Daily Princetonian Makes Fun of Stereotypical Asian Students

Applying to College
461

<p>epiphany,</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>We are both recognizing that racial preferences is part of affirmative action. It is the part that I do not support at all. Aggressive nondiscrimination and equal treatment (i.e. one should be neither discriminated against NOR discriminated for), on the other hand, I am totally for. To my knowledge, Mr. Connerly’s initiatives do not end the latter. They seek to end the former.</p>

<p>Contextualized racial inclusion. OK, if you choose to define affirmative action using those words, that’s fine. Then, why not support Mr. Connerly in ending racial preference systems? You can still have contextualized racial inclusion without racial preferences, right?</p>

<p>If in the next admissions cycle qualified “under-represented” minorities are no longer “under-represented,” then racial preferences might become obsolete shortly after. Which only helps.</p>

462

<p>“Maybe, but I think your comparison is worthless unless you know what percentage of Asians applicants was admitted to each school.”</p>

<p>At least I have made a comparison with REAL statistics. You have yet to do that. </p>

<p>Asian acceptance levels at colleges are lower than any other group and it is all because of the stupidity of AA. </p>

<p>Here is a link that I gave earlier with some acceptance rates compiled from 3 schools:</p>

<p>White: 23.8%
Black: 33.7%
Hispainc: 26.8%
Asian: 17.6%</p>

<p><a href=“http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/tje...adessqptii.pdf[/url]”>http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/tje...adessqptii.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The evidence is there. You can either accept it and the fact that AA is racial discrimination in disguise or disprove them with adequate statistics of your own. You can’t ignore the truth and numbers don’t lie. </p>

<p>The bottom line is that AA favors certain racial groups over others, which is what you’d call racism.</p>

463

<p>“Your attitude that academically strong Asians who are interested in science are boring, undesriable people in the eyes of colleges is bordering on racism.”</p>

<p>Hep,</p>

<p>Was that comment directed at ME??? If so, I will go so far as to call you a LIAR for attributing anything in that sentence to me. Your posts no longer carry an iota of credibility as far as I am concerned. Good bye and good riddance.</p>

464

<p>“Was that comment directed at ME??? If so, I will go so far as to call you a LIAR for attributing anything in that sentence to me. Your posts no longer carry an iota of credibility as far as I am concerned. Good bye and good riddance.”</p>

<p>You accuse me of being a racist before by “stereotyping” Asians as liking Stony Brook because it is a medical/science school. There is a greater % of them applying to it than the other SUNY’s so what I’m saying has truth to it, not a racial motive. </p>

<p>What you and many of the other parents have implied in your earlier posts is that you wholeheartedly support AA, despite the fact that it obviously lowers Asian admittance and raises the admittance of other URMs. This attitude towards Asians, the fact that you are willing to support a program that hurts them, shows that you don’t have a problem with limiting their influence at colleges. This sentiment has a very anti-Asian undertone that I think ties in with what I said.</p>

465

<p>I don’t know, Hep has a pretty convincing argument, but not infallable. Bay, if you’re going to make your case, then deconstruct his case and find something worth arguing about. He uses numbers, you use rhetoric, and logically speaking, numbers are stronger than words.</p>

466

<p>Hep - are you saying that admissions committes are WRONG in choosing their applicants? Because it seems to me ADMISSIONS COMMITTEES are the ones who know best what kind of student they want at their school. Not YOU, not me, not any of us here…</p>

467

<p>“Because it seems to me ADMISSIONS COMMITTEES are the ones who know best what kind of student they want at their school.”</p>

<p>I don’t know about this. Favoring one student over another based on race alone seems a bit wrong to me. That is exactly what AA does, advocate the preference of URMs over everyone else. </p>

<p>I may not be on the admissions committee of a school. However, I know that I would rather not be a STUDENT at a school that advocates racism by supporting. Unfortunatley, I don’t have much choice since I don’t want to attend a UC that is 3,000 miles away from where I live. I would rather be surrounded by articulate students who earned their way into a college than people who were only admitted to force a distored version of diversity. I don’t have anything against URms or any racial group for that matter. If a URM is qualified for a seat at a college, he/she should get that seat. However, if a URM is only in a college because he/she is a URM, I have a problem with that.</p>

468

<p>Here’s the thing everyone misunderstands. You don’t get into college because you’re smart. You get into college because the admissions committee wants you to be a part of their student body. A lot of times, adcoms want smart kids to be part of the student body. But adcoms don’t want a homogenous class of smart kids, they want diversity, so they try to accept students based on other aspects, like race, hobbies, whatever.</p>

<p>We can’t call an admissions committee wrong for choosing URMs over a “more qualified” candidate, because there is no thing such as “more qualified” than what admissions committees decide. And adcoms define “more qualified” as whatever they happen to be looking for: intelligence, race, diversity, whatever.</p>

<p>It’s not a perfect system. But the people calling it unfair are the people that think intelligence is the whole ballgame in admissions. If intelligence WAS the one factor that was counted, and URMs were admitted at sub-par levels, then it’d be unfair. But it’s the overall fit adcoms want, not intelligence, that is the important factor. And since only the adcoms know what they want, it’s not really our place to decide who they should/n’t let in.</p>

469

<p>“We can’t call an admissions committee wrong for choosing URMs over a “more qualified” candidate”</p>

<p>Yes we can. URMs are being accepted over more-qualified non-URMs is inherently wrong, no matter what the circumstances are. I have noticed that many people who support AA seem to think that “more qualified” refers only to academics. What about URMs getting accepted over whites and Asians with worse EC’s, essays, and recs? I’m sure this happens all the time. However, you only hear the academic side of things when it comes to being qualified because AA supporters are quick to point out that colleges use a “holistic” approach with admissions. What they fail to consider is that URMs who are worse than white/Asian applicants in EVERY facet of the applicant profile (lower SAT, GPA, worse EC’s, essay, etc.) are very often accepted over the white/Asian applicants simply because of their race.</p>

470

<p>If Post 450 is talking about me, than the poster is way off base. I was citing the <em>newspaper article</em>, NOT U.C. policy. I have never made inaccurate statements about U.C. admissions policies, ever. Nor do I appreciate your misrepresenting that to the posters on CC. It is you with the problem, not me. In fact I acknowledged that the families in the article may have legitimately been allowed to take advantage of a loophole in a policy (which AdOfficer later elaborated on) which gives a boost to a student where only one parent has attained a college degree, not both.</p>

<p>Re the recent post by julyinoh,
“Here’s the thing everyone misunderstands. You don’t get into college because you’re smart. You get into college because the admissions committee wants you to be a part of their student body.”</p>

<p>Your post sounds very well -intentioned, but respectfully, it’s a little inaccurate, nevertheless. The colleges want both, actually: a brainy class composed of a multitude of races & nationalities. Whites don’t have a lock on IQ & intellectualism, Asians don’t have a lock on IQ & intellectualism, either. One is not stupid because one is a URM. That’s just blatant, blind racism.</p>

<p>(I’m not suggesting that you are, julyinoh, but the repeated contentions by others that all, most, or even some of the URM’s at elite Universities are or must be less capable because of their race, & have been admitted because of their race --VERSUS their ability – could not be a more racist belief & statement.)</p>

<p>Race and Intelligence, or race and ability, are hardly mutually exclusive.</p>

471

<p>from post #465:</p>

<p>“I don’t know, Hep has a pretty convincing argument, but not infallable. Bay, if you’re going to make your case, then deconstruct his case and find something worth arguing about. He uses numbers, you use rhetoric, and logically speaking, numbers are stronger than words.”</p>

<p>Which is exacly what I said in the parents forum debate. All the parents did in that AA debate was dance around my questions and statistics with flowery language and emotionally-fuelled attacks. If an AA supporter could actually find a statistic to back up what he/she is saying, then maybe I’ll consider their argument. So far though, I have not seen such a statistic.</p>

472

<p>“However, many people on the board have made ad hominem & amazingly racist remarks directed at URM’s & implying de facto superiority of certain races & nationalities.”
"Whites don’t have a lock on IQ & intellectualism, Asians don’t have a lock on IQ & intellectualism, either. One is not stupid because one is a URM. That’s just blatant, blind racism.</p>

<p>(I’m not suggesting that you are, julyinoh, but the repeated contentions by others that all, most, or even some of the URM’s at elite Universities are or must be less capable because of their race, & have been admitted because of their race --VERSUS their ability – could not be a more racist belief & statement.)</p>

<p>Race and Intelligence, or race and ability, are hardly mutually exclusive.</p>

<hr>

<p>It’s all the people who are playing the victim and implying that they are entitled to more than other races and nationalities who are being racist. And aren’t people who support AA racist because they’re implying that the majority of URMs who didn’t do as well are weak-minded people who are easily brought down by their circumstances and need to blame others for their problems in order to get ahead? These are some of the same people who say that URMs should be paid to do well academically, which is implying that implying that URMs are just money grubbers who are too lazy to work hard on their own.
No one’s saying that Asians are born with superior intellingence over other groups or that other groups are incapable of doing as well as Asians, just that Asians do better because overall they tend to take academics more seriously than most white or black students due to pressure from parents. I’m not saying that focusing too much on academics is good thing either, just that the stereotypical Asian has different interests than a nonasian, and people tend to do well in what they devote the most attention too. If you devote more attention to your other activities such as ECs, social life, and work than your academic stuff, of course you’re not going to do as well academically, regardless of your race.
Again, AA only masks the problem by filling quotas for individual colleges, but it doesn’t improve actual performance in URMs as a whole by for instance improving the quality of education in high schools in impoverished areas. Quotas in and of themselves have no value or meaning. Should they have AA to increase the number of URMs in the NHL? Many of the URMs in top colleges did have the credentials to qualify, and I’m not saying that top colleges will automatically let an URM in. But the point is that a borderline URM candidate would have a lot better chance of getting in than a borderline Asian or white candidate since there aren’t any racial preferences to tip the balance in their favor. Even given roughly equal stats between two canditates, it would be absurd if a sports team used race as the deciding factor in choosing to decided which of the two players to add, because the player that was rejected on the basis of race might have something else besides stats that would help the team more.</p>

<p>“And since only the adcoms know what they want, it’s not really our place to decide who they should/n’t let in.”</p>

<p>Really. So if adcoms decided that they didn’t want more underrepresented groups, you wouldn’t question who they let in either.</p>

473

<p>I myself am Korean (1st generation Korean-American), and I found this be hilarious. I’m sorry that most of you guys couldn’t share the laugh with me.</p>

<p>I know that being Asian hurts my chances of being accepted into the top tier school, but why look like hard-a$$es about it?</p>

474

<p>

</p>

<p>I couldn’t agree more.</p>

<p>There is one parent here who has consistently stated that his race is entitled to preferential treatment because of past discrimination.</p>

<p>Yet, the other parents who support affirmative action NEVER call him out when he writes (paraphrased):</p>

<ol>
<li>This country owes African / Carribean immigrants and their American-born children nothing. Matter of fact, if they come over here, they assume the debt owed to American Blacks.</li>
</ol>

<p>I don’t know how this parent can reconcile his strong belief in affirmative action with the fact that many recipients of preferential treatment are either immigrants or children of immigrants.</p>

<ol>
<li>Either Asians will pay for past sins nicely, or they will pay not so nicely, with things like 9/11.</li>
</ol>

<p>What did 9/11 have anything to do with slavery or segregation?</p>

<ol>
<li>The Asian schools are still not as good as HYPS. Berkeley is still not as great as Harvard, even though it is almost half Asian.</li>
</ol>

<p>What is an “Asian” school? There is no such thing as a Historically Asian College or University.</p>

<p>What does Berkeley’s student body makeup have anything to do with its greatness?</p>

475

<p>“I know that being Asian hurts my chances of being accepted into the top tier school, but why look like hard-a$$es about it?”</p>

<p>I’m not even Asian, but AA still bothers me. I am white though, so I do have somewhat of a legit gripe with it.</p>

476

<p>According to some studies cited here on CC, AA barely affects whites.</p>

477

<p>“According to some studies cited here on CC, AA barely affects whites.”</p>

<p>Those studies I’m sure just deal with college admissions. AA affects whites more in the job market, since URMs are very often hired over them (which is what happened to my cousin w/the police department).</p>

478

<p>

</p>

<p>A notable exception is the UC law school study. Apparently, whites are the biggest winners when racial preferences are removed, and Asians hardly benefit. Percentages of the so-called “under-represented” minorities, however, plummet drastically.</p>

<p>I believe the intention of that paper was to refute the claim that Asians would be the biggest winners in race-blind admissions.</p>

<p>See, here’s a cultural difference. When I see the results of that paper, I don’t think, “Denied opportunity! Missed chances! Lack of inclusion! Racism!”</p>

<p>I think, “I need to work harder, because there are a lot of tough candidates out there.”</p>

479

<p>“Asians do better because overall they tend to take academics more seriously than most white or black students due to pressure from parents.”</p>

<p>One more gigantic, inaccurate generalization.</p>

<p>I don’t know how many times I have to say this:
Colleges do NOT accept “groups.”
Colleges do NOT judge one applicant by the dominant subculture, expectations, or behavior of the group with which that student self-identifies.<br>
You don’t get pluses or minuses on your application for being alike or different from that group.</p>

<p>Therefore, could not care less about rewarding YOU, the applicant (OR punishing you, the applicant) because your GROUP (majority race, minority nationality, whatever) tends to be either good college material, bad college material, etc. From the highly qualified pool, which will include lots of non-URMs, and a smaller number of EQUALLY QUALIFIED Urm’s, the Admissions Committee does not sit there and say, </p>

<p>“Hmmm, let’s see, We already have lots of Asians in this pile of Likely Accepteds; this student John Chang is really not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but hey, Asians IN GENERAL are just such an asset to a University, that we should take a chance on him despite his sub-par performance to date, because hey, his GROUP’s work ethic will turn him around during his 4 years here.” </p>

<p>Nor do they say, “Let’s look at this black kid who surmounted overwhelming odds in his community & family, & made it to the Highly Qualified pile. Chances are, given his GROUP’s history of non-performance <em>pre</em>-high school, and his GROUP’s retention rate, he’ll just fail here. Let’s not admit him.”</p>

<p>Nor do they say, “Let’s look at this poor white girl here, who managed Val status & national academic awards & groundbreaking physics research in a Special Opportunity program. Heck, so many white students only produce when in high school. She’ll just come to college & get high & get drunk like many other whites. That must also mean that whites have no work ethic, & that’s just a universal thing among whites. No reason to reward her personally. Nah. Let’s just PUNISH her for the sins of SOME members of her group.”</p>

<p>Thank goodness they look at individuals, not group statistics.</p>

480

<p>"“Hmmm, let’s see, We already have lots of Asians in this pile of Likely Accepteds; this student John Chang is really not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but hey, Asians IN GENERAL are just such an asset to a University, that we should take a chance on him despite his sub-par performance to date, because hey, his GROUP’s work ethic will turn him around during his 4 years here.” </p>

<p>Nor do they say, “Let’s look at this black kid who surmounted overwhelming odds in his community & family, & made it to the Highly Qualified pile. Chances are, given his GROUP’s history of non-performance <em>pre</em>-high school, and his GROUP’s retention rate, he’ll just fail here. Let’s not admit him.”"</p>

<p>No…</p>

<p>What they do so would be something more like this:</p>

<p>A seat at a top college comes down to these 2 applicants:</p>

<p>“John Chang” as you call him, is an Asian student with a 2300 SAT score. He was in the top 1% of his class and has won numerous awards. He also has solid EC’s.</p>

<p>Mr. URM is another candidate applying to the same college. He has a 1900 SAT score and was in the top 15% of his high school class. Mr. URM hasn’t won as many awards as Mr. Chang, nor does he excell as much academically. In fact, I’ll go as far as to say that Mr. URM’s EC’s, essays, and recs aren’t as impressive as Mr. Chang’s. </p>

<p>The seat seems like a lock for Mr. Chang right? Wrong! The hypothetical top college realizes that it wants more URMs for its student body. So what does it do? It takes Mr. URM over Mr. Chang, despite the fact that Mr. Chang obviously deserves the seat more.</p>

<p>You don’t think this happens? Why then are URM acceptance rates higher at colleges? Why then has it been found that if race alone was removed as a factor in admissions, URM acceptance rates would fall as much as 20%? All the numbers show that the above hypothetical situation happens. Not alwyas, but it happens.</p>