<p>
</p>
<p>Really? This is certainly not true in NY (at least in Westchester). By and large the districts that spend the most also have the best reputations.</p>
<p>Yup. Wealthy districts have had their spending capped. NJ Supreme Court created Abbot districts (low income – failing) where high spending is mandated & the suburbs are funding it. Middle class towns have crumbling schools while Newark is building gorgeous state-of-the art facilities. Because the dollars were available, Abbot districts grabbed it & fairly new facilities, some with olympic sized pools, were demolished to make way for bigger & better school buildings. Of course, that’s after a huge chunk of the $$ has been skimmed off first for various graft & corruption scams.</p>
<p>Money spent does not correlate with reputation & academic results here at all.</p>
<p>Stickershock & Cptofthehouse - I wouldn’t be so sure that what you described took place entirely without governmental involvement. My work in municipal planning over the past several years has opened my eyes to the extent to which “private enterprise” is guided, cajoled, and influenced to take certain actions instead of other ones by government agencies - often well out of sight of the public. From informal arm twisting to regulatory and financial incentives, public agencies are intimately involved in influencing the course and style of development. You might find that a lot of the things that improve a community are actually the result of a long term planning process that no one pays any attention to.</p>
<p>I have followed this thread intermittently. I would be very surprised in this PC culture that there would be intentional bias (i.e. like quotas for Jews in the past) by Princeton. From the note by one of his classmates, Li had good but not outstanding ECs (compared to even some people at his own high school) which is what the Princeton admission dean also said. Many admission committees have separate scores for academic potential (for which he would rank at the top) and EC/citizenship-leadership/talent of their candidates. The latter score evaluates the candidate’s ability to contribute and/or diversify the college community (however the school wants to do it). Since colleges are trying to build a particular community, these attributes at taken into consideration, even among those candidates that are not recruited specifically for athletics or unusual achievements/talents. If these are factored in, he may not have come up favorably compared to other students who may have had high (but not perfect SAT) scores and stronger ECs. </p>
<p>Additionally, he apparently was not admitted to MIT and ?four other universities, so other elite schools besides Princeton had reservations about admitting him. Why doesn’t he sue MIT which has a 40% Asian student population?</p>
<p>From what I can see as an outside observer, Li’s suit is either case of sour grapes, or if he was never interested in Princeton, a severe case of self-indulgent trophy hunting. </p>
<p>I am an Asian-American and I would argue that except for certain Asians that are from lower economic strata (as with all races), they are not a particularly disadvantaged group. It is never a level playing field, and there can be subtle, unspoken prejudice or ignorance about Asians even among some educated Americans. In the corporate and academic world, there still can be a “glass ceiling” in certain situations that needs to be overcome. Hopefully, it will happen soon. On the other hand, America is a land of opportunity, otherwise why would Asians and/or their parents immigrate here? He is very fortunate to have been accepted by Yale given the “pass” on him by several other colleges. A 2400 SAT gets your admission folder looked at closely at a top 10 university/LAC but does not guarantee admission. I would feel very sad for him (as I know from a few URM colleagues) if he felt the reason he did not achieve his academic or personal goals in life were solely because of his race/ethnicity. It is too easy an excuse.</p>
<p>pmyen,</p>
<p>There is no doubt that Li never wanted to attend Princeton. He himself has stated so in an interview. Given that fact, how is his lawsuit a severe case of self-indulgent trophy hunting? He didn’t want to go!</p>
<p>I don’t support his case against legacy and athlete preferences, but I am behind him 100% on his complaint against racial preferences.</p>
<p>Using race as a factor, even as one of many, means that there will be a judgment based on race, which is racism, plain and simple.</p>
<p>kluge, I would classify tax breaks and the like as less government, not more. Offering financial incentives is one way to phrase it. It’s a matter of semantics. Get the government out, assure businesses that the basic government services any district deserves are provided, and wonderful things can happen. The dealings are hardly hidden from the public. Sunshine laws allow reporters & citizens to monitor these meetings and planning sessions.</p>
<p>Fabrizio,</p>
<p>If Li never wanted to go to Princeton, then he was not harmed by being rejected. I hope the court rejects his case as being moot. I believe he must be personally harmed by the school’s actions. I don’t think the “hypothetical harm to someone” argument works.</p>
<p>Also, I’m not sure that considering race as a factor in admissions is by definition, racism. Look up the definition in the dictionary. If merely considering race = racism, then merely considering gender = sexism. Discrimination based on sex is also unconstitutional.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dictionary.com gives one definition as “Discrimination or prejudice based on race.”</p>
<p>That’s certainly what happens when one uses race as a factor. One must make a judgment, or else there is no point in using it at all.</p>
<p>Yea, indeed, I say that considering gender is sexist by definition, as follows:</p>
<p>“Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.”</p>
<p>The definition would also make sense if especially was removed and men was written in place of women.</p>
<p>Fabrizio, the fox said about the grapes AFTER he did not get them, that they were sour anyways. He would not have been a surprise acceptee at Princeton and he could have just as easily been turned down by Yale. Just because he said he didn’t want to go there, doesn’t mean that the desire was not there. If P were the only school of that category where he was accepted, I’ll bet he would be there right now, maybe suing Yale, claiming he never wanted to go THERE. I don’t think there is that much difference in getting into Y and P.<br>
I feel that his suit does have merit, not in how it applies to him, but in that this question has come up and left a bad smell for a long time. As my old mother would say, “With this bad smell, someone has farted”. Of course there could be another source for the odor. I don’t believe that there is a systematic discrimation of Asians. I do not believe that Asian apps get points taken off when a point system is used for assessment. I believe that the holistic method and the emphasis in having a diverse group of students with a wide variety of talents and interests discriminate against Asians as a group. But a lot of things end up being discriminatory to a group when you take the indirect consequences. Athletic recruiting is discrimanatory to Asians along with alumni preference (though that is rapidly changing). Geographic preferences are also discriminatory as are URM affirmative action policies (which have been upheld in the Supreme Court as long as there is not Point system or quota involved). It is discriminatory to females that some of this school with lopsided ratios are giving males preference in admissions and scholarships. It is discriminatory that schools trying to build a department are preferring majors for that subject. However, there is a strong belief that if you are Asian, you are automatically going to have a harder time getting into the selective school. That is a notion worth having Princeton giving its try to dispel…</p>
<p>Kluge, I agree that the many things are indirectly government backed but that shopping center turn around was not. It is the exception to the rule other than the additional police patrols that were rather begrudgingly given AFTER the Discovery Zone was built and families insisted. Now they are no longer needed as the place is as upscale as any strip mall in that area, but during that transition period, it was desired and demanded. There was a lot of controversy about having that bus stop there which had added to the degeneration of the place along with that $1 movie theatre. The local officials had no solution for the downward trend there since it was private property,and the last I heard, there is now a skirmish trying to get the mall and retailers to pay more for some road work around there because of the excess traffic. In this case the local govt is rather sullen about their years of claiming that little could be done here,and the quick turnaround that occurred without their involvement which has gotten some sharp barbs from the press and citizens.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I don’t support racial preferences, I’d be happy if it was definitively revealed that Asians do not have a harder time getting into selective schools.</p>
<p>It’d be tough, considering that Asian applicants are consistently ranked lower in “personal qualities”, whatever the hell that means.</p>
<p>The problem I have with his case is the fact that he was turned down by so many of the top schools – this raises serious questions about weaknesses in some other aspect of his application. All we’re privy to are the numbers, not these other factors. I hope that when the case is heard, we’ll get to find out what the teachers’ and GC’s recs were, how he interviewed, what his ECs were and such other factors that may shed light on what appears to be a surprising result. I would hope that an applicant would need more than a 2400 SAT to guarantee admission to the top schools – if not, we’re going to have even more people taking the SAT multiple times to get that magic number.</p>
<p>Fabrizio,</p>
<p>I love how you “pick and choose” your definition of racism from dictionary.com.</p>
<p>For anyone else who is interested, here is the complete version (citing 3 sources):</p>
<p>rac·ism /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ </p>
<p>noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.<br>
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.<br>
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. </p>
<p>rac·ism (rszm)</p>
<p>-noun. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race. </p>
<p>racism</p>
<p>n 1: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races</p>
<p>2: discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race [syn: racialism, racial discrimination]</p>
<p>WordNet® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University</p>
<p>Bay: </p>
<p>That tactic, as well as stretigically ignoring information that one cannot answer is a little disingenuious…you’d be surprised how often the ploy works in a high school debate competition, though. Much easier than teasing out meaning. For instance, discrimination is different than prejudice–based on a sociological perspective.</p>
<p>I posted here some 3 years ago when my daughter applied to colleges. The CC forums are always filled with knowledgeable people, particularly the parents forum which I still enjoy visiting.</p>
<p>A very few of you might remember that my daughter (Chinese-American) was admitted into Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UPenn (Management & Tech Program), Norwestern (BS/MD program), Rice, UCSD (full-ride) … but Princeton was the only one that denied her admission … well, Brown did too but Brown asked her if she was still interested and she said no, so Brown returned with a rejection letter.</p>
<p>We were quite curious to what it might be the reason for the Princeton rejection.</p>
<p>Bay,</p>
<p>Thanks! You bet I picked the definition that supported my use, in context, of racism.</p>
<p>IsleBoy, man, he cracks me up.</p>
<p>He makes serious allegations against me, and I mean serious ones. When I asked him for evidence corroborating his claims that I:</p>
<ol>
<li>Resurrected stereotypes to combat current discrimination against Asians</li>
<li>Stated that Asians are superior / more deserving than others</li>
<li>Made no distinction between East and Southeast Asians</li>
</ol>
<p>he provided nothing after two requests. When I asked him the third time, he finally dug up my previous posts and came up with a bunch of quotations with no contexts, none of which supported his assertions.</p>
<p>What really makes me laugh is his frequent praise of my “debate tactics.” I’m afraid that my skills pale in comparison to his, especially since he has an affinity for straw men.</p>
<p>Bay:</p>
<p>You, quite convincingly, proved Fabs use of selective definitions (based on his point of view). Good work. </p>
<p>As for Fabrizio, he:
- Maintaines that Asians are the most discriminated against. And, he plays into the ‘positive’ steretype of all Asians doing well on tests. (ask epiphany for confermation)
- Advocates, for admissions purposes, to use test scores as better than other measures, since, as he said, it was the most quantifiable (his own words), which favor–surprise, surprise–East Asians rather than Southeast Asians (according to admissions officers, etc…)
- And, promotes economic AA to combat inequity, which will hurt Southeast Asians, so Fab does not make the distinction, by definition. (my inference from his advocacy of economic AA coupled with his wanting to use test scores as the most quantifiable of and best indicator of fitness for college)</p>
<p>Fab:</p>
<p>Funny, but I was responding to Bay, and I believe that no mention was made to you, Fabrizio. Strange that you would continue, if it was about a debate. I suspect that it is personal for you–hence, you’ve dragged me into it once again.</p>
<p>If you do not like the use of debate tactics as a phrase, what would you call selectively ignoring definitions that do not cooberate your position, like Bay pointed out? I think, because it is so personal for you, I’d stick with the former label, rather than something else that might be less positive.</p>
<p>Glad you agree about being biased, since we all are to an extent.</p>
<p>caldad,
Far be it from me to speculate on “the” reason (if there was one), but do understand that Princeton receives a ton of Asian applicants, & particularly those interested in engineering. Lots of engineering students seek out P’s program in particular, and like attending a well-rounded (not tech-emphasis) institution. I don’t know what region you’re from, but Princeton also receives a huge number of “local” Asian aspirants in math/science, and they have particularly pushed for geographical diversity over the last 3 yrs. minimum.</p>
<p>For those of who you may be interested, P’ton also sends out a ton of acceptances to Asian students, including from the NE. (Not all of whom agree to enroll, if they have multiple offers.) So their decisions are perhaps partly based on anticipation of enrollments from certain regions, based on past patterns? Just a guess.</p>
<p>More likely, it was a case of who else applied that cycle, to Princeton. I think P. gets fewer apps than H or MIT, so if your D didn’t look quite as different, among a slighter smaller pool, that might have been a factor.</p>
<p>Brown, I’m told, can be kind of quirky as to whom they accept. For many Caucasian students, for example, it’s not always clear why. Seems a little more “mysterious” than some U’s. They outright rejected a student from D’s class who was accepted to H. Go figure.</p>
<p>IsleBoy,</p>
<p>I’ve since apologized to epiphany for my remarks, most of which stemmed from a misunderstanding.</p>
<p>Never did I say that Asians are the “most discriminated.” Instead, I said that they are the only minority who can be discriminated against without verbal reprisals. See the difference?</p>
<p>At least you got the “quantifiable” part right. Test scores favor whoever scores well. No group intrinsically performs better than others.</p>
<p>I kind of fail to see why economic affirmative action would hurt Southeast Asians, most of whom are less affluent than East Asians. Elaboration, please?</p>
<p>Your mentioning of “best indicator of fitness” reminds me of a story I read in the Washington Post a few months back. There were about 24 minority students in a certain AP Calculus AB class. 22 of them earned Bs in the class, and 2 of them earned As. When the AP scores came back, 22 of them made 1s, and 2 of them made 2s. The test clearly demonstrated that these students had not mastered the material to warrant Bs or As.</p>
<p>I fail to see how picking a definition that suits my use of a term in context is considered a good debate tactic. It can’t compare to your multiple straw man tactic.</p>
<p>Am I biased? Oh, of course. I’m not so self-righteous that I’m going to accept the discrimination of my ethnic group as a “just and well-intentioned process.”</p>
<p>And anyway, for everyone’s edification, fabrizio did not offend me, nor would I have needed an apology, if he did. (I think IsleBoy’s referring to our lively debate in Admissions forum, which was an extension & a prelude to much of what is being posted here.)
:)</p>
<p>Fabrizio,</p>
<p>You seem young and well-intentioned, but you are very defensive and not very open to other viewpoints.</p>
<p>Your feelings of racial discrimination are no different than those of Whites during the 70s when Affirmative Action was in full swing. It was a difficult time for the average white man/woman, but somehow, most of us have come to accept and support the idea that diversity ultimately benefits all Americans.</p>