the United States. It first appeared in Executive Order 10925, which was signed by President John F. Kennedy on March 6, 1961, and it was used to refer to measures to achieve non-discrimination. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required federal contractors to take “affirmative action” to hire without regard to race, religion and national origin. In 1968, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list.</p>
<p>[Affirmative</a> action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Affirmative action - Wikipedia”>Affirmative action - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>I am totally OK with the original intent of AA.</p>
<p>
Which you have every right to do in a free society.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, a small LAC happens to top the list, above HYPSM, in this by-school ranking:</p>
<p>[Top</a> US Colleges ? Graduate Salary Statistics](<a href=“http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/top-us-colleges-graduate-salary-statistics.asp]Top”>http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/top-us-colleges-graduate-salary-statistics.asp)</p>
<p>But then it is obvious that major mix at each school has a lot to do with pay levels by graduates. Schools with lots of humanities and biology majors are unlikely to do as well as peer schools that are heavier in other majors.</p>