<p>Because the business world doesn’t discriminate by race. Neither do sports teams. So, while they may not always get the absolutely most meritorious, they will by and large get that group, as there is nothing in their system that would explicitly keep out the more meritorious because of race.</p>
<p>Incidentally, this may be the start of a new thread - Do Employers Favor Certain Majors From HYPSM? The answer would be Heck Yeah! </p>
<p>Which is why Asian parents want their kids in HYPSM and in those certain majors. It has nothing to do with prestige.</p>
<p>I think I know that. I’ve been on the forum for almost 7 years and participated heavily in the much earlier AA threads. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But balancing, which is what these colleges do, is not illegal as defined by the Grutter decision.</p>
<p>I realize that I was probably not being direct enough. The opponents of using race as a balancing factor among many other factors in the composition of an entire class have been (some of them) arguing out of both sides of their mouths. When they are reminded that extreme imbalance of any kind (by no means limited to race) is avoided by the Elites, some posters retort that the Elites are too imbalanced in favor of whites. So I’m challenging such posters to quantify, then, what would be a just representative balance. Since even whites are at least slightly (and sometimes much more so) underrepresented at Elites (vs. their proportion in the population), why should Asian representation, which is already more than 3X its population representation, be far more disproportional a presence than any other group?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Underprivilege is one concept and category. Race is another. Sometimes they overlap. However, even when they do not overlap (the Elites accept some underprivileged whites and some relatively privileged URM’s), there is still a value in this country in accepting into our major institutions (education, governing bodies) qualified individuals from all groups, because we are a diverse nation, and most of our private institutions would like to reflect that. When it comes to educational institutions specifically, most of the actual enrollees would also like that, and consumer preference is an aspect of successful business. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is not my term. Do you not understand that yet? <face palm=“”></face></p>
<p>I believe there are, inevitably, racial biases. That’s not the same as “racism”. Analogy: we use different words to describe acts of homicide (justifiable homicide, manslaughter, murder 1, murder 2) based on motive and circumstance. </p>
<p>It is regrettable that capable applicants often are denied admission to their 1st choice colleges. It may be true that capable Asians are being denied more often than equally capable white or AA applicants (where “capable” is defined only based on scores and grades). That does not, on its face, prove racism.</p>
<p>Suppose the last two applications in my pile are from “Wang” and “Smith”. I can only pick one. Their objective qualifications are virtually identical, except that one has an M score that is 30 points higher and a CR score is 50 points lower. He submits a funny essay about his experience as a ranch hand in Wyoming. Someday, he’d like to be a US Senator. The other submits a essay similar to a hundred others I’ve read this week about the importance of hard work, the sacrifices of his parents, and his dreams of working for Microsoft. I choose the ranch hand, despite his slightly lower cumulative scores. I like him, and I’d like to see more of America’s future leaders in touch with ordinary working people.</p>
<p>Now, if in reading the above paragraph, you assumed the ranch hand is “Smith”, that’s a racial bias. Is it “racism”? Is the actual choice “racism”? Is it racism only if Smith is the ranch hand with the lower cumulative score?</p>
<p>^ I have to admit, though, that if my alma mater (with its Gothic buildings and still rather Euro-centric curriculum) suddenly went to 50% Asian, I’d find it a little odd. I wouldn’t resist it to my dying breath, refuse to send my children there, or stop sending donations. But I’d find it a little odd. I suppose I can understand why some alumni might even stop sending checks.</p>
<p>For better or worse, America’s colleges were founded by Europeans. That fact informs the architecture, the curriculum, the atmosphere. Ditto the country, its predominant religion, our Constitution, our music and food. My family has been in this country for more than 200 years. I’m a creature of habit. I have some expectations about college life and instruction that are informed by these experiences and habits.</p>
<p>Can Asians participating on this thread understand that?</p>
<p>You may NOT use the term “racial balancing,” epiphany, and racial preferences is not a straw man. Get over it. You may, however, use the terms “diversity” and “critical mass.” Hopefully, with the Sixth Circuit’s idiotic decision on Proposal 2, the case will go to the Supreme Court, “critical mass” will be a thing of the past, and Justice Kennedy will affirm that “diversity” is not a euphemism for racial diversity.</p>
<p>Glad we’re on the same side of the Sixth Circuit ruling on Proposal 2, Bay!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is exactly why I never use the terms “underrepresented” and “overrepresented” without quotation marks; I don’t agree with them.</p>
<p>
</face></p>
<p>I’ve always thought this reply from you was cheap, epiphany. Who cares if you didn’t coin it? You constantly use it and its related counterpart, “underrepresented minority.” When anyone points out that the terms are problematic, you raise your arms and say “They aren’t mine!” Again, who cares? You use them, don’t you? If you don’t want people to ask you to define a word you use all the time, how about you…don’t use the word?</p>
<p>So, who wants to cut Asian-Americans down to 5% and Jews down to 2% to help the squeezed out demographic mass of non-Jewish ‘European-Americans’?</p>
<p>I can “understand,” sure, but that does NOT mean I accept. Your paragraph and rhetorical question equate American with “European descendant” and Asian with “other.” We’re not Switzerland; you’re not more “of this country” than I am because your family has been here for two centuries whereas I’m the child of two immigrants.</p>
<p>Interesting dynamic. The folks who are so vehemently opposed to “social engineering” are suddenly confronted with their natural allies, the descendants of “Dead White Males” who suddenly don’t look so friendly. :)</p>
<p>^True (@#3849), but it also doesn’t mean that Harvard (or Yale or Princeton) has to change overnight into something it is not, has never been and is contrary to the whole mission of the place. There’s already concern that there’s too much emphasis on pre-professionalism and not enough time exploring the big ideas. [Do</a> Harvard undergraduates ponder the meaning of life? | Harvard Magazine May-Jun 2011](<a href=“http://harvardmagazine.com/2011/05/most-important-course]Do”>http://harvardmagazine.com/2011/05/most-important-course)
I’m going to cut to the chase, the standard response to that on this thread has been, “But, that’s what President Lawrence said, regarding Jews in the 1920s”. The question no one has ever bothered to ask, (or answer) is did Harvard change its admissions policy (some would argue that getting rid of the Jewish Quota amounted to that) or, did Jewish Americans change? Or, did a little of both happen?</p>
<p>On the one hand, despite graduating from a school that’s all about pre-professionalism in the form of engineering (Georgia Tech), I do believe there is value in the liberal arts. I think it’s important to have an understanding and appreciation of history, both ours and that of others’; “Great Books”; and so forth. Without exposure to them in the form of electives, at minimum, one can be a college graduate and yet be without culture.</p>
<p>On the other hand, you have to pay the bills, and in and of themselves, liberal arts won’t do it for you. Sure, they always say that liberal arts can prepare for various professional and graduate schools, but that proves my point. They pretty much NEED additional education to pay the bills. A chemical engineer from Georgia Tech doesn’t.</p>
<p>But my main point in the post you referenced holds. Do I understand where tk21769 is coming from? Sure. I think it’s human to be “a creature of habit.” But white European descendant ==|== American.</p>
<p>Of course white European descendent =/= American. When I was little we learned about the “Melting Pot” where I think the idea was that we all got transformed into a single unitary American Culture, not European, but certainly very much in the European tradition. In more recent years it’s been fashionable to say we are more like a salad and everyone brings their own traditions. In reality (and I think this is a good thing) I think we are more like a stew. There’s a background culture (mostly European) that forms the base, but we all can bring our own individual immigrant cultures and add to the mix. You wouldn’t want to lose those flavors entirely and just like a little fish sauce can improve even the most European stew, I don’t think American has been (or will be) hurt by an infusion of Asian influence. That doesn’t mean I think we should turn into China, India, or Japan overnight.</p>
<p>I am completely OK with that, as long as such the preference is made known ahead of time, so that Asian applicants can write their essays accordingly.</p>
<p>I think I answered that already. The student body should be representative of the race composition of qualified applicants. If there are more qualified candidates from one race vs. another, that race will indeed dominate. If other races do not like that, they should just put up more qualified candidates. The institution can define qualified candidates in any way it wishes (and make it public, so that everyone can know the rules in advance and prepare to meet or beat the bar accordingly), except using race.</p>