<p>Immigrants generally do better than the general populous. It kills me when you guys say asians are the most over represented at IVY leagues when in fact it actually is the African immigrant. The NYT reports that 41% of all black IVY league admits are africans or the children of africans, making them the most most overrepresented group at the Ivies; roughly 4% of all Ivy leaguers are the children of africans.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Two years ago, I took physics. All of us had either taken trig before or were currently in it. The ones who took it before learned it the previous academic year. Come the first review problem set, most forgot what the value of sin 30 was and how to expand cos 2a. Four months off and it was as if they had forgotten a year’s worth of trigonometry.</p>
<p>Trying to actually understand how to solve a question type is far from robotic. The process requires significant thought and repeated application, unless one is a genius. Question ocean is quite different from rote learning. Based on my experience, the Chinese frown on rote learning as a means to attain problem-solving skills. It simply doesn’t compare to question ocean (I love that phrase now). Some examples as follows:</p>
<p>Question Ocean System</p>
<p>Student does many problems. He tries to figure out why his solution works for a particular question type. He begins to generalize the method. Soon, he’s able to tackle any variation of a problem. He has understood how to solve it and won’t be deterred by any switch-ups.</p>
<p>Rote Learning System</p>
<p>Student does many problems. He memorizes the solutions. When something changes, be it numbers, variables, whatever, he gets stuck. To him, it’s a “totally different” question. He doesn’t even know where to begin.</p>
<p>The Chinese seriously frown on rote learning as a way to become a better problem solver. I hope my examples have clarified the significant differences between the two.</p>
<p>
No, and I never said they didn’t. Their pressures are distinct from those of blacks. They have an American story to tell also. But it is different. They suffer poor academic performance because of the things our country has done. We ought not toss them to statistics, thereby keeping their story out of the schools.</p>
<p>
I have said many times, I don’t think America has done anything to Hispanics that it hasn’t done to every single other immigrant group. Native Americans and blacks aren’t immigrant groups. Natives were here first, and we stole their lands and dumped on them by law. Blacks were created here against their will, and we dumped on them by law. America has taken nothing fundamental from any other group. BUT, Hispanics have suffered deprivations in their own countries that have influenced their cultures so that many have difficulty producing enough stellar performers to stand up against the bulk of white and Asian performers. For the sake of diversity, I want to extend AA to Hispanics. I think we all benefit from this. America is diversity. In fifty years Hispanics will probably be the dominant group in the nation.
Nothing hyperbolic about it. When you’re the only black anywhere, surrounded by nothing but whites, you often feel isolated and unsupported.
Well, things are rarely so cut and dry, even when the criteria for selection is strictly numeric. You need all eleven in this case because blacks have historically been isolated in America without other blacks affirming them. I suspect this is why motivated blacks who exist only around whites still don’t do as well as when motivated blacks have the support of other blacks.
Well, I like diversity, and whether we like it or not, just look around. It is being forced and we may as well learn to deal with it.
Please. The HBCU’s themselves exist because America continued to deny blacks educational access even after it was no longer against the law to educate blacks. And even today many of these HBCU’s are working hard to increase diversity because even they recognize its value.
LOL. Uh, being a gangster is not exactly held up as a virtue. And when you are an inner-city kid who sees this sort of behavior, and you for some reason have an love of math and computer programming and many of the other things Weird Al claims are white, it just basically is another of millions of ways of telling that kid that he likes the wrong things. It is devastating because it helps makes sure that the change we all claim to want, will not take place. To overcome this, blacks are going to have to basically do what I have done, tell the kids when they are really REALLY young, that they can laugh at this stuff, but never forget that the culture is full of lies and that it cannot be accepted uncritically.
Of course you don’t get to define what should and should not offend others, just as you claim I can’t define who should be offended by the Prince article. I am not offended by Weird Al’s thing such that I will call him a racist. Though it is a killer. I personally don’t think calling the folks at The Prince racist is appropriate here either. I think their apology was appropriate – recognize the wrong and ineffectiveness “or stupidity” of the humor, but reject the allegation of racism.
I think not. We will simply have to agree to disagree. I do think The Prince’s article was not good, that it failed to be completely funny. I certainly see how it could be offensive, and have spelled this out here several times now. But I just can’t see how we can get to the claim that the editors are racist and that the whole school is racist (as someone posted). It was an error that they dealt with.</p>
<p>
Well yeah. It astounds me for its stupidity too, but not for its racism. I see what they were trying to do. They just didn’t have the skills to do it and ought to have just left this thing alone. I am sure they realize this now, and so I don’t think dragging these kids through further mud is really a good thing. But if it is important to you, go ahead. Were it me, I would drop it at this point.
Well, one study suggests AA has helped build the black middle class. As schools make sure to help already qualified blacks attend class, those blacks will succeed and form families, the children of which will typically follow their parents, and not others. It will take a lot more time than thirty years. But it seems to be happening.</p>
<p>
Of course America has never enslaved the Indians or harmed them under the Delhi Sultans or anyone else. So I don’t see why America has to be concerned about this. In mentioning history and AA, I am saying that we have a problem of our own creating. We are not going to just get away from this problem by ignoring it. If I were convinced that cutting AA would solve the problem, I would push to cut it tomorrow. I don’t think cutting it will solve it. I think it will make it worse. I don’t wish to lose the hardworking blacks that now exist. But I also wish to develop ways to help those who don’t have the cultural support they need to succeed here.</p>
<p>
I see.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not my point.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court ruled that it is “in the interest” of colleges and universities to have racial diversity, and so it is fine. So basically the Supreme Court ruled that organizations have free reign to use racial discrimination and quotas to achieve a cause in which they have a compelling interest.</p>
<p>What if a lack of racial diversity is what is “in the interest” of an organization?</p>
<p>There are plently of well-to-do African-Americans around here who have not suffered the hardships mentioned. Why do they get affirmative action?
Also, why don’t universities expand current income-based AA for those who have suffered from them instead of racial AA?</p>
<p>Bay: Luckily, the voters haven’t sanctioned it where I live, but that’s beside the point. A few of us are essentially trying to make the argument that Bakke v. Board of Regents was unconstitutional (racial preferences, not no quotas) and should be overturned.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ever read Pearls Before Swine (or God Bless You Mr. Rosewater) by Kurt Vonnegut? This reminds me of certain passages.</p>
<p>
But probably not.</p>
<p>I wasn’t aware that cats could take standardized tests in China.</p>
<p>
Though not explicitly mentioned, this strongly implies that you think that Chinese people are mindless, lifeless, drones, though I admit that this is very exaggerated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, the latter can be interesting at times. It’s fun, in a weird way, to look at my friends’ math homework (whether they’re farther ahead or behind). I admit I do like finding out my own solutions, but when I do, they tend to be more complex versions of already discovered solutions (except in maybe two or three cases). I enjoy critically thinking and analyzing with things that have no particular defined solution. But that’s just me. I’m odd at times.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, I wasn’t aware that they were cats.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You don’t think that GPA shows some creativity?</p>
<p>How does this relate to the main topic, anyway? Are Asians somehow unable or much, much less likely to be creative?</p>
<p>Bay,</p>
<p>So is the goal really diversity? Or is it just more Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s definitely not fair, and I hope the Supreme Court will rule against racial “diversity” in the future.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thats why its time that “diversity” stop being forced.</p>
<p>
That’s probably because your Question Ocean method was ineffective for most of the students. Sure, it can work for some, but only for a small fraction. We ought not reward Question Ocean. There is a much better way. My kids don’t often forget, and when they do forget, they can easily reason themselves back to remember what they need. If you like Question Ocean, fine. I think it doesn’t produce the finest universities. Hopefully, if most American universities fall for the robotic method, there will be some that are able to reject it.</p>
<p>Must run, a pleasure as usual.</p>
<p>bob,</p>
<p>I don’t believe the Supremes would ever find that “lack of racial diversity” promotes a compelling interest in any American institution. Here is what they said:</p>
<p>“We have repeatedly acknowledged the overriding importance of preparing students for work and citizenship, describing education as pivotal to ‘sustaining our political and cultural heritage’ with a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of society. . . . For this reason, the diffusion of knowledge and opportunity through public institutions of higher education must be accessible to all individuals regardless of race or ethnicity.” Higher education “must be inclusive of talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity, so that all members of our heterogeneous society may participate in the educational institutions that provide the training and education necessary to succeed in America.”</p>
<p>Most likely, they would endorse racial diversity in every American institution, including the workplace, for the same reasons.</p>
<p>
They are part of a story that needs to be told everywhere, because it is unique and American.
Suffered from whom? Schools are expanding income-based AA. They just aren’t abandoning race, as many wish them to. Race is just one of many factors, including income. It is significant and therefore ought not be ignored. It ought not be significant in the first place. But it is.</p>
<p>
I just don’t think their system is preferable to what has made American schools the best on the planet. Chinese people are fine, and you know, I ought not have to say this.</p>
<p>
Of course but look at what you’ve written here. Will you forget the better solution you have come across? No. In fact you will remember it in your bones because you have compared it to your own efforts. You will assimilate it in a way that helps you use it creatively because you were already seeking a solution of its sort. That is much better than the Question Ocean way. It is MUCH more powerful.</p>
<p>
You’re only odd because everyone else is learning moron math.</p>
<p>Fab,</p>
<p>My opinion doesn’t matter, but with that said, I think the Supremes really do want racial diversity.</p>
<p>And with respect to Asians, it can look UNFAIR when you compare their standards to all other races, but it looks FAIR, when you realize that each race must compete against their own.</p>
<p>In fact, in the latter analysis, it looks like Asians ARE over-represented and have an unfair advantage. That’s why I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss the idea that Jian Li may actually “shoot himself (and all Asians) in the foot” by complaining that Asians are discriminated against.</p>
<p>every time you poking fun of somebody, it makes you look completely preposterous</p>
<p>bay-</p>
<p>so maybe the supreme court won’t rule that a lack of diversity is sometimes of interest to an organization. while to me, its obvious that there are cases where this is true, the supreme court would probably stay away from the politically explosive, no matter how true, and as such would probably never rule this way. </p>
<p>what i mean to say is that if the supreme court were consistent in its rulings, some extremely undesirable and objectionable situations would be forced to result.</p>
<p>where we differ is on what whether or not there is an actual benefit that surpasses the costs, as the supreme court implies. but ill leave it at that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They are there to tell the story of African Americans? This sounds nice, but what exactly does it amount to? Please clarify for me the exact benefit of this “story” being told, and how exactly it is unique in that it doesn’t add to knowledge students already have. Please further clarify why the telling of this story justifies racial quotas and discrimination.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier,</p>
<p>We’ll see whether or not question ocean is ineffective in the coming years.</p>
<p>bob,</p>
<p>I think you understand what I was trying to convey. Which is… </p>
<p>that your only chance of prevailing against the Court’s view is to somehow prove that racial diversity is NOT important, (i.e., “a compelling interest”) in the university setting. And if it is not important, then only the “most highly qualified” applicants should be admitted, even if the incoming class ends up consisting of 100% Asians.</p>
<p>“And with respect to Asians, it can look UNFAIR when you compare their standards to all other races, but it looks FAIR, when you realize that each race must compete against their own.”</p>
<p>Yes. When it comes to nationalities & races that are already sizeably represented at any particular private U, a student’s competition within his or her own background is much more a governing dynamic, relative to that student’s admission, than competition outside of that group. That is indeed the point. </p>
<p>(“Be careful what you wish for.”)</p>
<p>First of all, the purpose of the suit is to determine two separate issues - 1) if admission discrimination against AAs exist, and if it does, 2) if it is fair for AAs to bear the predominant burden, unlike other over-represented minorities, or the proportionately represented white majority.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court may rule in favor of diversity, but show me WHEREABOUTS in this ruling that <em>only</em> one particular minority group, AAs, should bear the brunt of the ruling to accommodate “diversity”. Also, what are the objective criteria to determine the makeup of this “diversity”? Is it a certain numerical factor over the % of population? Does it differ from state to state depending on the ethnic demographics? Do these criteria apply equally to <em>all</em> groups, or unevenly among different groups, and WHY?</p>
<p>When hiring employees, the employers are looking for people who can do the jobs, not the percentage of people from different races. The only thing the employers are required to exercise is they have to be fair in the hiring process and they cannot discriminate because of race, age, religion… Why this simple principle cannot be applied to the college admission process?</p>
<p>"show me WHEREABOUTS in this ruling that <em>only</em> one particular minority group, AAs, should bear the brunt of the ruling to accommodate “diversity”. "</p>
<p>Asian-Americans are not bearing the brunt of the ruling. Caucasians have been substantially sharing that brunt, and for a much longer time.</p>
<p>“Also, what are the objective criteria to determine the makeup of this “diversity”? Is it a certain numerical factor over the % of population? Does it differ from state to state depending on the ethnic demographics? Do these criteria apply equally to <em>all</em> groups, or unevenly among different groups, and WHY?”</p>
<p>The ruling is a general guideline: there would be no sense in making it arbitrary or uniform, as individual institutions and agencies will naturally be applying the concept of diversity differently according to local proportional needs & population factors. </p>
<p>And LOL, I’m glad someone mentioned the Court again. Very amusing to revisit a conversation when several people have dryly dropped a remark about “the Supremes wanting diversity.” (As in, Motown.) I thought somebody was being sarcastic at first. No kidding: Caucasians & Asians are URM’s in Motown music, for sure!</p>
<p>“Asian-Americans are not bearing the brunt of the ruling. Caucasians have been substantially sharing that brunt, and for a much longer time.”</p>
<p>Care to provide stats to back up this claim?</p>