<p>…and your point is…?</p>
<p>My point is your statistics is pointless.</p>
<p>Pointless? No more than your sociological babble. Sociology without hard numbers is mere speculation.</p>
<p>First and foremost, the data used have to actually be representative of something. My contention was that the data used did not make sense from the very start. Therefore, any conclusions derived from it means absolutely nothing. The fact that you tell me my understandings of the conditions I have lived around all my life are “mere speculation” shows what you know. Could I supplement them with data? Yes, and here is where statistics would come in, but only if those statistics take into account that which actually makes sense with sound methodology. That has not been the case with what has been discussed in this thread. The statistics here, then, are based on nothing while I do have empirical evidence underlying my assumptions. While the information I shared may have been speculative (it’s not), it is worth more than numbers that started from nothing, attempts to show everything, but is of zero value. </p>
<p>Note: I never said sociology, in any way, supersedes statistics. Sociology, as a field, is reliant on statistics (so, it’s true when you say ‘sociology without hard numbers is mere speculation’). But, as has been the case throughout much of this thread, that was not my point. I explicitly wrote “I hope you consider infusing a little Sociology…” Infusion is integrating, integrating with the topic at hand- statistics. One must consider the validity and relevance of data used before one can play with numbers to produce reliable data. While the sources of the data used was valid (from government census), its has little relevance unless one actually considers those underlying conditions. Once again, and the reason I posted in the first place, the usage of relevant data has not been considered.</p>
<p>I still don’t understand what you’re trying to prove in your posts and how it relates to the main topic of discussion.</p>
<p>Well cavalier, it’s not my attempt to have “everyone” understand what I’m writing, just those who understand logic; I shouldn’t have to tailor my responses for other people, like yourself.</p>
<p>Regards,
TTG</p>
<p>Oh, ok. So you feel you have something to prove by making longwinded, arrogant and condescending posts debating trivial aspects of a thread that had already strayed from the question asked in the OP? Lighten up, dude. Don’t take yourself so seriously.</p>
<p>Longwinded insofar as you apparently don’t have the capability to read arguments; arrogant and condescending only towards you, perhaps, but by no means intentional as it relates to any other people (talk about arrogant, you consider slights against you as slights against everyone else as well). As for straying too far from the original question by the OP, not necessarily, considering the flow of the discussion had turned away and (potentially harmful) notions had been raised. I felt that I should offer an input. Perhaps the only unusual “straying” thus far has been you to these boards.</p>
<p>Some gems from your previous posts:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The condescension begins. You establish your statement by letting us (primarily soccerguy, et al - - the ones who did the number crunching) know that our arguments are cute? Ok.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So we’re ignorant, eh…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You call the numbers presented by soccerguy (and others) pointless. Hmm. I’ll grant you the point that demographics of Virginia and California need to be taken into account. Clearly, the asian populations in both states are different. But to call the statistics pointless? I don’t know about that. In college admissions today, it seems that races are generally lumped together. As a WASP, I’m considered no differently than a jew, a slav or a scandinavian.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The data did make sense and they did represent something. Again, I’ll concede that demographics were not taken into account.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never called your understandings of your life as an asian in California “mere speculation.” I believe I said that sociology in the absense of supporting statistical data is “mere speculation.” There’s a difference. Now, in response to your statement that “my” data were pointless, I did say that they were no more so than your sociological babble. I didn’t mean to imply that sociology is worthless or that your statements were incoherent. I was just making the statement that the statistics presented were no less pointless than the sociological argument you presented.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, here’s where the condescending posts start. Apparently I don’t understand logic, eh? Show me clear evidence of a logical shortfall on my part. And you say that you shouldn’t have to tailor responses for people, such as myself? Why’s that? I’m too dumb? Again, get off yer high horse and knock off the thinly veiled ad hominems.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, this is a more overt ad hominem. I disagreed with the content of your post and you attack my cognitive abilities?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And you top it off by yet again asserting that I am somehow “special” (tho not in the good way).</p>
<p>Look, I never criticized you personally or your reasoning; rather, I questioned and criticized your style or argument and the appropriateness of the content of your posts in the context of this thread. Certainly sociological and demographic factors should be considered, but your responses could have been better phrased.</p>
<p>Not sure of the point of your lecture, but while you’re asking others to consider why there are so many asians in California, I’ll similarly ask you to consider that not all Asian ethnic groups are from the Pacific Rim; these discusions have blithely excluded Pakistani and Indian subcontinent groups, which are far more numerous on the East Coast than the West. The factors that influenced them, their background, resources, and experiences are probably far different from, say, someone who immigrated from Korea or the Phillipines (whose situations are similarly, on average, going to be substantially different from one another.) So, if you want to try to parse the census numbers, you’re going to have to use the census bureau’s definition of just what “asian” is. And consider just how different each of these groups’ experiences might differ from your own. Point being, you should consider your own advice - things aren’t always as they appear. </p>
<p>Your assertion that social and spatial mobility are inextricably linked sounds good, but doesn’t really track with my (empirical) experience. Ethnic groups do tend to cluster in certain areas, but far more for social and familial reasons more than for a lack of economic resources. For an example close to you, my neighborhood was heavily Samoan, mostly 1st and 2nd generation. They clustered together not because they reached the West Coast and ran out of gas money, but because that’s where their relatives were, their familial support systems. If they can afford to live in a high-cost area like SoCal, they certainly had the financial wherewithal to move elsewhere, if so inclined, to a less costly area. At the same time, consider the large populations of immigrants in places you’d never expect, like the African immigrant enclave I found in rural North Carolina, or Haitians in Detroit, or Latinos in Minnesota - they’ve somehow managed to get beyond, far beyond the place where they landed on the continent. </p>
<p>And where I live now, there’s almost no “natives” - most people moved here from other places because the area offered more economic opportunity than where they came from; my experience is that lower-income people are, in general, more mobile than upper-income people are; because they <em>have</em> to be. </p>
<p>Anyway, I have to say, this entire discussion has become rather pointless, not to mention depressing, because it seems that <em>some</em> are still committed to proving that somehow life and society isn’t fair to <em>them</em> because of their race, and those that dare disagree are just stupid and uneducated – or should I say “fussy”?</p>
<p>yea, I wasn’t worrying too much about “fussy”, though I was debating that maybe they were using the non American spelling of “fuzzy”. Heck, I was using the letter ‘s’ for ‘z’ in high school being fed so much international literature through IB. I wrote a whole paper about Soviet “colectivisation” which was later changed with the help of the spell check, meh.</p>
<p>ttgiang15,</p>
<p>you might be interested in the fact that all white people are not the same either.</p>
<p>Do my statistics tell the whole story? no, but neither does the sociology lesson you decided to share. I used the best information available. If you are keeping other secret information that only you have access to, please let the rest of us know. Squiddy (I wonder if this poster made a new name just for this thread) already poked some holes in your sociology argument.</p>
<p>I welcome you to W&M, ttgiang15, I hope you enjoy yourself here. It will be quite a change from Berkeley.</p>
<p>I’ve considered slicing and dicing those points you presented, but it’s no use. I’ll limit myself to reconstructing solely from what I posted:</p>
<p>Consider what has been contended before I entered the discussion: that even though Asian-Americans (heretofore ‘AA’) are, on the whole, high achievers, the fact that they are represented at top, public Virginia colleges at comparatively low rates (against California) is due to lower number of AA applicants to William & Mary. The statistics presented attempt to show that AA are, in fact, well-represented if one considers the relative populations of AA in Virginia and California. </p>
<p>If I made any points or claims, they were restricted to the first post. The second post was dedicated to dispel the notion that the statistics used were in any valuable, and to reiterate the importance of demographic data (to support the claims stated in the first post).</p>
<p>So what was my main point? That though the statistics sugggest a compartively equal representation of Asian-Americans (heretofore ‘AA’) at colleges in Virginia and California, the failures to recognize the socioeconomic backgrounds of AA groups, in fact, create a disparity that shows discrimination at VA schools. This makes those attempts at quantifying the policies of admissions fruitless, of no value.</p>
<p>The following is how I framed my points and claims in the first post, in order of their appearance, of course:
- By restating the problem at hand: “…some of you have tried to use statistics to explain the discriminative/nondiscriminative policies by the admissions office by comparing relative admissions data from two unique sites”
- First point, given: “For a start, not all Asians are equal.”
- Claims, after having identified different sub-‘Asian’ groups: “These conditions, therefore, make this less an issue of racial diversity, but socioeconomic diversity in college admissions.”
- Critical question, framing further discussion as to how colleges choose students, in particular, the different groups of AA students: “The question becomes, just which Asian-American families are represented along the East Coast, in Virginia?”
- Concluding point, after having drawn on efforts by UC system to award socioeconomic diversity, “In short, the colleges, themselves, help skew the data as a byproduct (of) differences in ideology of public education.”
-> This difference in ideology is the weakness of the VA system. The lack of recognition of backgrounds, within a given “race”, makes the “lumping” of groups significant and subject to interrogation. I detailed the conditions that showed why one group of Asian is more “disadvantaged” than another, but there exists no significant difference between the quality of life of a Scandanvian, Jew, Eastern European, or WASP so as to warrant further review. The inability of the VA system to look at the socioeconomic background, therefore, as pointed out in the concluding claim, “skews the data.” Again, I will repose the question already stated: "“The question becomes, just which Asian-American families are represented along the East Coast, in Virginia?” While a student with Chinese parents may not be discriminated against, a Vietnamese student like myself might very well be, indirectly, unknowingly, because of not taking into account socioeconomic backgrounds. Now, taking on the issue of mobility, which would one more commonly find in Virginia- the Chinese or the newly-immigrated Vietnamese? The “skewing of the data,” or their “irrelevance,” is due to the inability of those here to not consider the socioeconomic differences when making using general statewide and schoolwide data, for, because of the faulty data, the evidence would suggest that admissions practices at VA state schools are nondiscriminatory. Here, you should once again refer back to my “main point” identified above in this post.</p>
<p>Perhaps my responses could’ve been better phrased, but all of this was found in my original post, the only location in which my points and claims were made. In light of this, I can’t find where I was at fault. I do hope, however, that this has cleared some of the confusion.</p>
<p>Cavalier, lots of good points! My thought is that it’s just too bad that the Dean of Admission at UVA or William and Mary will not read these posts and decipher through all the babble and BS of it all. Ttgiang, Dude!!! Chill…I had to read all of your posts very slowly just to try and figure out what the heck you were trying to say. No offense but you could have summed that up in maybe three or four sentences. Of course there are different types of Asian’s from many different socioeconomic levels! And as one poster pointed out, there are many white Americans who come from difficult backgrounds as well. OK, that is the purpose of the college essay…it is your opportunity to point out your particular situation. Give the admissions offices more credit than your post refects. Trust me, they know more than you or I know about all that we have been discussing. The original poster asked about Asians at William and Mary, concerned that there was a small number of them at our school. Once again, “The number of Asians and minorites at ANY college is in DIRECT relation to the number of QUALIFIED Asians or minorities, who apply and if accepted CHOOSE to attend, and it is INDEED reflective of the number of Asians and minorites in that particular STATE, particularly if it is a public school”…That is the bottom line! And I have to say that ICARE confused the issue a bit by implying that excluding Asians was intentional by colleges. ***??? The more I think about that one the more I have to raise the BS flag. No, nobody answered that question for me as to why a larger percentage of Asians at any school would be a problem. All of these long, drawn out answers are just a smokescreen to the real issue which is why there are small numbers of Asians at William and Mary. Cavalier, I like the fact, and have noticed that you always stick up for William and Mary and UVA. This lets me know that you are a true Virginian, as in reality there is no rivalry between the two schools. They both totally rock. Back to studying for exams. Peace out everyone!</p>
<p>Also Ttiang, you’ve got to loose that elitist, condescending attitude before you come to William and Mary. It’s not what we do here, it’s not who we are. Don’t try to overcompensate, it’s transparent and has no place at William and Mary. Come here with an open mind and definitely keep it real. Real intelligence, confidence, and knowledge does not need a lot of big words and lengthy, condescending explanations. Good luck!</p>