<p>Reading this thread and other AA threads on this board has made me worried that some crazy is going to take out their belief that some minority took their place in a scary way.</p>
<p><<the college=“” boys=“” in=“” the=“” pictures=“” were=“” product=“” of=“” generations=“” inbred,=“” cozy=“” system=“” that=“” existed=“” back=“” day.=“”>></the></p>
<p>But if we skip ahead a few generations, is there any reason to believe the faces will be any different, notwithstanding race? Isn’t AA just a means to bring diversity to the inbred, cozy system rather than a way to change it? </p>
<p>AA was born of a time when racism and sexism were not denied. Because racism and sexism were honest (edit to mean forthright), it was fightable. I think AA is perceived in a negative manner partly b/c of the scores of well meaning liberals who continue to deny in the face of all reality that preferential treatment is an inherent part of AA. From what I can glean, they don’t deny that preferential treatment is given to minorities, they just deny that it has any effect on non-minorities. And they state that with a straight face. Logic, who needs logic when you’ve got PC hysteria? </p>
<p>How’s this for honesty, keeping in mind that Harvard did not admit women to its law school until 1950 - <a href=“http://www.law.harvard.edu/alumni/bulletin/backissues/spring99/article1a.html[/url]”>http://www.law.harvard.edu/alumni/bulletin/backissues/spring99/article1a.html</a>
<seated in=“” a=“” circle=“” the=“” griswold=“” living=“” room,=“” each=“” woman=“” turn=“” responded=“” to=“” deans=“” question=“” of=“” why=“” they=“” were=“” taking=“” place=“” man.=“” “it=”" sounds=“” awful,“=”" hope=“” said,=“” “but=”" i=“” later=“” received=“” more=“” than=“” 100=“” rejections=“” from=“” law=“” firms,=“” all=“” which=“” asked,=“” why=“” are=“” you=“” trying=“” take=“” man?=“”> (Hope graduated in 1964)</seated></p>
<p>To tell a non-diverse student that his rejection could not have been the result of his non-diversity belies the worse form of hypocrisy, and racism. Real people are being hurt by these policies but if we stop denying it is happening and start addressing it, real progress can be made. Instead of hushing those who dare to speak their mind, or leaving to go throw up, perhaps real solutions can be forged. Solutions that respect the value of diversity but also respect equal treatment. I mean, after all, that is what the 14th Amendment was about. </p>
<p>I generally steer clear of these discussions because most people lack the objectivity and self control to discuss diversity on any sane level.</p>
<p>Parentny and others who are proposing an income/adversity check for AA beneficiaries should know that the reason that there is AA for URMs is because not enough of those students are making threshhold test scores and grades, or even showing that they can get through a rigorous academic college program EVEN WHEN WE INCLUDE THE UPPER INCOME , ADVANTAGED KIDS. The decision has been made by colleges and other institutions including some businesses that it is more important to have a representation of these minorities for a number of reasons, than to have hardly any in represented. Also income levels are not good measures of adversity. As someone who lived in low income clusters for many years among very highly educated, motivated and cultured families, I can tell you that the single most important advantage for a child is the able support from his parents. That is really why many Asian kids who come from economically poor families do well. The parents sacrifice and make sure the child is given every educational advantage and support they can muster. Such a child is more educationally advantaged over a middle income or even high income child whose parents are not interested or able to give support or are too busy chasing their own demons to be of much use. But that kind of situation is difficult to measure. Though I am as touched as anyone of the families who work themselves to the bone so the child gets every bit of advantage educationally, the testimonials should go to the parent, not the child. I take money regularly from “poor” families who want me tutor their kids on the SATs, and I find that these kids have already been well trained in test taking over years. That is a big inherent advantage.</p>
<p>well zagat what do you think might be possible way to resolve the issue and avoid the tragedy you just described?..There is a perception that does not go away. The AA side acts as if the ‘non-believers’ are wrong, they should see the light, they are stupid, anti AA. The other side also believes that it hurts kids on individual levels, and many AA kids are getting in places by playing the race card.</p>
<p>My purpose was to start a dialogue that was not a re-iteration of people’s beliefs but to find creative ways to come up with a possible new concept that could work.</p>
<p>The thing that needs to be done about the “backlash” is to not pander to it. The “logic” used by people who can convince themselves that the admission of a tiny number of URMs to various schools is the reason that some other individual student did not get accepted into any particular school is not rational, it’s emotional. Self-centered people with a sense of frustrated entitlement will not bother to actually analyze the situation objectively - any plausible theory which reinforces their sense of outrage and victimization will serve, and having someone to blame for the “obvious” injustice of the situation is a goal in itself. That’s the actual basis for the “backlash”, and the appropriate response to it is to treat it the same way any other tantrum is treated.</p>
<p><<the reason=“” that=“” there=“” is=“” aa=“” for=“” urms=“” because=“” not=“” enough=“” of=“” those=“” students=“” are=“” making=“” threshhold=“” test=“” scores=“” and=“” grades,=“” or=“” even=“” showing=“” they=“” can=“” get=“” through=“” a=“” rigorous=“” academic=“” college=“” program=“” when=“” we=“” include=“” the=“” upper=“” income=“” ,=“” advantaged=“” kids.=“”>></the></p>
<p>uhh, you’re not suggesting it’s genetic, are you? I mean, the president of Harvard tried making a similar point and boy did the ish hit the fan.</p>
<p>I think people should examine why URM enrollment in college is so low. Most AA proponents I would guess would blame it on the racial injustices that existed in society and continue to exist in society. I’m not naive. As a minority (though not a URM) I acknowledge that racism still exists. But that explanation cannot explain why Asians have such high college enrollment rates considering they too have had to deal with racial discrimination.</p>
<p>Others may say that it’s because URMs typically come from underprivileged backgrounds while Asians (as indicated by their high median incomes) come from more advantaged backgrounds. Again, that is true today but it was only a few years ago that most Asians arriving in the States were agricultural workers much like many Latinos today. If people acknowledge that 40 years is not enough time for African Americans to achieve equalization in the US, how have Asians been able to do it? (they were denied citizenship until only 50 years ago. This is not a rhetorical question. Just a question in general). Furthermore, the success of immigrant Asians (many of whom came with very little money and no language skills) dispells the theory that it is impossible to be successful coming from a disadvantaged background.</p>
<p>Personally, though not politically correct, I think it has to do with a difference in cultural values. I don’t think it is a shocker to anyone that typically education is stressed in the Asian culture. Many AA proponents stress the opinion that college education is not emphasized in URM communities because so few older generations have gone to college. I think that is a precise reason why URMs should value college MORE not less. It should be whites who take college for granted. Minorities on the other hand should value college more because they had been denied upper level education for so long. When slaves were not permitted to go to school, did they sit around and moan about social injustices? No, they taught themselves. When people in Africa were finally granted free elections for the first time, did they all sit at home simply because there was no such precedant? No. They lined up for miles to vote because it was something that had been denied to them for so long.</p>
<p>momsdream,
I love your comment about the one person who could really benefit from observing [well-chosen] AA candidates, etc. I have also addressed elsewhere the issue of stereotypes vs. true qualifications. (On the thread titled, “AA makes me bleed.”)</p>
<p>simba,
Re: your clearinghouse proposal: Why not for non-URM’s as well? Do you see the marginalization of minorities outside the mainstream of applicants? What’s <em>that</em> about?</p>
<h2>With current flaws, current inequities (for non-URMs as well as URMs), & excessive numbers in the admissions pool vs. available slots, others have suggested a “match” system (implying a single ultimate acceptance for each candidate), possibly computerized. But no one has suggested singling out one large segment for such a purpose, unless I missed something. If it’s a single acceptance (to reduce the waitlist & yield gaming by colleges, etc., & reduce the “insanity” factor), then it should obviously apply to everyone. Your proposal invites <em>more</em> inequity, & is based on some erroneous assumptions.</h2>
<p>Everyone,
To recap our school’s results for just one college: 4 students applied to Stanford this yr. One applied Early. She’s the Val, & also happens to be the only Asian of the 4. She was deferred, then accepted. Three applied RD. One of those 3 is an A/Am’n. Unfortunately, she did not want the E. Coast, though I encouraged her that she might get fab fin. aid if she went East. It would take me a page to describe her assets. I adore her & wish she were my D. Although she has talent, brains, ability, & promise, her most outstanding assets are probably her personal qualities, which she has enough of for about 5 people. I could kill Stanford for w/listing her. All 3 of her competitors have higher stats than her, but they also had many more options, & she is extremely accomplished in many areas (including arts, co-curricular, etc.). The other 3 also have acceptances back East. My D & I are going to campaign for the Asian to say yes to the Eastern acceptance, & maybe Stanford will reconsider their w/listed candidate from the same school. (Asian’s a lovely student who we feel needs to go East, anyway, to broaden her exposure.)</p>
<p>So you see, it doesn’t always work in a URM’s favor, simba. If I were on the committee, it would be the A/American (over the accepted Asian), or it would be my resignation. But, Stanford looked at 2 candidates, felt they had room for representing only one from our small school, & made their choice based on higher stats. It was a stupid choice, i.m.o. (And not because the other one’s Asian – so don’t flame me, anyone!) One reason I would choose the A/A over the accepted student is that the A/A was focused: she knows she wants a career in medicine; she’s done special programs about that; the other student has no clue even what she might major in & has not done any special programs in anything. And does medicine ever need more URM’s, esp. black & hispanic: big articles recently on drops in med school enrollments among these URMs. So, Stanford, you’re going to pick an unfocused Val over a focused student with a ton of commitment? Your loss. The other 2 applicants, Caucasians, were w/listed also. Luckily, they will not be pushing to get off the W/L, so maybe there’s a prayer for this student.</p>
<p>P.S. The percentage of URMs at this h.s. is laughably minuscule. All the more reason Stanford should be ashamed.</p>
<p>Sorry about the rant. :-(</p>
<p>The reason why URM enrollments have been so low is simple: affirmative action for rich white folks, for many generations. It permeates how ECs are measured, how feeder schools are viewed, how SATs are impacted by income (or simply the number of times you can afford to take 'em), how “most difficult” curriculum is viewed, legacy admits, developmental admits, “old-boys” networks and recommendations, even sports (yes, I know there is football and and basketball - but consider the relative weight “prestige” institutions give to lacrosse, squash, tennis, equestrian, etc. relative to their permeation in society generally speaking).</p>
<p>The reason URM enrollments remain low is…affirmative action for rich (mostly white) folks. </p>
<p>A concept that would work - do exactly what the CollegeBoard knows they could do - and won’t. Provide only SAT scores weighted against family income and number of years of parental education. Take the lowest of SAT scores, rather than the highest, or limit the number of takes. Revise consideration of ECs. Give class rank higher value in admissions. Put a firm limit on number of contacts GCs at traditional feeder schools can have with the college.</p>
<p>It ain’t gonna happen - but there ARE alternatives.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>There’s poverty and poverty. The profile of Asian immigration changed drastically after 1964. A very high proportion of Asians who came afterward did struggle economically for a while, but they came from well-educated background (When I was in college, the sole Chinese restaurant in Cambridge, MA was famous for employing mostly MIT students as waiters.)
The same, by the way, applied to the early wave of Vietnamese boat people. The majority who fled were of middle class background. I heard stories of physicians and lawyers working as janitors (they could not pass the exams because of poor English) but they had the background to help their children succeed. So it’s no surprise that there is a fair representation of Vietnamese in colleges and universities nowadays, including in the teaching ranks.
Hispanics, by and large, who have been in this country for the same period of time, came from different backgrounds. Ditto Hmong and Cambodians. Their rate of college admission is much lower than that of Vietnamese.
.</p>
<p>Mini: Your explanation fails to account for why Asian American college enrollment is so high.</p>
<p>Kluge is correct. What should we do to address anything irrational?</p>
<p>My fear is that such a reaction would be just like the other senseless acts. The guys who shoot up their former workplace because it was “unfair” they were fired. The kids who do the same at their high schools because of their perceived injustices. </p>
<p>Really, all we can do is to encourage people to look at the realities:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Private schools are private businesses and can handle admissions any
way they choose;</p></li>
<li><p>Clearly these schools see an advantage to diversity and will continue
to pursue it;</p></li>
<li><p>It is no one’s god given right to get into any school;</p></li>
<li><p>The numbers of AA kids at ant given school are so small that no one
who was rejected from several is the victim of AA.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Simba, I am really curious about what you think the actual manifistation of this “backlash” will be. Is it really more than a group of kids who didn’t get into their school of choice griping in your mind?</p>
<p>Marite: I do not doubt that the % of college educated among Asian immigrants is much higher than that of Hispanics. But you fail to account for other differences:</p>
<p>1) The language problem. I presume this would be a much larger barrier for Asians than for HIspanics (and obviously blacks) because Asian languages deviate to a larger degree from English.</p>
<p>2) While Asian immigrants come educated, they do not come rich. I would love to see the median incomes and assets of Asian immigrants when they first come to the US vs. that of median income/assets in African American families.</p>
<p>3) As you acknowledge, many professionals from China had to work as janitors and secretaries while putting themselves through additional schooling or whatever else that eventually allowed them to succeed and as you noted, the language factor is an absolute crippler. No one becomes fluent in a language is 1 or 2 years. So why have Asians become so efficient at overcoming such difficulties while URMs continue to labor?</p>
<p>Mini: Your explanation fails to account for why Asian American college enrollment is so high.</p>
<p>See previous posts on the differences between caste and class. Asian American college enrollments among those from lower “castes” within their own societies are extremely low, haven’t risen, and are lower than both African-Americans and Hispanics. These include Mien, upland Lao, Hmong, Dalits from India (there aren’t many in the U.S.) That’s why the Asian-American term doesn’t have explanatory power.</p>
<p>Economics are not the sole determinant of academic performance which is why people talk about SOCIO-economic factors. And among these factors, having a college-educated parent is the most important. In my city of Cambridge, MA, we have scores of graduate students whose children qualify for free/reduced lunch. But they are in a very very different situation from the Hmong children in Lowell who also qualify for free/reduced lunch but who come from a pre-literate society in Laos.
I worked one summer as a waitress, before going to grad school at Harvard. I had very different experiences and expectations from those of the waitresses for whom this was a lifetime job, not a summer job. But I’m sure that, owing to my inexperience, I was making less money than they.</p>
<p>The problem of the Hmong has more to do with assimilation issues. As you have noted, for much of their history, they did not have a written language and I have noted as well that assimilation (particularly with respect to language) should be a larger issue within the Asian American community than the African American or Hispanic community. I still fail to see how the inability of the boat people to assimilate provides a viable explanation for the low college enrollment rates of blacks and hispanics considering the issues are different (lack of parental college education is only one in a number of factors that impeded the Hmong, most of which are not applicable to URMs).</p>
<p>“The problem of the Hmong has more to do with assimilation issues.”</p>
<p>Yup. It’s true of all people who are come from a lower caste background, or are treated as if the do. You actually DO see it - you just aren’t looking very deeply.</p>
<p>If you can’t see that literacy is important in a society as information-based as the US, there is not much point in arguing.–especially about education, which is about literacy. And I’m not talking about phonics.</p>
<p>Taxguy. I read your story and it brought to mind a series of events that happen this past February. In the pursuit of classical ballet training serious students audition of summer intensive (SI) programs and like colleges they range from highly selective to no-audition-needed- just-send-money. At my Ds studio there are two very good dancers that are the same age with excellent facility. Both girls attended a highly selective SI last summer, but one dancer has always been considered the studios BEST. She gets the most corrections (this is good and sought after in ballet), the best performance parts, the Artistic Directors praise, etc.</p>
<p>Both girls attended two highly selective SI auditions in January and each girl was accepted to both programs. In one case the #2 dancer was placed in a higher level than the #1 dancer and in the second case the #2 dancer was placed in the same level as the #1 dancer but #2 dancer was given a ½ tuition merit scholarship. The SI that gave the #2 dancer the scholarship was the same program the #1 dancer attended the previous summer. Everyone in the studio was aghast until we all **
let go of our previous assumptions** and took a closer look at the two dancers. </p>
<p>I dont know the true facts about the 2 students you wrote about but maybe those universities saw something in the URM student that was lacking in his Caucasian counter-part, that had nothing to do with race or ethnicity. A few points difference in the SAT and GPA was probably not enough to make the two students look academically different, but the universities may have felt that the URM added something (beyond just race) to their school that the other student didnt. We do a disservice to our children when we give them a quick blame-the-other-guy answer instead of allowing them to do their own introspection.</p>
<p>You know what they say about not seeing the forest for the trees.</p>