<p>Actually, the study only gave the advantage when SAT is used as the definitional. It did not test other factors. And, because they estimated that it would only be worth about 100 points on the SAT, the difference between a 1500 and a 1600, at most competitive schools would not be treated much different.</p>
<p>That is why an undue reliance on SAT scores is negative, because some people believe that the score is what defines an individual candidate. Thank goodness most competitive private colleges use a holistic admissions process, unlike some public university systems.</p>
<p>The system as it is (positive) has historically favored the majority. With redistricting, for instance, minorities can and are marginalized. That does say a lot about how the majority continues to oppress those that are different than themselves.</p>
<p>No, discrimination in the real world with respect to ethnicity, gender, etc…is not earned, as it depends on what the majority, in power, want or define as the normative idea–whether in the Continental US or in Hawaii (where the majorities are different)–and how they gain/keep that social, political, and economic might. Hence, discrimination is the positive (rather than normative) reality that comes from their behavior. Equity is the theoretical ideal (normative) only when it negatively affects those who have traditionally enjoyed some of the power.</p>
<p>^^That still doesn’t explain why the percentages of URM acceptances is higher than that of whites and Asians. Furthermore, it doesn’t explain how when race is removed as a factor, the admissions rates for URMs go from around 30% to 12%, despite the fact that Essays, EC’s, recs, and all other non-SAT/GPA factors are STILL BEING CONSIDERED in admissions.</p>
<p>Yes, the positive reality for Jim Crow laws enacted to control blacks from rising was a social, political, and economic result of the majority deciding on a normative value, then implementing it through legislation and the courts–just as a woman’s right to vote were curtailed by the normative values of that era.</p>
<p>Positive, using the economic definition, is what is, while the normative is a value judgement (or bias). I’m more concerned with the positive outcome from a majority who wants to retain power by forwarding an agenda/mindset (normative) that maintains the status quo and the positive imbalance in society (i.e. gender inequity, socioeconomic inequity, racism, elitism, bigotry, etc…).</p>
<p>I don’t see how the words “dirscrimination” and “positive” can co-exist in the same sentence. From what I gather from your posts, you believe that AA is positive, but is also discrimination. You can’t have it both ways. Surely, any reasonable person will see that AA is racial discrimination. The statistics show that it is. How is discrimination of any kind positive? I want some sort of statistic that shows that AA doesn’t discriminate. I highly doubt that such a statsitic exists, especially since none of the zealous AA defenders here have been able to find it.</p>
<p>I think diversity is a nice thing to have. It is worth the price of racial discrimination that AA mandates though? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>Asian-Americans are fighting the WRONG battle. Affirmative Action does benefit the Black/Hispanic community and address the socio-economic issues such as the cycle of poverty. If society as a whole decides that some sacrifice from the other ethnic groups is in order for the greater good, we should be all for it, including Asian-Americans.</p>
<p>However, what is truly DISTURBING is the fact that Asian-Americans are MADE TO ASSUME MOST OF THE BURDEN. The community feels the pain because 80% of those AA places are shaved off from qualified Asian students, 20% from Whites/Others.</p>
<p>I know many here REFUSE to accept the finding, because they have their own “feelings” about how Asian-Americans should be treated…BUT the FACTS speak for themselves.</p>
<p>"A new study by two Princeton University researchers uses admissions data from elite colleges to portray what would happen in such a world without affirmative action. In short, black and Latino enrollment would tank, while white enrollments would hardly be affected. The big winners would be Asian applicants, who appear to face </p>
<p>dang-thats messed up. i was actually laughing at some of these stereotypes until u said how different the case would have been with black stereotypes. its sad but it shows how much america takes for granted the generally hard working asian.</p>
<p>“The big winners would be Asian applicants, who appear to face “disaffirmative action” right now. They would pick up about four out of five spots lost by black and Latino applicants.”</p>
<p>I’d take the evidence from a published and peer reviewed paper from Princeton, you know, the “pro-Asian” elite entity, over the word of someone on the internet forum.</p>
<p>Actually, whites bear the most burden. And the numbers would be far less, if the study did not define what qualified is by use of test scores. For places that do use test scores heavily (mostly public colleges), Asians can be said to bear the burden. </p>
<p>Luckily, there are private schools that use a holistic approach to college admissions, so that other factors can be considered.</p>
<p>BTW, there have been many studies that have contridicted the Princeton research, so many here REFUSE to look at the body of evidence that does conclude otherwise. FACTS, depending on a person or groups normative values, affects what they will use and ignore.</p>
<p>Again it comes down to political power of the group or the individuals identity for some Asians. If you argue there is a collective identity, then use the group data. If you are concerned with being seen as an individual (and have that normative ideal), then apply to private schools that use a holistic admissions process–not stack the deck so your group gets across the board benefits, and then claim to be working towards a normative ideal.</p>
<p>Imagine a society comprising of 100 persons in the approx. ethnic make-up of America, 25 Blacks/Hispanics, 5 Asians, 70 Whites. Each person is to pitch in 1 hour of hard labor for a civic priority, eg. building a dam, which requires 100 hours of work. For a good reason (eg. previous injury), it is decided that Blacks/Hispanics should be exempt from 10 hours of work, and the burden of those 10 hours should be borned by the rest of society that does not need the exemption. The end result is this - the 5 Asians are made to take on 8 of those 10 hours, and the Whites/Others 2. The Asians then start howling about their pain and share of the burden, and demand that Blacks/Hispanic resume those 10 hours of work. What they don’t get is that the playing field is not skewed because of the decision to ease the burden of Blacks/Hispanics, they are already disadvantaged by their injury, the playing field is tilted unfairly against them because the distribution of the sacrifice, those extra hours of labor, are heaped upon them via the system. If they demand and obtain fairness in the distribution of those 10 hours, right away, their load would be considerably eased.</p>
<p>I’m sure what a lot of Asians will discover is that these unfavorable findings will simply be hushed up, denied, and swept under the carpet. I have not seen a non-Asian poster who is disturbed by the fact that 4 out of those AA places would have gone to Asians, and AA has not affected white enrollment much at all. Not a <em>single</em> one.</p>
<p>If Asian-Americans were to truly compete with Whites, Jewish and other non-Black/Hispanic groups based on MERITOCRACY alone, those places given over to AA should have been shaved off the bottom tier of the student admission, <em>regardless of race</em>. Otherwise, it will be Disaffirmative Action and discrimination.</p>
<p>IsleBoy, if anyone disputes a study, they are of course free to conduct their own and expose the evidence for all to see. I’m sure there are anti-Afformative Action white groups who are eager to sponsor the research to show how they are made to take on the predominant burden.</p>
<p>And if you have all those compelling studies that refute the findings of the Princeton researchers, by all means share them!</p>
<p>That is misleading since it only considers the UC Law schools. A better study would have considered the entire UC system, which has obviously become very Asian after the elimination of AA. Many of the schools are more than 40% Asian. Not even Caltech and MIT, 2 of the most technical colleges in the country, have this % of Asian students. The only difference between Caltech/MIT and the UC schools is that the UC schools don’t have AA.</p>
<p>As far as college admissions go, AA affects both whites and Asians negatively, but probably Asians to a greater degree. As far as jobs go, AA affects the whites the most since Asians are URMs in many professions. I know my cousin was told that he could even take the sergeant’s exam for the police department just because the police wanted more minorities, including Asians. This really p****d my cousin off since he really studied for the test. AA prevented him from even taking it. What a load of BS!</p>
<p>College admissions and occupations (esp. non-academic ones) are not comparable. This could not be more true for police work, which demands for effectiveness direct and daily interface with a diverse community. A local police force needs to understand the language of the community, literally and figuratively, and to be able to “dwell” (sometimes on and off duty) in areas affected by crime and/or producing crime.</p>
<p>The same thing applies to promotions within the department, since persons of responsibility are often asked to represent the department at heated community meetings, etc. It’s one thing to walk the beat, another thing to deflect hostility by virtue of position, and to mediate at meetings, etc.</p>