<p>Incidentally, if you read the final court ruling, there is nothing in it about AA. It is all about if the ballot was Constitutional.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As do I (find it a legitimate expression to choose). But that’s not the same thing as a guarantee of opportunity within that field of choice. And let’s take it out of the realm of choice, and hypothesize that we’re talking about an individual that has limited abilities and lopsided gifts in only one area. (Either in role or in field.) That person will nevertheless be legitimately constricted by such narrow abilities, in not only a free society but a free economy. There will be no guarantee that the college providing the best possible economic opportunity will admit him or her, and that will require him (and allow him, in a free society) to find some way, creatively, to apply those same gifts & narrow abilities in a different role, different location, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well then apparently unfortunately for you, this diverse nation called the United States of America, does value diversity, and highly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It may surprise you that the elite universities also value meritocracy, but define it differently than you do. (objectively plus subjectively, together)</p>
<p>But the grand thing about the virtually unrestrained economic opportunities in this country (unlike many, many other countries in which commerce is corrupt to the core, even at the lowest ends of commerce), is that anybody can open an educational institution, or a business, based on his or her ranked values – whether those values be merely personal in origin or additionally cultural in origin.</p>
<p>Epiphany, I fail to see your point. </p>
<p>I am not saying that STEM majors deserve a guaranteed spot, I am saying students whose overall portfolio is stronger deserve a guaranteed spot over students with weaker overall portfolio. </p>
<p>I am also saying that using choice of major as a guiding criteria for overall strength of portfolio is odious but legal, while using race as a guiding criteria for overall strength of portfolio is patently illegal. </p>
<p>Do you disagree with any of the above? If yes, I would like to know which one specifically, and why. Otherwise I am lost as to what you are trying to say. We are just talking past each other.</p>
<p>I am not going to get into a debate over whether diversity is good or bad. To me, it is irrelevant, and the laws of the country should ultimately decide what a specific university or employer can do (regardless of their preference for diversity, or otherwise). </p>
<p>It is patently false that anyone can open an academic institution or a place of employment in the USA which are free from the responsibility of following US laws.</p>
<p>regarding “weaker overall portfolio” and non stem majors: There is a real problem in trying to quantify who is weaker or stronger when there are few tests that gauge someone’s potential in French literature or moral philosophy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I am telling you that if you don’t understand that the colleges already do evaluate weaker overall vs. stronger overall portfolios, then you don’t understand how much a Buyer’s Market there is in this country, when it comes to applications to elite colleges.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From Caitlin Flanagan’s Atlantic piece, The Ivy Delusion, which alludes to both the above meritocratic selection and the unmeritocratic segment which is apart from that: the hooked category of admissions (significantly large donors, star recruited athletes, celebrities, well-qualified URM’s). The article was cited much earlier on this thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not an expert in either, but how do French literature and or philosophy majors get graded? They have exams and GPAs, no?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The highlighted part is what Asians complain about, as that imposes a racial preference system which is illegal. I am totally OK with the rest. It is all legal.</p>
<p>Let the URMs be the most deeply smart students in the country as well.</p>
<p>Also, nowhere in your selection criteria do I see a a preference for major. Yet it is there. Do you agree in principle with it? Incidentally, I routinely advice Asian kids to lie about their preference for a major.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not suggesting that they open such places free from laws, but rather with their own values as the priority. There are all kinds of tutoring centers, for example, that are cultural islands within much-more diverse populations. What is emphasized in those centers is not necessarily what the elite universities emphasize in their admissions policies. Ironically, such centers often claim that they prepare their students for elite college admissions, but the results of such centers almost always prove otherwise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cultural islands are not illegal, as long as they don’t break the law. If, for example, the culture was to discriminate based on race, that would however be illegal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very few will be competitive with the non-URM’s who are the most deeply smart. There will be some, but those will be a fairly small cohort. It doesn’t necessarily mean, I want to add, that the entire field of gifted URM’s is represented by those applying to private Elite U’s. It isn’t. It means that there are a whole variety of reasons why a deeply smart URM would apply elsewhere: campus culture, proximity to eventual desired job placement, proximity to existing relatives/community, surrounding community of that college. It’s my opinion that the elites do not do – have not done – the best possible recruitment job for those fine brains; they have not attracted them sufficiently, i.m.o. But the Elites can only select from whoever applies, and since our colleges are more than meritocracies (they are academic communities and social communities, as well as selection meritocracies), the selection process is legitimately discretionary, the Grutter decision found.</p>
<p>Reading this thread people may have the impression that affirmative action is well supported by CC posters. But in real life reality I wonder this is true. My caucasian friend already sent me emails to denounce the ruling against Michigan Proposal 2. Of course my friend knows my race. My friend wrote: “The people want race and gender neutral treatment, but not the activist courts.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that, precisely, is why Asians are upset.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It indeed ultimately comes down to the law. The law will be changed. It will take time, but I do not believe that in a country like America racist policies can survive for ever.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t say they were illegal, and no, they don’t break the law. There are commercial tutoring centers which attract only certain cultures, however. (Some which attract Korean, some which attract Chinese, some which attract African-American students; usually it is because of the origin of the persons running/owning the center.) But the point still holds that the priorities at those centers --separately – are not necessarily to make students deeply smart. Those prioriites in the case of the first two are to make students into what is assumed is expected for admission to elites. And people have a right to open businesses, which do not break the law, based on false assumptions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I support the original intent of AA, that no race should be discriminated against. </p>
<p>The current interpretation is that some races should be discriminated for, and if that ends up with other races discriminated against, that’s fine. To me, not only that is illegal, it is patently odious.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely, but I do not see the relevance to the discussion here.</p>
<p>Quote from epiphany:
</p>
<p>Quote from IndianParent
</p>
<p>And if the only students ‘displaced’ by such a tiny cohort in the first place (of capable but not always the most deeply smart URM’s) were all Asians, I could somewhat sympathize. But lots and lots of white students are ‘displaced’ as well, in fact more whites are displaced than Asians. In your vocabulary, it’s “racism” against Asians (a minority), but also “racism” against whites (the majority).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s very relevant. The mission of these tutoring centers (especially in the case of the East Asian ones) is supposedly to prepare students to be the ultimate applicants for U.S. elite universities. They get to decide, freely, in their opinion, what kind of student should be the ultimate applicant. Unfortunately for them, they’re wrong on the facts. But it’s an example of selecting one’s own personal values without restriction or editing by anyone else.</p>
<p>And you can similarly open a business and select “purely meritocratic” candidates, on zero subjective measures and 100% objective measures. And you can be successful in that without breaking the law.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed, but I do not need to complain on behalf of the Caucasians as they do a very fine job already, and Asians are riding their coattails. Witness the Michigan case. I just wish Asians were just as politically active as Caucasians.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this is what you are trying to say - please correct me if I am wrong.</p>
<p>1) If I don’t like what Elite U. is doing, I can open my own academic institution instead of complaining about Elite U. I indeed can, but that still doesn’t give Elite U. the right to break the law, so my freedom to start my own has no bearing on this discussion.</p>
<p>2) Elite U. is not actually breaking the law, it’s just that the coaching centers train kids in a way that makes their applications uncompelling. That won’t fly, as we already have agreed that Elite U. gives priority to well-qualified URMs over super smart non-URMs and no coaching center can train kids to change their race.</p>
<p>Whether you feel that you “need to complain on behalf of Caucasians” or not, IP, the argument on CC especially is not that whites are ever, let alone frequently, discriminated against. It is that supposedly only Asian students are discriminated against. To use your favorite word, ;), that is patently false.</p>