"Race" in College Admissions FAQ & Discussion 4

Applying to College
381

<p>Uhhh … there are these things known as lurking variables? Let’s talk science here and not pseudoscience, mmmkay?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But note that only happened when their presence became culturally acceptable.</p>

<p>Note that blacks and Hispanics for some reason don’t really dominate swimming … which if you think about it – is really strange! </p>

<p>Why? </p>

<p>Black culture doesn’t encourage black children to idolise Michael Phelps (or whoever came before him). And for that matter, no black scientist idols. </p>

<p>Whereas Huaren have scholar icons from the Tang Dynasty or the Spring and Autumn Period or some Buddhist sage or whatever.</p>

<p>Oh heyyy look at the interesting internal divergent distribution effect for Middle Eastern people! It all depends on whether they idolise Wahhabism and living in tents in the style of the 7th century Islam or whether the elders of society (who indoctrinate the children) are more proud of the era of when Islam was responsible for the golden age of science!</p>

382

<p>Swimming? Nope. Soccer? At least for the American scene – white people, and occasionally Middle Easterners – dominate it – sometimes Asians! (Well they are more visible at local leagues…) Oh look at the surprising effect size of culture … and that’s really strange because the stereotype is that black athletes are better, faster, stronger. But such talent won’t be realised in the absence of cultural motivations. (Now, take cognitive talent …) </p>

<p>Now, think self-perpetuating effects.</p>

<p>Now if you’ve seen Chris Rock, you must know about his little comedic skit on slavery … firstly realise that slaves, you know, represent a founding population and therefore subject to the founding effect.</p>

<p>But Killbilly, who appears to have no conception of evolutionary theory (how did the ang moh even pass his LSATs?) of course appeared to have ignored this … you know, his wonderful fallacy of assuming the genetic allele distribution of black Americans and that of Africans would be the same… </p>

<p>Oh you know, that slaves experienced a selective pressure to be physically strong … and intellectually feeble. If you were weak, you likely died during the ocean trip. If you were intellectually ambitious – you had to conceal it or you’d likely be snuffed out. Intellectually ambitious people, after all, make good Spartacuses … white slavebreeders wanted strong, dumb slaves.</p>

<p>And so the gene pool was altered by the very act of slavery alone. The <em>American</em>, <em>white</em> act of slavery – the sin of your ancestors, Killbilly! </p>

<p>And now take in the self-perpetuating effects, because as you can see that in the case of sexual selection, culture can reinforce genetic trends, and genetic trends can in turn reinforce cultural trends, and what parents and peers would value.</p>

<p>But oafs like Killbilly are apparently incapable of understanding the magnitude of cultural effects, or what a Nash equilibrium or an Evolutionary Stable Strategy is. Prevailing cultural trends, once established as a stable equilibrium, can suppress individual selection trends…</p>

383

<p>Since you proclaim to be such a champion of a biological explanation Killbilly, surely you know about the cooperation game? Extended to ecology and population structure? You know, like how altruist individuals do better if they are born (or generated) in a community of existing altruists? OH wait, I’m sorry, you refuse to recognise the findings of Maynard Smith and Price. (You know Nature, 1973??) Who was your game theory professor anyway? Apparently you’re too cowardly to tell me that also. No sense of intellectual honour.</p>

<p>So now take allele sets that do well intellectually … now imagine, in what sort of environments would they perform best? In a culture where other intellectuals perform well, or in a culture where the presence of other intellectuals are lacking? And so in the latter there is a negative selection effect against intellectuals – a self-reinforcing one – the ESS for such an environment is anti-intellectual. Such an ESS, as you can imagine, is hard to overthrow.</p>

<p>Now what about ESS’s drawn along racial lines? What if white, richer neighbourhoods resisted interaction with (or the arrival of) black individuals, and black neighbourhoods resisted the entry of intellectual influence? These interactions after all, are common and well-known culturally. </p>

<p>Killbilly’s analysis is incredibly myopic for the genetic/evolutionary perspective he ostensibly champions, because amazingly he ignores the simplest of fundamental mechanisms like you know … kin selection and group selection … how did you even pass your evolutionary bio class Killbilly?</p>

<p>You talk about data … but the data is worthless for your argument when your analysis is myopic, ignorant and flawed.</p>

384

<p>I got bored after reading through the first post. </p>

<p>Let me just ask you this: why did asian cultures develope to value intellect more, while african cultures value sports?</p>

<p>Oh, and please, don’t bore people with long paragraphs; just answer in short, simple sentences. You don’t need to try to impress a bunch of strangers who you’ll probably never meet in real life.</p>

385

<p>NewHope33</p>

<p>Lol I know, it’s easy to get carried away thinking about getting a boost for ethnicity … but no, I’m fairly qualified for some good schools, I’m just hoping this can give me a slight edge. The way I see it, everyone has something that makes them different/unique on applications, and I guess this is just my thing.</p>

386

<p>@ ny mom</p>

<p>I agree thank you</p>

387

<p>In the end, I think people oppose AA so much because it’s something you’re born with, and not something you’ve achieved through hardwork. That’s why it appears to be an unfair advantage. However, if you think about it, what about being born with a higher intelligence? Or extremely supportive parents? There’s going to be an unfair advantage no matter what, and it’s just one thing that us asians have to deal with. Instead of wasting time complaining, we should try to work harder to improve ourselves. Right?</p>

388

<p>

Wrong, because none of this changes the principle that racial AA is wrong and should not exist.</p>

389

<p>

African cultures highly value education.</p>

390

<p>Anyway, what I’m saying is, if the difference between asians and whites and blacks is being of their social background and culture, why did their cultures develop that way in the first place?</p>

<p>I still think that different groups of people are better at different things.</p>

<p>Also there are a lot of wrong things in the world. You can choose to complain about that jaywalker all day long, or you can ignore it and move on.</p>

391

<p>I wasn’t complaining, I was just correcting you that Africans do value education.</p>

392

<p>

  1. How much does that jaywalker affect your life? Very little, if at all. What about affirmative action? You don’t think it affects an ORM’s life?
  2. You’re forgetting the third option, which is of course is taking action.</p>

<p>Yeah, I know, here we are on a board simply discussing AA while probably no one is doing anything about it. But at the same time, what I (and quite a few others) am doing here is representing my side of the AA argument and hoping to persuade AA supporters that racial AA is wrong.</p>

393

<p>^You may have addressed this already but, why do you think it’s wrong?</p>

394

<p>

Sorry, was too lazy to quote. The last sentence was directed at monstor, not you.</p>

395

<p>

I don’t think I can adequately sum it up in a few words (I’ve been presenting my argument throughout the course of this thread), but I believe AA (RACIAL affirmative action) is wrong because it holds racial groups at different standards; it decreases an Asian’s chances at a top university, undermines the ability of URMs, establishes a breeding ground for untrue racist arguments, and ultimately discourages scholarly achievement amongst both URMs and ORMs.</p>

396

<p>^Do you believe legacy admissions are also wrong?</p>

397

<p>

It depends on the circumstances. For legacy applicants who are already well-qualified to be at a top school (2300+ SAT, near-top class rank, etc), yes, I see nothing wrong with giving them a legacy boost. Legacy boosts can make sense from a monetary standpoint; if a college establishes a strong connection with a family, that family might often provide the school with millions of dollars in endowment.</p>

<p>For legacies with weak qualifications? Absolutely not; I do not think that they should be admitted.</p>

<p>But you’ve brought to mind another thing about racial AA: more often than not, URM admits are less qualified than rejected ORMs.</p>

398

<p>

Then affirmative action makes sense from a diversity standpoint. </p>

<p>Personally, I find it hypocritical that people can argue against AA but not against legacy admissions. Most of the people who benefit from legacy admissions are white and since many top institutions barred blacks and women from attending, legacy admissions will mostly benefit white males. And like race, being a legacy is something you’re born with.</p>

<p>

Define “qualified.” SAT scores, GPA?</p>

399

<p>

No it doesn’t. Advocating racial diversity simply further establishes the racial bounds taht have long impeded the advancement of our society. I do believe that there is a lot to be gained from socioeconomic diversity.</p>

<p>

Perhaps you neglected to read the rest of my posts. Only if a legacy applicant is highly qualified should he/she receive an admissions boost, in my opinion.
If a legacy is less academically qualified than the majority of the applicant pool, I do not believe he/she should be able to get a free pass. Similarly, I do not believe a less academically qualified URM should be able to get a free pass.</p>

400

<p>But the legacy applicant is still receiving a boost which is unfair to other groups who never had a chance to get the legacy due to past discrimination. Besides, a lot of legacies still get a “free pass”, but no one ever says anything, they don’t receive the stigma but when it’s a URM…</p>

<p>So if a URM is academically qualified, then should they receive a boost? or should it be given to “academically qualified” legacies?</p>