<p>I can, actually. It makes complete sense to me that a policy that affects a certain group negatively would be unpopular with most members of that group. I support affirmative action because it aligns with my political convictions, but I do not begrudge people who perceive it as a deterrent to their success in life the right to be unhappy about it.</p>
<p>What I am not completely sure about is exactly how much affirmative action influences acceptance rates for Asians at some universities. I remember reading an article about Princeton’s admissions practices that claimed that, were Princeton to abolish affirmative action, its acceptance rate for African Americans would plummet… but its acceptance rate for Asians would barely change. It was an interesting article, but unfortunately I cannot provide a link to it as I can’t remember where I read it.</p>
<p>Oh, I agree, as it sounds “almost” like what I write about the SAT. </p>
<p>But here is the problem. How do we measure the RELATIVE merit of a student who gets “very close” to acing the objective criteria despite growing up with a grandmother as sole support, gaving been shot at, requiring constant medical attention, having to hold two jobs to support her younger siblings, and attending a mediocre high school where “nerds” are mercilessly teased for taking the 3 APs that are offered? </p>
<p>Fwiw, the above person could be of ANY race, including … Asian. Unfortunately, it so happens that such examples are much more evident among people who have suffered from isolationism and segregation. It also happens that many immediately assume that adcoms do not evaluate such cases for ALL races. </p>
<p>PS Please note that I rarely use fiction when giving an exmaple. The above description is from someone who went on to Yale.</p>
<p>And I am OK with that. I said that already. Pour money into helping those in the socioeconomic strata. But if the final outcome is still not equitable - and that’s where the parents come in - then you can’t “fix” it by inequitable allocation of rewards by using race.</p>
<p>IP, I asked that question to the omniscient Fabrizio, someone who has made a career in parsing the posts of others. Since he talks about positions espousing political leanings, I am curious what label he would stick to my forehead.</p>
<p>xiggi; do you think everybody, or even most, have the potential to score 2100 k or above with “practice”? </p>
<p>I just don’t know. My youngest patients are three years old, but most are 8 to 18. I just don’t see “big” changes in SAT scores as any more controllable than say, number of AP’s by junior year. </p>
<p>I think most things are beyond most students control until maybe age 14. I don’t have a problem seeing those kids that are exceptions to that, as exceptional. But for most, like race, I think it’s mostly about their parents.</p>
<p>That is, obviously, your prerogative. It i also one that I am in no position of judging. I would, however, like to point out that the excessive focus on a narrow nunber of schools seems to contribute the current acrimony. When 1 out of 20 applicants are admitted, it is reasonable to expect that a good number of the 19 will be unhappy. </p>
<p>This said, I also believe or know that there is a silver lining for many of the extremely competitive students who happen to fall into the dejected 19 at one or more institutions. The silver lining being that, based on their superior accomplishments, one or more highly selective schools will roll the red carpet out for such students. Indeed, it might not be “everyone’s Shangri-Las” aka HYPS, but it will not preclude anyone to follow the path you once defined as the road to success. </p>
<p>In a way, I really believe you know this, but are mostly digging your heels deeper to make your points.</p>
<p>With regard to what you quoted, your posts suggest that you’re very much in favor of equality as defined by outcomes, for you have frequently bemoaned that elites do not even have a semblance of what America “looks” like.</p>
<p>Now to answer your question, no, I couldn’t. You are a complex individual. You advocated “breaking up the monopoly of public education, overhauling the school boards to eradicate the controls of unions, abolishing all CBAs throughout the nation, limiting administrative expenses, raising teachers’ salaries to compensate for a 12 months activity, prohibiting teacher unions to use dues for political purposes, and last not least, introducing TRUE school choices as opposed to the cynical proposals of charters.”</p>
<p>I rarely see liberals advocate for any of those positions. So are you a conservative? Well, let’s finish the paragraph: “This does not address issues of a curriculum that should be revamped from the bottom-up with much higher resources dedicated to the bottom quartiles and a lot less to the top 10 percent, a reassignment of the best teachers to the most at risk students. and a drastic reduction in boondoggles such as the AP program that have created those utterly abject schools within a school.”</p>
<p>I rarely see conservatives advocate for any of those positions. So are you a liberal? Well, go back to two paragraphs up. My final response is “I don’t know.” As for my positions, I’ve no qualms with saying that they are more straightforward. I agree with your sentiments that I quoted two paragraphs above, but I disagree with your opinions in the paragraph directly above. I think it’s misguided to devote fewer resources to the top 10%, the best teachers should stay with the best students, the most at-risk students need teachers who know how to deal with at-risk students, and there’s nothing wrong with “schools within a school.”</p>
<p>In his defense–not that I think his statement needs defending–the point was originally mine, that refining the political principles behind the arguments employed in this thread would almost certainly lead us back to the timeless points of contention between conservative and liberal thought.</p>
<p>I was not, however, suggesting that it is impossible for an individual to hold opinions that stand far apart on the spectrum of political thought. I think that is actually perfectly natural.</p>
<p>I do NOT know this. I am an odds person. The odds as I have seen in real life are higher for the Elites. They are not 0 for the non-elites, but are lower. Ceteris paribus, I prefer higher odds. At any rate, the same argument can be applied to the URMs. If they get dumped out of the Elites because of lack of racial discrimination, they can find success at the non-Elites.</p>
<p>No, but practice should help everybody reach the apex of his or her aptitude. The real problem is that most people do not practice with the right tools or cannot commit sufficient time to practice, usually by starting too late. Another problem is that students are lacking the strong building blocks that should have been acquired at a younger age. Fwiw, this one of the major problems for the poorest Americans when they reach the age (middle school) where parents can no longer help to bridge the deficiencies of our public education.</p>
<p>Through income redistribution, so that no kid has to go through this. Through massive investment in public schools, especially in lower socioeconomic areas. However, that will still leave a gap - the parent gap, where the parents are 300% involved in educating their kids, like the tiger moms and dads do. That, unfortunately, society will never be able to close. Is that an unfair gap? Sure. But that’s the only unfair gap I want my kid to enjoy.</p>
<p>^ I am intrigued by “odds” people, with regard to URM’s.</p>
<p>Some students say “I wish I was black”, and I am blown away. I have even asked Fab if he hopes his children will be part black;I wonder the same about you, but don’t think I want to hear the true answer.</p>
<p>As grown up odds person, presumably with better math skills than I (570 in the Math SAT, but fine on all parts of the medical boards, especially the “orals”), how do you the odds of a black student, lets say a boy, differ at birth, from those in the application pool to Harvard class of 2012?</p>
<p>My husband btw, is a bit of a “tiger”, and I like to think I modify his parenting somewhat, hopefully to my kids benefit. I often worry that my kids could be standing on the tracks, like those kids from Monte Vista and Gunn High school, without a modicum of balance, but what do I know about what’s ‘‘best’’?</p>
<p>Numerous studies suggest that people who get into the likes of Harvard and Yale, but choose to go elsewhere, end up as financially successful as the eventual graduates of Harvard and Yale. Which would imply that the thing that sets these schools apart is the drive and ambition of their students, not their magical ability to turn street bums and junkies into Fortune-500 CEOs.</p>
<p>What I’m trying to say is that if your child has the qualities these schools are looking for, he/she has what it takes to be as successful as their graduates, regardless of where he/she goes to college.</p>
<p>(This is just a side observation. Sorry for being off-topic.)</p>
<p>Oh, I believe in income redistribution. But I also believe that it is crucial for people from lower SES to see the pinnacle of our education as a NOT impossible dream. For this reason, it is important to keep a thumb on the scale (necessary evil) and make sure all races maintain a modicum of representation. This is crucial for our society to finally close those elusive gaps. This is why it is important for HYPS and the other fifty highly selective schools to remain DIFFERENT from an institution such as Berkeley, and reject the “vision” of the California system of education. </p>
<p>As far as parental involvement, it is obviously a large part of the puzzle. A puzzle with no easy solutions!</p>
<p>I won’t stand for stereotypes against Asians or any other racial classification, xiggi. If you call that “parsing,” so be it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you saying without racial preferences, "URM"s will disappear? That has not happened in a single state where a civil rights initiative has passed.</p>
<p>I would like to see these studies. If they are true, and if they also require the same amount of effort post-graduation to succeed at the same rate, then I would change my mind. However, this also begs the question why URMs who get bumped out of the Elites cannot succeed elsewhere, if they had the qualities the Elites were looking for in the first place.</p>
<p>The reason I have a problem with your conjecture is that the Elites wouldn’t be able to command a higher market premium if your conjecture was true, unless there is massive public hypnosis going on.</p>
<p>^As grown up odds person, presumably with better math skills than I , how do the odds of a black student, lets say a boy, differ at birth, from those in the application pool to Harvard class of 2012?</p>