Question about race and admissions

k_amp_s
Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:08:53 +0000

where did you get your information from?

Uhh, the US Census.



schools do not actively seek religious diversity. the fact that there is religious diversity on campuses is a consequence of colleges actively seeking to create racially diverse student bodies.

Really?

Then why did USC and a no. of other schools actively recruit Jewish students even tho Jews (much less white students) were already “overrepresented” (higher % of student body than pop. %) – going as far as hiring an admissions officer in charge of recruiting Jewish students?

And let’s be frank here – schools like USC did not need to actively recruit Jews to add “diversity” to their campus (since Jews were already “overrepresented”) – but this was their way of increasing the quality of their student body w/o having to increase the % of highly qualified non-white students (in other words – Asians).



that’s not true at all. African American males make up a small percentage of males in the general population yet they make up a more than significant percentage of males in jail. it’s entirely possible that most of those Asian-Am attending community colleges are Hmong, etc.



Your analogy is deeply flawed and frankly is a bit loopy (plus, I could use your argument to against your claim – since Hmong, Cambodians, etc., among the Asian groups, tend to have a higher % of their males incarcerated – since they have a higher % belonging to gangs, etc.)

And sorry – besides the fact that many Hmong, etc. don’t even go to community college (much less a 4 yr college), the demographics, alone, makes your assertion impossible.

There are LESS than 500k Hmong/Cambodians/Laotians in the US. Otoh, there are more than 2.7 million Chinese-Americans. Add the other major Asian-Am groups (Korean, Indian, Japanese, etc.) and we are talking about more than 10 million.



i thought you and all of the other anti-Affirmative Action people were…



You thought wrong.

I’m not anti-AA (tho – it should be reform to help more of the socio-economically disadvantaged URMs).



hey big guy, i never said Asians would be “hurt” the most. i was trying to point out that Asians (the ones applying Harvard/Princeton/etc.) would be more “disadvantaged” than they are now.

Uhh, but “little person” – Asian-Americans from higher socio-economic backgrounds may be disadvantaged, but there are plenty of Asian-Ams from lower socio-economic backgrounds who would benefit - and if anything, probably would end up w/ more Asian students.



colleges already do what you are talking about. the point of the holistic process is to assess your achievement in the context of the opportunities you were provided.

Of course – and you don’t think (putting aside the bias against Asian-Am applicants), that Asian applicants from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds wouldn’t generally have more impressive academic qualifications than their white counterparts (never-mind often the additional hurdles of having to learn a new language and adopt a new culture)?



there are more whites in every socioeconomic class, so, yes, they would benefit the most.

Sigh! You seem to be having a real difficulty w/ the concept of causation.

Under your premise – since there are vastly more white applicants from advantaged backgrounds than say, Asian-Am, then white students should dominate the student body at the Ivies and other elite universities (90% or higher) - but they don’t.

Furthermore, since there are vastly more WASP white applicants than Jewish applicants from advantaged backgrounds (purely on the basis of demographic nos.) – white WASP students should dominate the white student body at these schools – but they don’t.

Think about it.



what matters is the poverty rate for Asians as a whole, which is 11.8%.

And?

That % is still higher than that for white Americans.



there are 221.3 million white Americans and 13.1 million Asians.
apply the rates and you find that there are 1,545,800 Asians living in poverty versus 19,917,000 whites living in poverty.

Once again – you don’t seem to grasp the concept of causation very well.



There is no contradiction there. The current race-based Affirmative Action policy benefits Whites because it does not affect them. They are not the ones who see their representation reduced in the name of more racial diversity: Asians do. As for a socio-economic Affirmative Action policy, I have already said why I think that Whites would also benefit from that system.



You should tell that to all the white students/applicants who brought lawsuits fighting AA (pretty much all of the anti-AA lawsuits were brought about by whites - UMich, UT, etc.).

And if you take away the “artificial cap” that is placed on Asian-Am applicants, you will likely see a rise in the % of Asian-Am students at the expense of white students (such as that seen at Cal and Stanford).