Daily Princetonian Makes Fun of Stereotypical Asian Students

Applying to College
481

<p>Of course #450 is about you, epiphany, who else would make such falsehood as “first to attend a US college” loophole.</p>

<p>epiphany said
“I know it’s not immigration per se, but rather First Generation to attend college. However, some have interpreted that as meaning first to attend a U.S. college. That’s how that add-on is advantaged.”</p>

<p>This is what the newspaper article said </p>

<p>“But as the only son of professionals born in China, Mr. Hu fits the profile of Asians at Berkeley in at least one way: they are predominantly first-generation American. About 95 percent of Asian freshmen come from a family in which one or both parents were born outside the United States.” </p>

<p>There is not a single word implying that being first-generation American give them special preference to go to UCB using misrepresentation. If it is in the rest of the article, show me.</p>

<p>AdOfficer said he and his school would take into consideration first-generation American who may not understand American education system or testing system. He was hardly talking about children of professionals. He was not talking about they are using a loophole of misrepresenting “First Generation to attend college” to mean “first to attend a U.S. college” as you claimed.</p>

<p>So who is making an unfounded accusation?</p>

<p>In the UC application for, you are asked about each parent’s highest level of formal education, the choices box are: no high school, some high school, high school graduate, some college/university, two-year college graduate, four-year college/university graduate, postgraduate study. There is no possible misrepresentation of college means US college only. If anyone does this, it is not a legal loophole, it is cheating. If Asian students are really doing this, epiphany, why don’t you file a complaint to UCB. I would be the first one to cheer when such students are kicked out of UCB.</p>

482

<p>Again, I did not say that there was falsification, misrepresentation, or anything of the sort. I said that they had claimed a legitimately claimable (sorry for makin’ up the word) advantage. Nothing wrong with that. What I’m saying is, that there is then zero tolerance among some Asians on this board that other groups can not also claim <em>legitimate</em> advantages when it happens to apply to their own situations, AND when the student is otherwise also (like the UC Asian examples) an accomplished student. I do not support, (naturally!), illegitimately claimed advantages, such as some that have been anecdotally reported on other threads. (People of distant minority heritage claiming to be a URM, etc., claiming poverty when false, etc. – if those anecdotal reports are true.)</p>

483

<p>If ADCOM would accepts subpar John Chang over highly qualified Mr. URM, I would certainly protest. I think Hepstar would do the same thing too, that is his principle. That is why he would also protest when high qualified John Chang is passed over in favor of of Mr. URM.</p>

<p>Yes, let us look at individual and not the group. Forget John Chang is Asian and Mr. URM is a URM which are really group label.</p>

484

<p>I have zero tolerance of any Asian who claimed to be the “First Generation to attend college” to mean “first to attend a U.S. college”. This is not a legitimate loophole.</p>

<p>However only epiphany thinks that Asians are doing it.</p>

485

<p>Colleges are not going to “forget” that John Chang is Asian: it’s part of who he is. It’s part of his identity, & the colleges want a very mixed but capable class. </p>

<p>I understand what you are saying, and we’ll just have to respectively disagree on this that race should never be included. It’s included only once that highly qualified has already been determined, based on – NOT race – but on the individual accomplishments of each applicant. </p>

<p>So in my previous post I was not, and am not here, trying to rehash these currently unbridgeable differences of opinion. I will never agree that among that highly accomplished group of a mixture of backgrounds, the colleges should not seek a balanced mix of backgrounds in that super-achieving freshman class. The unaccomplished student, URM or non-URM, is not an issue. Elite U’s are not interested in the nonaccomplished student of any background, including anyone who would be first of such group to be admitted. Not interested. </p>

<p>What my earlier recent post was aimed at are those who argue for “group” judgments as to the worth of one particular student (his/her “group’s” values, behavior, etc.), based on identification with that group. We don’t think that way in this country (any more), and we should never think that way. Admissions committees never make decisions this way, positively or negatively.</p>

486

<p>Re Post 484:</p>

<p>Again, I never said this. Do not misrepresent me, & you need to move on here.</p>

487

<p>

</p>

<p>Why don’t we discriminate on the basis of:</p>

<ol>
<li>National Origin</li>
<li>Creed</li>
<li>Religious Affiliation</li>
<li>Sexual Orientation</li>
</ol>

<p>Aren’t these also factors that make a person “who he is”?</p>

488

<p>Just to inform that the editor-in-chief of Daily Princetonian is technically an Asian(Indian Actually) himself.</p>

<p>I wouldn’t had objected to this article iff they wrote an article offending everyone; Whites, Blacks, Asians. What they did is they targeted one ethnic group alone. Agreed the art of offending everyone is difficult, yet it would have been more acceptable.</p>

489

<p>I am ready to move on, but I must say I did not misrepresent epiphany, I made an exact quote in #481, which in turns comes from </p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=3426250&postcount=365[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=3426250&postcount=365&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Be your own judge.</p>

490

<p>

I explained this, and quite nicely. You simply wish to paraphrase the meaning out of my statements. I think this has no honor. I have made it very clear that whether we wish to acknowledge it or not, we have a vast problem in America that will not simply go away as we ignore it. Indeed it will worsen. The problem was caused when the American government deliberately assaulted two groups of people, both of which now suffer tremendously as a result of that treatment. Both of these groups have a claim against the country as a result of that treatment, and that claim won’t disappear until they no longer sense the effect of that treatment. America has a duty to help these two groups overcome their legitimate claims, and it will not do this by merely deciding it will no longer throttle these groups as it has, in the case of blacks, for their entire existence in this country.</p>

<p>

Well, they perhaps don’t “call me out” for it because they see how dishonorable this sort of “paraphrasing” is. You have completely corrupted my meaning here. The point I made was not this. It was that as immigrants come to this country, they automatically assume the country’s problems. Their decision to come here and setup shop means they, as new citizens, accept the obligations to help correct those problems. Since America never created the immigrant problems, unlike in the case of blacks, these immigrants have no legitimate claim against America, and therefore the country has no duty to address any past mistreatment in their case.</p>

<p>

Well, your ignorance here is not my fault because I have been very clear how I reconcile this. There are groups that have indeed suffered ill-treatment in their former countries, and that ill-treatment is in many cases why they have come here. As a result of that treatment, these groups suffer and are unable to produce as many stellar students as other groups that have not suffered as much. Because my vision of education is not the moronic “Question Ocean” vision, where one dog eats another based on some narrow criterion, but instead wishes to expose students to a variety of people and experiences that exist in our country and in our world, I support policies that help support the existence of a representative mix of qualified students from all of these groups. Affirmative Action does this, and that is why I support it even for groups that have no legitimate claim against America. I think America has a historic duty to blacks and Native Americans due to its barbaric treatment of these two groups. It has a duty to its future to support qualified students in its population, rather than throw them to the sort of robotic system we see in China. </p>

<p>

The point I made here is that when Asians arrive on America’s shores, they suffer just like natives when foreigners respond to America’s past behavior (whether you think it is good or bad). Though recent immigrants from China had nothing at all to do with America’s policies in the middle east, they still died when WTC 1 & 2 came down. They died because they were here, and in being here they implicitly accepted the policies of the nation and paid for those policies even with their lives. That is how it works. Now as to the connection between slavery and 9/11, the thing is very loose but powerful. It strikes right at what makes us humans tick, at human nature. Were I an Islamist who wants America to understand my view, and I saw how America has persistently denied the legitimate claims of its own people, there is just no way I would ever think America would pay attention to me. I would therefore become more desperate to take America down, without wasting any time on the pure fantasy of reasoning with America. I would hit it, and then go right to the next plan to hit it again eventually to gain nukes and take it right out along with everything else. And I would over time try to exploit those of the country who have the least interest in being vigilant against me. I would certainly exploit the porous borders, use the neighborhoods of the suffering to obscure my activities, eventually to destroy whatever I can. We could have done much better here as a country. But I think our own selfishness as a people is going to cause us to lose America as we know it.</p>

<p>

Obviously this is false. Such schools exist all over Asia, and they still are not as great as American schools in my opinion. That is because I think the American approach to education is just better. Our high schools and primary schools ought not continue to drift mindlessly toward the Asian model just because that model gets high test scores. And our colleges ought not over reward students who have high scores and hardly anything else. They are correct to de-emphasize the SAT, to make the test only one of many tools to assess the nature of a student. And race ought to be one of these tools because it influences the meaning of every single thing about the student. It is complete nonsense to claim race is insignificant here in America. And if it is significant, then it ought not be ignored.</p>

<p>

This point addressed a poster who called for an Asian boycott of American universities because they employed AA. American colleges were superior to Asian colleges long before gaining so many Asians. And many American colleges that employ AA are still superior to Berkeley, though the school does not employ AA and though nearly half of its student body is Asian. You ought to learn how to keep comments in context, rather than corrupting them as you do. My point here was to underscore how we ought not get such an inflated opinion of ourselves that we think boycotting a school is going to hurt the schools more than it hurts us.</p>

491

<p>You did indeed misrepresent me. It is you who stated a falsehood, not me. I merely said that the students profiled in the article may have taken legitimate advantage of a legal “challenge” aspect, but that those who support such advantages do not support similar legitimate advantages allowed within the U.C. admissions process for students who are not Asian, or not immigrants, or not with one or both parents being First Generation. I never misstated UC admissions policy. I am quite familiar with comprehensive review and the rules & allowances therein. Your statements are not believable & not supported by my own original & following statements.</p>

492

<p>

Even if you made an “exact quote”, you failed to maintain the meaning inherent in the context. This is vital. In my view, you are constantly misrepresenting epiphany and you ought to apologize for it. This is soooo dishonorable.</p>

493

<p>

In most cases National Origin is not readily evident such that it influences the response of society to the person holding it-- unlike race. But I have heard that in some cases AA does take National Origin in consideration. A qualified Hmong Asian or Pacific Islander is probably gonna gain special attention compared with an Asian from mainland China because there are so many “qualified students” of the latter.</p>

<p>

Creed and religion are not necessarily evident such that they can influence the response of society to the person holding them—unlike race.</p>

<p>

See above, though I suppose as a student’s EC’s and other activities reveal his/her Sexual Orientation, many schools may be prone to give that student a special looksee. I certainly would because gays are so few, relative to the straight population, I would want to give special attention to qualified gays to ensure that their voices are included in the academic community I am trying to build.</p>

494

<p>fabrizio,
I was attempting to reply to you when I was inappropriately interrupted by someone else. I think you asked a fair question there, regarding other aspects of identity. (Although I think #2 and #3 overlap somewhat.)</p>

<p>But I’m going to make one last stab at explaining this, only because I think I’m “talked out” on my efforts to explain this particular aspect of the process. It’s not subterfuge and not playing with words & not hidden preferences. Nor is it so straight-line numerical/statistical as you may think. Nor is it necessarily a direct one-on-one comparative process, the way many posters on many CC threads seem to believe. This may be the way a mathematician or statistician thinks, but such would be the opposite of “holistics.” Holistics does not mean forgetting about qualifications or REPLACING qualifications with group identity (whether racial, sexual orientation, religious, national, geographical, or gender). It means double holistics: it means looking at the student as a whole (student + person) PLUS looking at the class & University as a whole (mix of interests, backgrounds, majors, etc.). And it’s a lot more indirect (when it comes to “identifying” features) than you may realize. (Black, Asian, gay, rural, MidWestern, etc.).</p>

<p>Once the committee has gone beyond the super-hooked applicants who may be from many races, btw (athletes, celebrities, some big donors), it’s going to be about the advantages to the University. So apparently the Elites do not find it most advantageous to them to prioritize perfect scores ahead of everything else. If they did consider that the priority over all other priorities, then Asians AND whites would have greater percentages there than they do. </p>

<p>They look for scholarship, intellectualism, demonstrated creativity, intellectual courage, a moral compass, a sense of personal commitment to a student’s individual passions (academic & non-academic), a certain individual maturity, work ethic, integrity, generosity/self-sacrifice. No particular ethnic group can be statistically shown to have a greater historical ownership of the above named traits than any other racial, ethnic, or national group in this country. And SINCE those kinds of priorities are the guiding principles, the resulting freshman class will undoubtedly have representation of a number of national origins, sexual orientation, religion, creed, race, gender, geography. </p>

<p>It’s not that they don’t consciously consider & discuss what they have determined to be the most prioritized aspects, when they’re looking at that highly qualified pool & all the various above aspects those students might bring. Among the highly prioritized aspects would be race, ECONOMIC BACKGROUND (possibly as important a consideration as race/culture these days), and geography. But even these 3 aspects do not necessarily dominate every other consideration when it comes to final choices, nor would just one of those 3 aspects be the only source of consideration.</p>

<p>As some others have explained, including people who have worked in admissions, it is more complex than tallies, proportions, statistics, and percentages. It is, again, holistic.</p>

495

<p>9/11 and slavery are related by a factor of 10 raised to the negative google. Besides, your explanation doesn’t take into account the massive concessions this nation has made to Blacks following the Civil Rights Movement (e.g. Black Studies, open admissions, etc.).</p>

<p>For someone who implores me to consider context, you didn’t do that good of a job in answering the “Asian” schools issue.</p>

<p>From <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=3469247#post3469247[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=3469247#post3469247&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

<p>This entire paragraph talks about American universities and American admissions policies. There is no mention or reference to Beijing, Qinghua, Seoul National, or Tokyo University. None whatsoever. When I stated that there is no Historically Asian College or University, I was talking about how there is no counterpart to Morehouse College. I was not talking about Beida or Todai.</p>

<p>Qinghua and Seoul National are obviously Asian universities, since they are located in China and South Korea, respectively. We were not talking about those. In context, I’d like to know what an “Asian” school is.</p>

<p>And many American colleges that employ AA are still superior to Berkeley, though the school does not employ AA, and though has nearly half of its student body is Asian.</p>

<p>Of course many American colleges are better than Berkeley. Berkeley is a fine, fine institution of higher education, but it is just that - a great place. There are many other great places in our nation.</p>

<p>You haven’t answered my question, though. What does Berkeley’s 40+% Asian student body have anything to do with its greatness?</p>

496

<p>“I know it’s not immigration per se, but rather First Generation to attend college. However, some have interpreted that as meaning first to attend a U.S. college. That’s how that add-on is advantaged.”</p>

<p>Nobody has even try to respond to this. I even include a link to the original so anyone can see the full context. Take a good look of the chain of posting.</p>

<p>Who is being dishonorable here.</p>

497

<p>“I certainly would because gays are so few, relative to the straight population, I would want to give special attention to qualified gays to ensure that their voices are included in the academic community I am trying to build.”</p>

<p>I agree. And I think there is consideration of this, & should be, within the other strong academic & creative attributes that a student would be required to show simultaneously. A student would not be admitted (fabrizio) to an Elite “because” of sexual orientation. (Naturally) I happen to be of the opinion that one of the gay Early admits to Columbia and Early admits to Princeton (I think it was) showed themselves in their postings to be people of particular sensitivity & perception & balanced self-concept, & that these qualities aided their admissions chances. </p>

<p>Regarding an earlier point, fabrizio, that you brought up – I think on this thread; I’m sorry if it was on another thread. I am not a “Black supporter” any more than I am a supporter of any other group. I am an advocate for education, universally. That would include my Middle Eastern student (whose family circumstances are poverty, btw) who begged me for an education despite her family’s attempts to marry her off last summer at the age of 15. It includes my Chinese-American students seeking better opportunities than what their local public school offers, whom I have advised privately about their educational choices. It includes my African <em>American</em> (non-immigrant) students living in poor areas, whose parents have an unambiguous commitment to education. Etc. </p>

<p>I’m really bothered by this “us-versus-them” mentality.</p>

498

<p>Drosselmeier,</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Are we talking about international students or American students?</p></li>
<li><p>How do you think Joseph Smith died?</p></li>
<li><p>We’ve really gone one step backwards compared to how affirmative action was first defined.</p></li>
</ol>

499

<p>Give it up, bomgeedad. You are not believable. You can try to distort an opinion & a series of postings however you wish, but it does not fly upon further analysis. Not to mention, your continued rantings about this are really immature.</p>

500

<p>The phrase “Black supporter” has been misunderstood, which may have been my fault for failing to clarify.</p>

<p>Bay stated that there is a “victim” mentality held by some Asians. I then asked him whether or not supporters of affirmative action, particularly those who are Black (i.e. Black supporter), have such “victim” mentalities.</p>

<p>He hasn’t answered.</p>

<p>Thus, I was not talking about those who support Blacks. I was talking about those who are Black and support preferential treatment for their race.</p>