<p>Once again, interesting perspectives from Goldstein and Cheers.</p>
<p>Citatation X, please don’t selectively quote MLK because the whole of his mission and words cannot be so easily capsulized in the AA debate, and certainly cannot be used sincerely by proponents of the anti AA referenda. If you want to use MLK’s words, I recommend you to “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”</p>
<p>and no one mentions Thoreau…</p>
<p>jk </p>
<p>I like to bump posts.</p>
<p>April 15th (or there abouts). Every year, it’s always the same. Anti-AA threads popping up on CC like weeds, fed by admissions anxiety, and the need to blame someone for admissions disappointments. Yep, blame everything on those legions of URMs darkening the entering classes of elite colleges everywhere. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>By the way, Simba: Statistically speaking, there HAS to be a bottom third of any college class. If I’m not mistaken, that was true even when Princeton was as white as the lilies of the field. And it is still true today in Bejing, where ALL the students are Chinese. Go figure…</p>
<p>I’m so sick of being included in the “Asian Category.” I am Asian, but when people think Asian, they think I’m either Chinese or Japanese and that I am nerdy and math loving. I’m sick of it. So especially, when colleges look at my application, they probably are like “Oh…this student is Asian, but he/she doesn’t have the grades that her people have. Must be really bad then.” I’m Asian, but I’m not in the stereotypical sense that people think that I am. I might not be good at bubbling B or C, but I do have the street skills that will set me apart from others.</p>
<p>gotfryrice, have you even yet applied to college? You seem to be making a great number of assumptions. You indicate that neither your grades nor your test scores track with what you perceive to be typical of other Asians. How your individual application is viewed by Adcoms is dependent upon a number of things. how competitive is the school viewing your application?
If your grades/tests scores are significantly below that school’s median, your chances for admission are greatly decreased, no matter what your race/ethnicity. If only slightly below those of the most competitive applicants, you may be able to successfully sell yourself in other ways, that make you stand out.</p>
<p>My D is a URM attending an elite LAC. At least half her friends are Asian, and several of them scored lower than she did on the SAT. My D’s test scores were competitive, but not stratospheric. Her grades were VERY GOOD, however (as were her ECs, and essays) and they have proven to be more reflective of her academic abilities. She is majored in a hard science, and will be a bleary-eyed, thesis writing senior this upcoming year.</p>
<p>too bad. private school. unless the school recieves federal or state funding, no case. and i don’t think funding for research counts.</p>
<p>Funding for research should and does count. What if Lockeed Martin, a private company that receives limited government funding for military research, systematically discriminated against blacks. Do you think the government would be allowed to continue giving them funding? I didn’t think so. That equal opportunity business works both ways. Therefore, the government should not allow financial aid in the form of pell grants etc to be applied towards an institution that systematically discriminates against caucasians and asian americans.</p>
<p>May he take them for every dollar they have! The schools are very racist and it’s time we as Americans stood up to the Princetons, Harvards, etc. of the world and said that if they don’t get in line with anti-racist actions, we’re going to take away their tax exempt status. I have a big problem with athletes, particularly the patrician sports like squash and horseback riding, but at least those students have a skill. Legacies make sense for the economic longevity of the school (though I suppose schools that profess to be needs blind ought to seriously consider scrap that anti-meritocratic idea as well), but race preferences are flawed because they create group rights that do not otherwise exist and undermine the successes of the students who reap the benefits. (See Richard E. Sanders of UCLA’s study and Confessions of An Affirmative Action Baby.)</p>
<p>“What if Lockeed Martin, a private company that receives limited government funding for military research, systematically discriminated against blacks.”</p>
<p>So many on CC have very legal understanding of this important phrase “systematic discrimination,” and this tired old thread is merely one more manifestation of that. Under no way, shape, or form have the private universities in the U.S. been systematically discriminating against any group – racial, ethnic, national, etc. – in the RECENT past – minimum, last 35 years. You merely demonstrate your vast ignorance of civil rights history in the U.S., of college admissions history, of the processes of reviewing private university candidates, and of legal terminology.</p>
<p>^^ I meant “little” understanding in my first sentence, above.</p>
<p>Dear high and mighty epiphany,</p>
<p>You know you have no ground to stand on when your justification for racial double standards is personal attacks on other cc posters. I must be ignorant on civil rights history because in this day and age, I want colleges to admit the best and brightest students regardless of race? Give me a break. </p>
<p>I call it like I see it- and IT IS systematic discrimination. Colleges consisently and systematically favor one race over another. That sounds a lot like something from “civil rights history in the U.S.,” but as you said, I probably would not be qualified to make that comparison.</p>
<p>It would be systematic discrimination if people of all races started off on even ground with regards to the things that universities are looking for. They don’t. Now, I’m not saying that the way the evening-out of this asymmetry is done perfectly by universities, but it’s not even close to systematic discrimination.</p>
<p>“if people of all races started off on even ground with regards to the things
that universities are looking for. They don’t.”</p>
<p>Oh, I see. So if you are born Asian, you already have mastered your times tables in the womb and if you are born black, you are automatically poor and prone to commit crimes? puhlease. This is 2007. Society has rid itself of institutionalized racism for long enough that you can no longer play the poor me race card. If you are black, have you received more dirty looks or less customer service than a white person? Maybe, maybe not. You know white people can be rude to white people as well for no apparent reason. </p>
<p>The United States of America in the 21st Century is one of the most tolerant societies in the history of the world. I mean it is kind of funny when the most pressing job the NAACP has is running around justifying/supporting Michael Vick. </p>
<p>The bottom line 1of42 is I agree people don’t start off on even ground. If colleges went to socio-economic action, wouldn’t that solve the problem? Why on earth should we have a blanket policy that largely benefits rich URMs? I WILL CONCEDE THIS ENTIRE THREAD IF ANYONE CAN GIVE ME ONE FLAW WITH SOCIO-ECONOMIC ACTION. </p>
<p>And to pre-empt the dreaded “diversity” argument</p>
<p>I. Colleges measure the value of ones opinion based on the color of their skin as if two people of the same ethnicity could <em>heaven forbid</em> have a different viewpoint. Can we be more shallow?
II. In addition to socio-economic action, geographic action could remain in use by colleges. If colleges want to preserve their precious mix of diversity, they could reasonably justify making sure their class hails from different parts of the country and world. Two kids are growing up in the inner-city, one white and one black. If they have similar stats, colleges will take the black kid first 11 times out of 10.</p>
<p>This entire thread shouldn’t have drawn me in, but it did.</p>
<p>I find it extremely disturbing how easily people fielded views that Asians were basically one dimensional, in a sense alien, and more or less a disturbing people who focus too heavily on SATs and other number based factors.</p>
<p>There was a lot of window dressing, but underneath it all, a lot of racism. </p>
<p>Then, in the end, it all gets turned on its head as people cite that Asian-American attempts to address discrimination, not necessarily actually remedy it, mind you, hurt African Americans. It all falls apart and people who were rationally trying to address the stereotypes in the thread fall silent, because they came to a political-correctness third rail.</p>
<p>Don’t you love how things get distracted, and African-Americans in fact toted to disarm possible circumstances of racism being looked at closely? Isn’t that just ironic? As said, what I found disturbing were the blatant stereotypes and undercurrents (and sometimes not so “under”) of racism towards Asian in the thread–I personally think the lawsuit was ill-founded, and agree on that much, but was increasingly disheartened by the Asian-bashing that was woven through it.</p>
<p>It’s dressed up, but familiar to anyone who’s studied racial triangulation theory and the perceptions of “Americans” to Asians as perpetual foreigners.</p>
<p>Also, while I do believe that the situation is actually different than the situation with Jews in college admissions some decades ago, it’s somewhat chilling that many of the posters basically almost quoted verbatim many of the people claiming back then that the system was fine and it was Jewish shortfalls that caused them not to be admitted in the numbers that their academic numbers suggested they should.</p>
<p>It’s not the system that disturbs me. It’s the mindset of the people who were posting about it.</p>
<p>
It is the same as the flaw with Affirmative Action. If having, as you say, “the best and brightest” students is the only thing that matters, then a kid’s socio-economic status (SES) ought not factor into admissions at all. The only thing that matters is whether she is best and brightest. To be fair, SES ought to be considered in a well-developed judgement of a student’s accomplishments because SES often, but not necessarily, creates barriers to certain types of achievement. The same is true of certain races.</p>
<p>It is obvious to me that being black in America is far more difficult than being white. Blacks labor under greater stigma than any other group, more than Asians, Hispanics, indeed even more than Native Americans. This was true last year. It was true in the year 2000. It was true in 1980, and in 1960 when the government literally smashed into people’s homes and arrested them simply because they were married to blacks. It was true in the 1950’s, when black schools were abysmal and blacks were not allowed, by law, to enjoy good schools. It was true in the 1940’s when America fought Hitler, and when blacks suffered indignity after indignity because American law only allowed them to serve their country as cooks and janitors. It was true in the 1930’s, when black people had to look down when encountering whites, and when blacks had to step off of sidewalks when whites approached. It was true in 1920 and in 1910, when hatred against blacks was so great, more than a million blacks moved North to escape hangings in the South, and when even in the North legal codes aimed expressly at harming blacks created even more of an imbalance. It was true in 1900 when the government used literacy tests against blacks to keep them from voting, knowing that blacks, then fresh out of slavery, had no education. It was true in 1880 as the government used poll taxes against blacks to keep them from voting, knowing that blacks, then fresh out of slavery, had no money. It was true in 1860 as the government supported the enslavement of blacks-- not of Asians – not of Native Americans, but of blacks. It was true in 1840 as the government supported slavery against blacks, and not of Asians. It existed in 1800 as the government support the enslavement of blacks, and not of Asians, even making it illegal for blacks to get an education. It existed in 1790, and in 1700, and in 1690, and in 1650, and in 1630, and in 1619. Virtually for as long as there has been an America, there has been deliberate and brutal discrimination against blacks the likes of which has occurred to no other group, certainly not to Asians. As we see, the imbalance that exists against blacks has always existed. It created a culture for blacks that was never designed to pursue opportunity. It is why blacks today do not generally begin on equal terms with others.</p>
<p>American culture has had it out for blacks since its very beginning. It has only released Blacks from its most brutal discrimminatory policies in the last thirty years, which is during my lifetime. Even states like South Carolina and Georgia had anti-miscegenation laws on the books as recently as the year 2001. Yet, there are many blacks who still work hard and achieve great things despite coming out of such a withering history. Admissions officers are right to take this into account as they make their decisions.</p>
<p>When you used the term “systematic discrimination” and claim this sort of discrimmination exists against Asians, you employ far too much hyperbole, and so I for one cannot take the point seriously. No one in admissions tries to discrimminate against Asians. Rather they wish a system that distributes opportunity to all, especially in view of the debilitating imbalance mentioned above. Look at the two paragraphs above. That is systematic discrimmination. Systematic discrimmination takes place deliberately. It is the construction of a system that has a goal of harming a group. It took place against blacks for nearly the entirety of American history, from 1619 until the 1970’s. Indeed today’s blacks still suffer from the residue of that long history so that the stigma and racism still exists. For this reason race, like SES, ought to be considered in a well-developed judgement of a student’s accomplishments because it often, but not necessarily, creates barriers to certain types of achievement.</p>
<p>Allorion, Well said.</p>
<p>That kid got into Yale. I’m sure he’s crying into his textbooks right now.</p>
<p>Fwiw, it amazes how much stereotyping affects peoples perception. I am what you would call a lazy Asian…There are very hardworking Asians out there.</p>
<p>I really do think it’s not about race but class and money. Usually poorer kids can’t afford the same level of education as wealthy kids who go to private schools or very elite public schools.</p>
<p>i’m asian. last year while i was choosing my senior classes, i called an ivy league college if i should take a foreign language (i’m bilingual). the director of admissions there told me</p>
<p>“most asians can speak 3 languages anyway, so you might as well take another language class.”</p>
<p>think about how many white and black and native students are told that.</p>
<p>ml,</p>
<p>I assume you must have told the admissions director that you were Asian. Why would you do that if you didn’t think it was relevant or should matter? </p>
<p>I would guess s/he was merely responding to your question in the context in which it was presented; i.e., “I’m a bilingual Asian. Should I take another language?”</p>