The most prestigious college admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
    20 posters qualify.
You have 0 points. Copying this list does not send funds. Paste it on Disperse, then connect your wallet there. |
Quotas for Asian Americans? Yes and No
Poast new message in this thread
Date: January 25th, 2005 10:52 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Quotas for Asian Americans? Yes and No Follow-up by Jay Mathews Click on: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35075-2005Jan25?language=printer
washingtonpost.com Quotas for Asian Americans? Yes and No
By Jay Mathews Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, January 25, 2005; 10:12 AM
Asian American applicants to selective colleges appear to be at a disadvantage. Nationally, they have the highest average SAT scores, and yet many African American and Hispanic students with lower scores and grades are accepted to Ivy Leagues schools while high-performing Asian American students are rejected even when their families are similarly poor and undereducated.
My Oct. 12 column ("Should Colleges Have Quotas for Asian Americans?") discussed this, and I assumed it would attract little comment. Unfairness to that relatively small minority group is almost never mentioned by major news organizations. Outspoken advocates for change, like New Jersey physician Ed Chin who inspired the column, are few in number and mostly ignored.
But I was wrong. The e-mails poured in, obliging me to share the surprising reaction I received to this overlooked aspect of the affirmative action issue.
As Chin noted, the percent of African American and Hispanic students in selective college freshman classes is often higher than the percent of applicants from that group, while the opposite is true of Asian Americans. In 2001, 20.3 percent of applicants to Brown University's class of 2005 were Asian American, but only 16 percent of the acceptances were. The percent of white applicants and acceptances was about the same, 66 percent, while African Americans comprised 9 percent of the acceptances and only 6 percent of the applicants, and Hispanics had 9 percent of the acceptances and only 7.1 percent of the applicants.
Chin is of Chinese descent, and was raised in New York City by low-income, immigrant parents. I thought I would hear from many Asian Americans who supported Chin, while other readers would be skeptical. But I was wrong. Readers of Asian descent were as divided on the issue as everyone else. The clash of race and class, of fairness and equity in this particular debate is so complex that nobody seems to have a predictable reaction, which is fine with me.
Virginia Y. Kim, for instance, is a lawyer in Chicago who grew up in an affluent, suburban Cleveland Korean-American family with what she called "the traditional Asian education ethos." She said she has heard complaints like Chin's all her life and her response has always been, "Who said life was fair?"
Huy N. Tran, a San Jose State University student of Vietnamese descent, said he thought it was wrong for Chin to suggest that other cultures do not value education as much as Asian American cultures do. "I have met students of all different cultures who take a full load of classes and work several jobs to pay for their education," he said.
Anne Soh, a Korean-American Wellesley graduate, said she agreed with Chin that "it is theoretically unfair that there is a quota at the top schools that works against Asians." But she said she would not want to attend a college that dispensed with the affirmative action race-balancing policies that Chin and others find so distasteful because she wants a chance to get to know many people different from her. "To grossly generalize for a minute, Korean Americans in the U.S., and I can be blunt because I am one of them, are entirely two-dimensional and rigid," she said. "All they know is studying and test taking and lessons and Ivy Leagues. . . . While they deserve to be evaluated and admitted based upon the same criteria as everyone else, I also wouldn't choose a school that was made up 100 percent of them. Even if it was Harvard."
On Chin's side, however, was Arun Mantri, who was born in India and has children at a very selective public school, the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Fairfax County. He said it was wrong that high-quality Asian students at that school were being rejected by top colleges. "Their chances would improve dramatically if race was not used as a factor in admissions, perhaps at the cost of the white applicants, something that only a few selective schools have dared to do," he said.
Also supporting Chin's argument was a member of one of the minority groups that tends to get more of a break in college admissions than Asian Americans do. Paul Grandpierre described himself as "a first generation Haitian American from a really poor family who managed to graduate law school." He said he thought affirmative action was better than doing nothing about the "inclination of the human heart to rationalize superficial differences into fundamental differences." But, he said, "I agree with Mr. Chin that today, affirmative action should focus on the poor and not merely on blacks. . . . I can tell you that from my experience that being poor presented more powerful obstacles to my unlikely ascent than being black."
Chin also had support from non-Hispanic white readers. Jeff Werthan said it was paternalistic and patronizing for me to suggest that "a hard-working and brilliant Asian student and his or her family . . . should be satisfied with the other admittedly good schools out there if they are otherwise deserving of admission to Harvard or Yale."
A white reader, who declined to let me use his name because he does not want to offend the university that employs him, said his experience as an admissions officer confirms Chin's sense of unfairness. "What scares the top colleges is what their campuses might look like, racially speaking" if they followed Chin's suggestion and rejected middle-class African American and Hispanic students in favor of higher-scoring, low-income Asians. They fear, he said, "the sort of intense heat they'd take for the presumed drop in 'diversity.'"
Chin's argument does, however, rest upon sophisticated analysis of test scores and a willingness to emphasize averages, rather than the many individual cases that do not support his point. Many readers saw that as a weakness.
Mike Martin, a research analyst with the Arizona School Boards Association, warned Chin against putting so much weight on test scores in determining who is being discriminated against, particularly when looking at the narrow band at the very top of the SAT scale. "So if you accidentally mismark a question, or misconstrue a question, only one question, you could drop out of the 1600 club," he said. "In W. Edward Deming's preaching about corporate management he warned about making decisions based on differences that were within normal variation."
Michael J. McCabe, whose children have attended the challenging D.C. private school, St. Anselm's Abbey, noted that white kids are also rejected by selective colleges for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of their applications. His older son graduated in the top five of his high school class, had a 1470 SAT, was an Eagle Scout, captain and founder of the school's Science Bowl team and co-captain of its "It's Academic" team. Yet he was rejected by Dartmouth, Rice and the University of Virginia. McCabe thinks U-Va. had reached its quota for students from D.C. private schools, not an unreasonable theory given the way such colleges fill their classes.
So now, McCabe said, his son is thriving academically at Carnegie Mellon, but he and his roommate, who is from China, often complain about "the large proportion of Asians in the engineering and computer programs and the limited interaction they have with students of different socioeconomic backgrounds."
Most of the people who responded to the column appeared sympathetic, however, to Chin's view that colleges should make less of race in their admissions decisions and look more closely at family income. A student who had overcome difficult circumstances to compile an impressive high school record was likely to appreciate what a great university had to offer.
If the system is to change, and worthy Asian American students are to get what they deserve, they are going to need more advocates than just Ed Chin and the few other civil rights and admissions experts who have raised these issues. Shellye McKinney, a former college admissions officer, said that "affirmative action was created because people fought for it" and those who think it is hurting students of Asian descent are going to have to struggle in the same way to make themselves heard.
As I usually tell Chin when he rails against the American media in general and me in particular for not giving his concerns enough attention, there has to be dramatic evidence of support for his thinking before editors and news directors will get interested. Street demonstrations, boycotts, major conferences, bills in Congress -- all those things would help.
The press tends to pay attention to those who are shouting the loudest, and so far the people Chin is trying to help have been very quiet.
© 2005 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998572) |
 |
Date: January 25th, 2005 10:55 AM Author: Umber hilarious juggernaut laser beams me speak english too good. asians parents say I go to best college in country.
rutgers best in asia! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998581) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 11:04 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: To botherecI Rutgers definitely sucks in America, especially for highly qualified Asian American applicants who speak English better than 99% of the American population.
I don't know about Asia, because Mathews was talking about AMERICANS of Asian descent, you ignoramus. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998617) |
|
Date: January 27th, 2005 5:58 PM Author: Adulterous laughsome mediation haunted graveyard OR ban quotas altogether, and let people get in solely on merit, at least from public universities (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2014122) |
Date: January 25th, 2005 10:59 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Should Colleges Have Quotas for Asian Americans? Oct. 12, '04 Click on for Jay Mathews' first article on Asian Americans limiting quotas at highly selective colleges in the Washington Post, Oct. 12, 2004 :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26499-2004Oct12?language=printer
washingtonpost.com Should Colleges Have Quotas for Asian Americans?
By Jay Mathews Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, October 12, 2004; 3:47 PM
One of the best parts of writing an online column is the conversations that grow out of answering questions from readers. What are at first quick exchanges sometimes turn into long dialogues, from which I learn much from people that I will probably never meet in person.
One of the most interesting and persistent of my online interlocutors is Ed Chin, a physician who lives in northern New Jersey. Chin and I are about the same age, but have different backgrounds. He is the child of non-English-speaking Chinese immigrant parents and grew up in a low-income neighborhood of New York City. I was raised in a relatively prosperous suburb of San Francisco by parents who spoke only English, as have most of our ancestors going back several generations to Ireland and Scotland. Chin attended a very competitive New York City magnet school, while I went to an average suburban high school. We both went to Ivy League colleges, but he enrolled in medical school while I escaped to the newspaper business.
Our Internet conversations have all been on one topic, how affirmation action in college admissions has hurt students of Asian descent. Chin has studied this subject with an energy and passion that is rare even among the many energetic and passionate people who write me. He has been asking me for years to address this topic. When my occasional swipes at it have not satisfied him, he has asked for more. He has suggested more than once that The Post and I are too politically correct and afraid of the heat that this issue generates.
Hoping to get him off my back, I told Chin I would broach the topic again only if he let me write about him and his views. I did not know of anyone else who argued the case as well as he did, I said, so he had to help me. He values his privacy, and resisted my offer for more than a year, but has now given me permission to publish the Chin doctrine. Here it is, as taken from his e-mails with his preferences on capitalization and punctuation preserved:
One of Chin's favorite examples of the Asian success at overcoming poverty is Princeton physicist Daniel C. Tsui, who won a Nobel Prize in 1998. He was born to a peasant family in a remote village in Henan province in central China, attended school in Hong Kong and then got a college scholarship to Augustana College in Rock Island, Ill., leading to his research at the University of Chicago, Bell Laboratories and Princeton.
There was no affirmative action admission for Tsui, Chin said. "He credits his accomplishments to his Chinese parents' value placed on education, despite the fact that they were illiterate Chinese peasants themselves. These values are stressed by the philosopher, Confucius, in his Analects. That's the main ingredient for his success and his endless striving for academic excellence and his love of knowledge."
Chin quotes with approval a book, "Beyond the Classroom," by Laurence Steinberg, B. Bradford Brown and Sanford M. Dornbusch, which says "of all the demographic factors we studied in relation to school performance, ethnicity was the most important. . . . In terms of school achievement, it is more advantageous to be Asian than to be wealthy, to have non-divorced parents, or to have a mother who is able to stay at home full time."
And yet the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action preserved the system at most selective private schools in which Asian American students with very high tests scores are passed over in favor of African American and Hispanic students with lower scores because the schools want significant numbers of all ethnicities on campus. Supporters of such policies say a diverse student body helps everyone learn to live in the real world, and there are plenty of other fine colleges that take students, Asian American or otherwise, whom they reject.
Whenever I raised this point, Chin would accuse me, rightly, of shrugging off the American commitment to fair play for individuals. He cited comments made by Abigail Thernstrom, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a Massachusetts state school board member. "I think these racial preferences are very pernicious," she said in an interview on a PBS Web site after voters banned the use of affirmative action based on race in University of California admissions. "I don't think they do black students much good. I think they're poisonous in terms of race relations. And I do not think they are fair to the Asian student, for instance, who has worked very, very hard and is kept out of a Berkeley because a student with a slightly different skin color has gotten in as a consequence of racial identity."
Chin said "Chinese and ALL Asian Americans are PENALIZED for their values on academic excellence by being required to have a HIGHER level of achievement, academic and non-academic, than any other demographic group, especially Whites, in order to be admitted to Harvard, the Ivies and the other Elites in this zero-sum game called admissions based on racial preferences."
This may not be intended as a quota system, but Chin says it sure looks like one. He notes that in the 1980s some colleges, particularly Stanford and Brown, looked hard at their admissions decisions and discovered they were turning down many Asian American applicants while accepting white applicants with virtually the same characteristics. The Brown report admitted to "cultural bias and stereotypes," like the oft-heard canard that Asian American students have 1600 SAT scores and play the violin, but don't do sports.
Chin said if he had the power to change the admission policies of schools that discriminate in this way, he would let them continue to give preference to athletes, musicians, alumni children and any other groups the college wished to favor. And he would admit lower-scoring students whose parents, like his, did not have much money. But he would abolish all preferences based on race and ethnicity.
He noted the recent estimate by Harvard humanities professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. that two thirds of blacks at Harvard were not descendants of American slaves, but the middle class children of relatively recent immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa. "Why should they deserve admission with lowered standards (relatively speaking) based solely on the color of their skin over a high achieving Asian American living in a Chinatown ghetto or a Black ghetto (many Asians live in Black and Latino ghettos) or a poor white from the slums of NYC?" Chin said.
The solution to the problem of lower average achievement among African Americans and Hispanics is not "the Band-Aid approach of race-based affirmative action," Chin said. "It is solved by improving the K-12 schools for the lower economic classes which are disproportionately Black and Latino."
Chin always ends his e-mails to me with the words "comments please" or "any comments?" So I am obliged to respond.
I had the good fortune to live and work in China for four years, and have spent half of my life studying Chinese culture. I think it is one of the greatest accomplishments of the human race, with its emphasis on learning, family, creativity and hard work. It is a thrill for me to see what people raised in that culture have achieved in this country, free of the fear and oppression that China is still struggling to rid itself of.
I am convinced that one reason why Chin's well-reasoned complaints have not led to massive demonstrations and legislative reform is that the students of Asian descent who are rejected by the Ivies get educations just as good in other colleges. College admissions cannot be fair for anyone when, as happens at some schools, there are ten applicants for every place in the freshman class. The test score differences that Chin emphasizes are only one measure of quality, and although they predict college grades fairly well, they don't have that much to do with success in life.
But there is one part of his argument, a reference to a sad era in American history, that is hard to ignore. Many selective colleges before World War II had quotas on Jews. They turned down many brilliant applicants in favor of non-Jewish prep school students with lesser records. They didn't call this striving for diversity, but it was a perverse form of affirmative action, and it left a bitter taste for decades.
Chin calculates that with those quotas gone, about a third of Harvard undergraduates are Jews, who make up about 3 percent of the U.S. population. About 17 percent of Harvard undergraduates are Asians, who make up about 4 percent of the population. Since the percentage of Asian Americans at schools of comparable quality that do not practice affirmative action are much higher -- 40 percent at Berkeley, 50 percent at selective New York high schools such as Stuyvesant -- Chin says the Asian American percentage at Harvard and other Ivies would go up significantly if the rules were changed.
I am not so sure. All of us, including admissions committee members, are human. We have plenty of other ill-considered biases that have not been rooted out and could affect these numbers.
But however that works out, Chin feels it is only right and fair and better serves the cause of vibrant and interesting campuses if admissions officers stopped giving preferences based on race, and instead tried to admit more young people whose parents are not affluent and did not go to college, people less like me and more like Daniel C. Tsui.
© 2004 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998599) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 4:41 PM Author: excitant field find a shorter article (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2000220) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 11:08 AM Author: Ebony library Could you post that again? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998636) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 11:23 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: bothered (Trapped inside a Klein Bottle..)- You have an imposter The imposter for "bothered" is "botherec I" (Trapped inside a Klein Bottle..)
Bothered asked, "Could you post that again?"
Post what again?
Read the two essays posted from Jay Mathews' column in the Washington Post. The one dated today, "Quotas for Asian Americans? Yes and No", was the follow-up for his essay, "Should Colleges Have Quotas for Asian Americans?", on Oct. 12, '04.
Please read before you speak.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998697) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 11:25 AM Author: Ebony library The article. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998707) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 11:29 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Which article are you referring to?
I also have given the links to these articles. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998723) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 11:32 AM Author: Ebony library lol (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998742) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 11:35 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: To bothered "lol"
Are you just confused or hallucinating?
Learn to read. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998762) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 11:37 AM Author: Ebony library How is the second article different than the first?
Could you please post it again? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998771) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 11:40 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Hey bothered "How is the second article different than the first?" "Could you please post it again?"
You are either unable to read or you are indeed hallucinating and in need of medical attention. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998786) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 11:41 AM Author: Ebony library lol (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998792) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 11:44 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Hey bothered You need some psychotrophic medications. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998807) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 11:45 AM Author: Ebony library You're the one stuck in a fugue. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998816) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 11:49 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Speak to your altered ego, botherecI.
ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998832) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 11:53 AM Author: Ebony library Subject: What do you mean? Could you clarify that post with post? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998845) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 11:58 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig "botherecI" posted first before "bothered"
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998859) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 11:59 AM Author: Ebony library He does have the "I". (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998866) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 12:01 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Again, you need to learn how to read. Learn to read!!! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998870) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 12:02 PM Author: Ebony library You seem to lack a grasp of wit. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998876) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 12:05 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig You are lacking in the basics. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998885) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 12:10 PM Author: Ebony library You know how to pick your peers. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998898) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 12:27 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig bothered, you are hallucinating. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998957) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 12:29 PM Author: Ebony library Where? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998963) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 12:31 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha!ha! ha! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998977) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 12:33 PM Author: Ebony library what? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998981) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 1:03 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig he! he! he! he! he! he! he! he! he! he! he! he! he! he! he! he! he! he! he! he! he! he! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999114) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 1:04 PM Author: Ebony library he who what? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999118) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 1:32 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig he!ha!he!ha!he!ha!he!ha!he!ha!he!ha!he!ha!he!ha!he!ha!he!ha!he!ha!he!ha!he!ha!he!ha!he!ha!he!ha!he!ha!he!ha!he!ha!he!ha! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999274) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 1:39 PM Author: Ebony library Subject: That should be Yeee-ha. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999301) |
|
Date: January 30th, 2005 12:48 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. Yeee-ha. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2026806) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 12:03 PM Author: federal location corn cake Subject: ::scratches head:: ::slowly backs away:: (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998879) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 12:23 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: jane hoya said ::scratches head::
::slowly backs away::
No need to scratch your head and back away, which is a typical reaction on the topic of Asian American limiting quotas in the most selective colleges. 45% of UC Berkeley, 40% of UCLA, 20% of U.of Texas- Austin, 25% of Stanford, 27% of MIT, and 29% of CalTech are Asian Americans, yet only 15% of the 8 Ivies are Asian Americans because of discrimnatory quotas against them.
"Asian American applicants to selective colleges appear to be at a disadvantage. Nationally, they have the highest average SAT scores, and yet many African American and Hispanic students with lower scores and grades are accepted to Ivy Leagues schools while high-performing Asian American students are rejected even when their families are similarly poor and undereducated."
"My Oct. 12 column ("Should Colleges Have Quotas for Asian Americans?") discussed this, and I assumed it would attract little comment. Unfairness to that relatively small minority group is almost never mentioned by major news organizations. Outspoken advocates for change, like New Jersey physician Ed Chin who inspired the column, are few in number and mostly ignored."
Jay Mathews
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998942) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 12:27 PM Author: Ebony library link? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1998956) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 12:56 PM Author: floppy bipolar legend casino Subject: ::scratches head:: ::slowly backs away:: (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999069) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 1:00 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Race-based AA screws Asian Americans, not whites "Asian American applicants to selective colleges appear to be at a disadvantage. Nationally, they have the highest average SAT scores, and yet many African American and Hispanic students with lower scores and grades are accepted to Ivy Leagues schools while high-performing Asian American students are rejected even when their families are similarly poor and undereducated."
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999094) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 1:02 PM Author: Ebony library link? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999104) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 2:23 PM Author: floppy bipolar legend casino colleges aren't obligated to accept on the basis of a flawed achievement test
it's unfortunate that many may have thinly-veiled agendas and facades when it comes to diversity, but as private universities -- that's their perogative. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999464) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 2:37 PM Author: exciting circlehead What I am interested in is that with a 3-4% proportion of the US population, how/why are Asians applying so disproportionately to top schools? I can understand why many of them apply to UCs, but wouldn't more Asian students do better to apply to good schools like Amherst, Wesleyan, Vanderbilt, etc. if they feel as if they are at a disadvantage at applications? There are plenty of STRONG schools that give Asians affirmative action. It seems from my limited observations that Asians apply to Ivies/UCs/MIT at the expense of other top privates/publics where they would either be at no disadvantage or receive affirmative action.
EDIT- Asians seem to be at a disadvantage when applying to certain prestigious schools- i.e. Ivies, MIT, etc. I would argue they are at an advantage when applying to other prestigious privates. I hope I don't sound ignorant or anything, but the pure issue is overrepresentation/underrepresentation. Schools have an interest in not having too many / too few of anything, and Asians seem to be hit hardest by this, but I don't see how that can not be expected. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999544) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 2:39 PM Author: floppy bipolar legend casino A few strong schools, and a few just a notch below, also have scholarships earmarked for Asian-Americans especially.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999562) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 2:47 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> A few strong schools, and a few just a notch below, also have scholarships earmarked for Asian-Americans especially. <<
So what?
Many schools have scholarships earmarked for Asian Americans, mainly from generous Asian donors, but after they are admitted. But that doesn't mean that they do not have to meet a higher standard of achievement in order to be admitted, more so than URMs, and ESPECIALLY whites. There is a double or triple standard for admissions. Different standards for different races and ethnic groups.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999614) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 2:55 PM Author: floppy bipolar legend casino "But that doesn't mean that they do not have to mean a higher standard of achievement in order to be admitted, more so than URMs, and ESPECIALLY whites."
The point here is- Why are you so focused on such a small subset of schools? As Antmatic said, beyond perhaps 10 or so schools which see a disproportionate number of Asian applicants, we're actually favored and lusted after. I'm willing to make the assumption that in this feverish desire to recruit more Asians, those schools will be flexible with whatever "higher standard of achievement" you're blabbling about. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999652) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 2:42 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: "There are plenty of STRONG schools that give Asians affirmative Absolutely not.
Read this also.
OPINION From the August 30, 2002 print edition Guest Opinion University of California shuts out Asian achievers Lance T. Izumi Prior to Proposition 209, the University of California used race preferences to admit less academically qualified black and Hispanic students over more qualified Asians. Now, evidently uneasy that Asians make up nearly 40 percent of its undergraduates despite being only 11 percent of the state population, UC is again skirting 209 against high-achieving Asians.
The new system, called comprehensive review, de-emphasizes applicants' SAT scores and high-school grades by adding new admissions factors, including participating in UC outreach programs, coming from a low-income family, first generation to attend college, attending a low-performing high school, and personal hardships. By these criteria, a student can rack up enough points to almost guarantee admission.
Although superficially race neutral, the new system is designed specifically to increase the number of blacks and Hispanics and reduce the number of Asians and whites admitted into UCLA and UC Berkeley, the UC system's flagship schools. Under UC's previous rules, grades and test scores were the determining factors for most admissions. Under those criteria, Asians and whites did well, but blacks and Hispanics did poorly, hence, the move to "comprehensive review."
Numbers racket Under the new criteria, last year UCLA admitted fewer Asians and whites, but 19 percent more blacks and 9 percent more Hispanics. Total systemwide black and Hispanic admissions are up significantly, exactly what UC wanted. The Wall Street Journal quoted former UCLA admissions director Rae Lee Siporin who says that the new system was crafted to make the student body reflective of the state's population. Further, Siporin baldly says that simply using poverty as the key criterion wouldn't work because it would "pull in" too many low-income Asians.
Also, according to the Journal, admissions to UCLA from heavily Hispanic schools, like South Gate High near Los Angeles, are way up while admissions from heavily Asian/white schools, like University High in Irvine, are down. One South Gate High Hispanic female student was accepted by UCLA with a 940 SAT score, 380 points below the average score for students admitted. An Asian student at University High with a 1410 SAT score was rejected by UCLA and says that she hurt her chances by not dwelling on her family's hardships because "I didn't want too much of a pity party." This Asian student's comment points to a culturally discriminatory aspect of UC's new admissions system.
Promoting cultural bias Many Asian cultures value stoicism in the face of difficulties. The Japanese, for example, speak of "gaman," which roughly means to suck it up when things are tough. Whining is disfavored. Hard work and quiet determination are preferred. Liberals claim, with little evidence, that standardized tests are biased against blacks and Hispanics, yet cheer when UC adopts an admissions system that is culturally biased against Asians.
Even when high-achieving Asian applicants describe their hardships, many are rejected while lower-achieving black and Hispanic applicants with similar or lesser hardships are admitted. David Benjamin, who owns an SAT-preparation business, says ruefully, "It is simply shameful that it is worth less to be poor and Asian than to be poor and Hispanic."
The gross subjectivity of the new UC policy, the open comments by UC officials and lawmakers, the telling statistics, and the cultural bias of the process combine to equal discrimination. Granting preferences on the basis of race is illegal in California. Lawsuit, anyone?
Lance Izumi is a senior fellow at the San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute.
© 2002 American City Business Journals Inc (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999578) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 2:46 PM Author: floppy bipolar legend casino This single statement defeats the entire argument
"...that Asians make up nearly 40 percent of its undergraduates despite being only 11 percent of the state population" (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999607) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 2:48 PM Author: exciting circlehead Subject: A public university trying to educate a wider variety of its... public seems like a laudible idea to me. UGA has around a 4% black student population while GA is around 25% black. Even extremely qualified black students apply to Emory or go out of state over going to UGA. This is a problem with the flagship university that UGA is right for trying to solve.
Amherst, consistently one of the top 3 LACs in the nation, has a minority recruitment program that includes Asians. Vanderbilt has consistently expressed its desire to recruit more Asians and Jews. I am sure many strong unversities across the South and LACs and others actively recruit Asians, I have seen it myself. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999620) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 2:58 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> Amherst, consistently one of the top 3 LACs in the nation, has a minority recruitment program that includes Asians. <<
Asian Americans are given no slack in admissions at Amherst. They represent 10 to 13% of Amherst's student body, overrepresented for their 4% in the American population. If there were not any "diversity goals" or de facto quotas against Asian Americans, the % of Asian Ams at Amherst would even be HIGHER!
The same is true for Swarthmore, Williams, Pomona, Wesleyan, Wellesley, Barnard, Haverford, Claremont-Mackenna, and many other elite LACs where Asian Americans represent from 10% to 25% of these LAC's student bodies.
De facto quotas exist at these schools, because there are to many Asian Ams, not too few for "diversity's" sake, thereby they reject stellar Asian Americans students for less stellar URMs and especially less stellar Whites. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999673) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 3:01 PM Author: floppy bipolar legend casino What is your yardstick in making these assumptions? Why do you assume there is an one-to-one tradeoff, that if an "academically-qualified" Asian is denied admission, that the spot necessarily went to "less stellar URMs" and whites? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999685) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 3:04 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig My "yardstick" is the objective admission standards, in addition to the holistic criteria these schools use in admission or by EVERY measure these schools use for admissions, not only test scores and GPAs. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999701) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 3:07 PM Author: floppy bipolar legend casino There is no such thing as an objective admission standard at a private university.
The SAT, as argued many times on this board, is flawed.
GPAs from the national viewpoint are grossly inconsistent and impossible to standardize.
Your turn. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999720) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 3:24 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> The SAT, as argued many times on this board, is flawed. GPAs from the national viewpoint are grossly inconsistent and impossible to standardize. <<
Really, pretty broad statement. Care to back it up. Your turn.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999828) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 3:26 PM Author: floppy bipolar legend casino Don't be dense (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999842) |
|
Date: January 26th, 2005 3:54 AM Author: disturbing locus All measures of worth in the admissions process are flawed in some way. That's not the point. If a private college wanted to, it could fill its class with the highest SAT scorers, people born on Wednesday, ugly people, or whatever else. It's all about how that college decides to define merit.
But if that college only has so many seats, there's only so much bias to go around. So if you give a massive boost to, say, rich black kids, you'll have less room to pay attention to other things. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2004701) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 3:06 PM Author: exciting circlehead Subject: Diminishing Returns First of all, I am not sure of what percentage of Asians make up the APPLICANT pools of LACs, and I doubt you do either. Even so, LACs represent a small number of schools. Vandy, Duke, Wake, maybe WUSTL, etc are all looking for Asian applicants. These are all top 50 schools.
Colleges have diminishing returns for having too many of one type of student. "Less stellar" can mean a variety of things. At the end of the day, having too many Asians that are focused on too few areas of expertise is as bad as having too many legacy whites, too many blacks focused on social justice, and whatever other stereotype you want to throw out there. This is why 1600 scorers of all races may be rejected-- they may not offer enough outside of that to craft the class they want.
Diversity in whatever way the college means is a legit goal, because undergraduate is about the class atmosphere, and colleges have the right to create whatever class atmosphere they think fits their goals. If more Asians showed up who had focused on athletics more than pure academics/science in the applicant pool, I am sure those Asians would likely be admitted in the higher rate.
My advice to Asian applicants would be to apply to a wider variety of schools and partake in a wider variety of activities. Academics is extremely important, but at Ivies+Stanford+MIT, academics are often largely a given, step up your non-academics game. If this were graduate school admissions, I could understand most people's "qualifications" arguments, but undergraduate is largely an extracurricular/social game at the top level. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999710) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 3:09 PM Author: floppy bipolar legend casino Subject: yes mathletes, chess club captain, track and jv tennis aren't going to cut it activity-wise. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999728) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 3:11 PM Author: exciting circlehead I'd admit a Dat Nyugen type football player (doesn't have to be recruited, just has to put lots of effort into it) over most Asians/blacks/whites/Hispanics because he is doing something that breaks the mold (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999740) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 3:11 PM Author: floppy bipolar legend casino Subject: exactly I'm going to encourage my kids to pursue what their hearts desire (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999748) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 3:11 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> Diversity in whatever way the college means is a legit goal, because undergraduate is about the class atmosphere, and colleges have the right to create whatever class atmosphere they think fits their goals. If more Asians showed up who had focused on athletics more than pure academics/science in the applicant pool, I am sure those Asians would likely be admitted in the higher rate. <<
I don't disagree with you on the above, but you left one important consideration out, that of RACE'
Diversity transcends race.
Leave race out of admissions.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999746) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 3:16 PM Author: exciting circlehead Subject: One problem Because of America's long history, race can and often does play a large role in shaping identities, attitudes, and experiences. Fact of life in this country.
In most cases, a black person and a white person will have different takes on Morrison. If Princeton wants both views to be presented in Freshman English Seminar, then at the end of the day, Princeton will have to look at race. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999772) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 4:29 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig If you wanted "racial diversity" in a college education, why don't you go to the other 3500 colleges in this country which don't use racial preferences. They would also be better academically matched for you if you don't meet the objective standards of admissions for an elite college. 99% of the college degree receipients did just that, regardless of their race. These colleges are the most racially diverse.
There is ample opportunity for a college education in a racially diverse setting America, for everyone, regardless of their race. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2000148) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 5:25 PM Author: exciting circlehead Why can't HYP and others have diversity as well? Those administrators value diversity in an educational environment like most other colleges.
Some colleges choose not to practice any AA (Caltech and Bob Jones Univeristy, for example). Most colleges that are selective do.
And as pointed out before, "objective standards of admissions" really don't exist. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2000529) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 9:00 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> And as pointed out before, "objective standards of admissions" really don't exist. <<
Again, you are jesting. BULLSHIT!!
Speak to NYCFan, repapa, JoeCaltech, et al.
You must be joking. Where have you been? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2001946) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 3:19 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> If more Asians showed up who had focused on athletics more than pure academics/science in the applicant pool, I am sure those Asians would likely be admitted in the higher rate. <<
I won't focus on the Yao Mings of Asian American applicants and they do exist, but I'll debunk your racist stereotype that Asian Ams are "pure academics/science in the applicant pool".
Bullshit!
Not only are 20% to 25% of America's top medical and dental schools are Asian Ams, but 10% of America's top law schools are Asian Americans today, including Harvard, Yale, Stanford and Columbia. This is also true of America's top business schools. Look at Wharton, Kellogg, Stanford, Harvard, Columbia, Darmouth, Chicago, UCLA, UC Berkeley and all of their business schools. Asian Ams are all not science/math geeks, although they do excel disproportionally in these fields, as they do in many other fields of endeavor, such as the arts, performing arts, literature, architecture, banking, international business, law, secondary and and higher edcation, divinity, the humanities and the social sciences, as well as math/physics/science. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999788) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 3:22 PM Author: exciting circlehead Calm down, notice I mentioned that we are largely dealing in stereotypes.
Of course Asians excel in these areas, as do individuals of all races. We are simply talking about over/under representation in certain areas, which is what this all boils down to.
I would imagine that Asians that do things that are not in the stereotype are admitted at higher rates. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999810) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 3:33 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> I would imagine that Asians that do things that are not in the stereotype are admitted at higher rates. <<
Bullshit!! Show me where.
At Swarthmore, at Wellesley or at Pomona?
Bullshit!! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999877) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 3:40 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> Of course Asians excel in these areas, as do individuals of all races. <<
C'mon, bullshit again because you avoided the issue, that of LIMITING QUOTAS on Asian Americans in the elite colleges, simply because there are too many of them who excel in EVERY ONE of the aforemention fields.
Your statement is definitely TRUE, but you skirted the main point, Asian American students, a most stellar group akin to the Jews, excel at a higher rate in ALL the aforemented fields of the graduate and professional schools, yet they have the lowest rates of admissions of any group, including whites. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999898) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 3:40 PM Author: violent heaven blood rage I think the current set up is OK (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999897) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 3:47 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig It is OK, if you are not a stellar Asian American applicant to an elite college, with stellar credentials, both objectively and HOLISTICALLY, and rejected because of a less stellar white or an URM who is admitted based soley on the color of one's skin, and not on the content of their character or the content of one's qualifications.
BTW, skin color, i.e. white, black, yellow or red, is not and should not be a qualification for the rigors of an elite college, grad school or professional school. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#1999938) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 5:26 PM Author: geriatric histrionic parlour Subject: Quit whining already (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2000537) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 5:56 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Learning It from American Jews and Those in Power Learning It from American Jews and Those in Power (From Arthur Hu and The American Cause)
Jews were 21 percent of the Ivy League vs. 1.5 percent of the college-age population (14 times overrepresentation) and the figure is higher at the graduate level (at Yale, for example, 60 percent of graduate students are Jewish - an astonishing figure). Asians are about 16 percent (4 times overrepresentation) and let's double that for Chinese and maybe Indians as well. (1999 Princeton Review Best 331 Colleges and the Hillel Guide to Jewish Life on Campus.)
More than a tenth of college professors are Jewish, and that figure rises to about 30 percent at elite schools. According to Alan Dershowitz in his book, The Vanishing American Jew, 76 percent of the 200 most influential intellectuals are of Jewish background.
About 40 percent of the lawyers at the most prestigious New York and Washington law firms are Jewish. In addition, 23 percent of the 500 wealthiest Americans are Jewish and about 85 percent of college-age Jews are in college (this is from Seymour Martin Lipset, a highly respected, but ridiculously centrist and un-innovative, sociologist).
George W. Bush opposes "quotas," even though it was fine for him to get into Yale with a C average, so that "rich quota" was fine and it works for his daughter. Bill Clinton, from an Arkansas single-parent family married Hillary Rodham, who attended Yale law School with Bill. Hillary was from a wealthy Illinois family and graduated from Wellesley College. Not to take any credit from President Clinton of his achievements, but Mrs. Clinton’s family and his roots at Yale and Georgetown contributed significantly to his success throughout his career. Jack Welsh, the retired CEO and Chairman of one of world's largest and most respected companies - General Electric, earned his PhD in chemical engineering from Illinois. He handpicked successor, Mr. Jeff Immelt, who holds a B.S. degree in Liberal Arts with a major in Applied Mathematics from Dartmouth College and an MBA from Harvard University.
“Harvard and the Ivy League have become the major access roads to power in America, and these roads are being closed off to ethnic Catholics and white Christians,” cried Pat Buchanan.
A few years back, Pat Buchanan’s view was echoed by a Harvard graduate, Ron Unz, who wrote in the Wall Street Journal about the admissions policies at his alma mater and the student body it produced: “With affirmative action for preferred minorities and set-asides for children of alumni and faculty, foreign students, and athletes, Harvard's student body, said Unz, had begun to look like the Greenwich Village Democratic Club. According to Unz, 15 percent of Harvard's student body is Hispanic or black, 20 percent is Asian, 25 to 33 percent is Jewish, but only 25 percent comes from that 75 percent of America that is white and Christian. Christians are being frozen out of the elite schools that control the access to power in a nation that Christians, primarily, built.
However, in challenging this Ivy League bigotry, Republicans have shown all the courage of Larry Summers. Nevertheless, Congress ought to demand that the Department of Education require all Ivy League schools to report annually on the religious and ethnic composition of their faculties and student bodies, and, if Unz's percentages hold, should be asked what they are doing to end this discrimination. After all, if it is illegal for Irish cops to get their kids preferences, why is it OK for Harvard professors?” Regardless the fact of 70% white American presence at Ivy schools, Ron Unz’s number on Asian American’s Ivy school presence typified today’s bashing on Asian Americans. And what really matters here is that he is advocating that Ivy schools to admit student based on % of population and not by merit. There is definitely a confused issue of affirmative action on ivy school admissions.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2000780) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2005 11:51 PM Author: Mint ticket booth private investor some schools with relatively low number of asians provide some form of help to get more asians into their schools. i know two asian kids from my high school in new york got in vanderbilt with 1200 SATs and 3.3-3.4 gpas. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2003375) |
|
Date: January 26th, 2005 8:13 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: AA systematically restricts the places for Asian-Americans THE BOTTOM LINE:
"The true issue is whether we want or need a policy that systematically restricts the places for Asian-Americans in our elite universities."
3/27/03 Detroit News: Op Ed: “How affirmative action affects minorities:
Experience shows racial preferences take seats from Asian-Americans, echoing past discrimination against Jewish students
by George Bornstein / Special to The Detroit News
The looming Supreme Court decision on the University of Michigan Admission cases, with oral arguments on Monday, offers a crucial opportunity to clarify how colleges and universities practice affirmative action toward racial and ethnic groups. An important issue is who is harmed by the policy, if failing to enter an elite university constitutes harm. As everyone knows, African-Americans and to a lesser extent Latinos benefit. But as the statistics from California , Texas and other states that have banned affirmative action in admissions pile up, the answer to who loses is becoming clear. It is not whites, but Asian-Americans. A Feb. 2 New York Times article found that in the well-documented cases of UCLA, University of California Berkeley and the University of Texas at Austin , abolishing affirmative action caused the number of African- Americans to decline most and that of Hispanics next-most. The real surprise is that the percentage of whites hardly budged. At The University of Texas at Austin , for example, the percentage of white freshman admitted declined from 67 percent in the class before a federal court order to 66 percent. Similarly, at Berkeley, whites as a percentage of the latest freshman class fell a percentage point from the last year before affirmative action was abolished in California . Indeed, non- Hispanic whites are actually an "under-represented group" at Berkeley : They comprise 49 percent of the state's population but only 29 percent of the freshman class. The places vacated by African-Americans, Latinos and whites went to Asian-Americans. At Austin , for example, the percentage of Asians admitted rose to 71 percent from 68 percent, so they now comprise 18 percent of the first-year students there in a state with an Asian population of 3 percent. The Berkeley numbers are more startling. The percentage of Asians- Americans there jumped six percentage points between the end of affirmative action and the fall of 2001; Asians now comprise 45 percent of the freshman class at Berkeley but 12 percent of California 's population. The lesson is clear. Affirmative action transfers places from Asian- Americans to African-Americans and Latinos. Yet both supporters and detractors cast the debate as black vs. white. The true issue is whether we want or need a policy that systematically restricts the places for Asian-Americans in our elite universities. We will never resolve this contentious issue if we continue to frame the debate in simplistic and misleading terms of white versus black. Recasting the debate can also help us see why so much of the current rhetoric supporting affirmative action to include minority groups as defined today sounds so much like the rhetoric used earlier in the 20th century to exclude a minority group as defined then -- Jews. Then as now, university administrators wished to control the racial mix (Jews were considered and called a "race" then). Otherwise, they feared their campuses would be "overrun" with members of a small but academically very high-achieving group. Until the early 20th century, even the most elite American universities, such as Harvard, Yale and Princeton , were largely regional campuses. But faced with a high influx of academically talented Jewish students, they sought to reduce the numbers of that group. Aware that Jews (and to a lesser extent Roman Catholics) were concentrated in Northeast cities, they devised a system of national recruitment to restrict numbers of Jews while avoiding charges of overt discrimination. Then as now, a key concept was diversity, only then it meant (in public) geographic diversity. Then as now, quotas were publicly denied even while an elaborate system to maintain de facto quotas evolved. Then as now, administrators argued that other things besides grades and examinations mattered as much or more -- character, for example, or obstacles overcome. Then as now, the result was to transfer places that would have gone disproportionately to members of an academically talented minority group to members of other groups. And then as now, the ends were felt to justify the means. Readers can trace part of this history in Marcia Synnott's wonderful and neglected book "The Half-Opened Door," which traces discrimination and admissions at Harvard, Yale, Princeton and other elite schools from 1900-1970. There is a final "then as now" worth noting: In both cases, administrators sought to hide their practices. Deans of the Ivy League universities and related colleges held numerous confidential meetings (fortunately, they kept meticulous minutes which researchers can now use). Similarly, the University of Michigan sought to suppress public knowledge of its practices, and not until forced by Freedom of Information Act requests from Professor Carl Cohen and others did word seep out of what it was doing. At that point, the college of liberal arts changed from its blatantly illegal chart system of classification to a more subtle one on whose legality the Supreme Court will shortly rule and the law school devised somewhat different policies to achieve the same end. Faced with this situation, what should we do? Some say that if affirmative action survives it should be in a class-based form. To the extent that members of minority groups disproportionately cluster at the bottom of the socioeconomic order, they would benefit disproportionately. But that would strike most people as fairer than the current racial preferences. Others might feel that we should get rid of such factors and return to a system blind not just to race but to all factors other than academic performance. Both positions have flaws. But to paraphrase Winston Churchill's acerbic defense of democracy, either might turn out to be the worst system we could devise except for all those other systems. George Bornstein is C.A. Patrides Professor of Literature at the University of Michigan . Write letters to The Detroit News, 615 W. Lafayette , Detroit , MI 48226 , or fax to (313) 222-6417 or e-mail to letters@detnews.com. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2004805) |
|
Date: January 26th, 2005 8:36 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> some schools with relatively low number of asians provide some form of help to get more asians into their schools. i know two asian kids from my high school in new york got in vanderbilt with 1200 SATs and 3.3-3.4 gpas. <<
So what? What does this prove? Asian Ams with SAT I scores 200 to 500 points below an elite school's mean scores will have a snow ball's chance in hell to be admitted. Vanderbilt's SAT I mean just breaks 1300.
An Asian Am applying to Harvard College has much less of a chance of admission, even if he/she has a 1400. They are rarely admitted with less than a score of 1500, whereas URMs and whites are. Asian Ams are required to have a higher standard of achievement, both in GPA and testing for admission, in addition to meeting the "holistic" criteria of special talents, motivations, perseverance and the over coming of obstacles. Rich URMs and white private prep schooled ice-hockey players are admitted to Harvard with SAT I scores of 1000 or less as per the Harvard Independent Press.
Admissions is all RELATIVE. There are double standards and triple standards used. Different standards for different racial and ethnic groups. For the Asians Ams, these schools raise the bar in the admissions. For whites and especially for URMs (blacks and Latinos) they lower the bar, especially for blacks where their SAT I and SAT II scores can be 2 1/2 standard deviations below the mean SAT scores of the school or 500 points OR MORE below the mean in the Ivies. Scores of 900 have admitted at Brown which has a mean SAT I score of 1400. Harvard's mean is 1500.
Checkout
Brown University Admissions: Facts and Figures Admission Statistics for the Class of 2008
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Admission/gettoknowus/factsandfigures.html
Distribution of College Board Test Scores (Verbal)
Applied
Admitted Percent Admitted
Enrolled
750-800 3,359 904 26.9% 424
700-740 3,639 627 17.2% 330
650-690 3,184 415 13% 277
600-640 2,271 276 12.2% 194
550-590 1,004 117 11.7% 85
500-540 500 51 10.2% 37
450-490 216 19 8.8% 16
< 450 110 7 6.4% 4
No CEEB Scores 1,003 88 8% 62
Total 15,286 2,504 16.4% 1,429
Distribution of College Board Test Scores (Math)
Applied
Admitted Percent Admitted
Enrolled
750-800 3,389 884 26.1% 396
700-740 4,185 744 17.8% 429
650-690 3,326 422 12.7% 273
600-640 1,905 226 11.9% 161
550-590 883 88 10% 67
500-540 386 37 9.6% 29
450-490 142 13 9.2% 10
< 450 67 2 3% 2
No CEEB Scores 1,003 88 8.8% 62
Total 15,286 2,504 16.4% 1,429
---------------------------
As you can see Brown admits students with SAT I Verbal and Math scores below 550, 500 and even 450.
WHO ARE THESE STUDENTS??
They are the students given preferences in admissions, mainly academically deficient URMs and athletes. Legacies perform close to the mean and not much below. At Harvard, legacies scored 4 points below the mean SAT I score of Harvard, according to Fitzsimmons, the former Dean of Admissions.
Admissiions is ALL RELATIVE. It is a zero-sum game where URMs (blacks) and Whites are favored and Asian Americans are disfavored.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blacks admitted with the race preference and AA are NOT EQUALLY QUALIFIED. If they were, they would not need PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN ADMISSIONS and AA would be totally uneccessary.
You can't have it both ways.
Certainly, there are blacks who are admitted to the Ivies and other competitive colleges with EQUAL QUALIFICATIONS, without the benefit of race based Affirmative Action and preferential treatment. They are pitifully very few in number, because the black applicant group , by en large, lack the qualifications on an equal basis with the rest of the admitted class. According to the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (JBHE), if lower standards and qualifications were not used for blacks with race based AA, blacks would only be between 1% to 2% of the highly competitive colleges, instead of the 6% to 8% blacks that are there now who were admitted by lower standards and qualifications, enabling thousands upon thousands of addittional blacks to attend the elite, highly selective and more competitive colleges. There were only about 1800 blacks who scored above 1300 on the SAT I and only about 190 who scored above 1400 and 70 that scored above 1500 on the SAT out of 130,000 black SAT I test takers, many of whom came from the millions of black famillies with yearly incomes of above $100K and from the millions of black parents with a college degree and more. Asian Americans and whites from families with less than $40K yearly incomes and from parents with less than a high school diploma score much higher.
These underprepared, lower qualified blacks really belong in the lower tier colleges and there is nothing wrong with this, because there are 4000 other institutions of higher learning in America, giving plenty of opportunity for blacks, as well as anyone of any race, to obtain a higher education, because over 98% of Americans who received college degrees were educated in these other schools. Students should attend schools commensurate with their qualifications and preparedness according to the qualifications of the students in each school. Every other American does, so why not academically deficient blacks? There is abundant opportunity for everyone to acheive a college education in America in the year 2004, especially for blacks. There are the community colleges, city and smaller state colleges and other private colleges which collectively represent the best higher educational system in the world.
An Asian student with a 3.5 GPA and 1300 SAT may decide not to waste an application fee on a school where his odds of admission are only one-tenth that of a preferred minority (black) with a 2.5 GPA and an 1100 SAT, if these schools made their admissions process more transparent and let the truth be known, exposing the perversity of the process and how demented, unfair and immoral it is. These schools will never reveal their admissions data according to each admissions standard used and the criteria met by each student, DISAGREGATED by race and ethnic group, because this will expose the adcoms' hypocrisy, their double and triple standards in admissions, by using different standards of admission for different groups. Asian Americans are required to meet higher objective standards of achievement, such as SAT scores and GPAs, and a higher holistic criteria than any other group, including blacks, latinos and whites, in order to be admitted. The holistic criteria consists of charcacter, leadership, special talents, awards (Intel Finalists, International Math, Physics and Chemistry Olympiad Gold Medals, national literary and music awards, etc.)motivations, perseverance, and the overcoming of obstacles, such as economic disadvantage and cultural and language differences for Asian Americans, from being one of the smallest racial minorities in America.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2004821) |
|
Date: January 26th, 2005 8:21 AM Author: flatulent den gaming laptop Subject: Why not reward the poor URMs over wealthy URMs! I think diversity is a must condition as people learn from people who are different. However, one learns more from people who against all odds have come up and worked hard. Somehow current Ivy policies reward the underperforming but wealthy Afro American kids. I mean wealthy URMs have same advantages as any Asians or white. They are not at disadvantage in any way. I think Ivies need to recruit the URMs from poor economic background and support them so that when kids in poor neighborhood see them as an example. This way others will work harder.
However elite school needs to reach to poor Afro American population, which has not benefited from Ivies policies. This way they are gearing towards the socio economic problems and not favoring a race. Thus in turn this will dispel a notion that Afro American are not intelligent which is a bogus thing and rich afro American do not need any leg up what so ever. Wealthy URMs have all the means to work hard but they did not because they may have been lazy.
Elite school needs to identify, tap and invest in kids from urban school where the kids have no means. Thus giving a boot to wealthy but underperforming URMS and hire a poor but deserving URMS. This way they will break the cycle and set an example. If wealthy URMs perform as Asian or white, they must be admitted on the same footing. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2004808) |
|
Date: January 26th, 2005 9:25 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> Why not reward the poor URMs over wealthy URMs! <<
Simply stated, there are just not even enough WEALTHY URMs, especially blacks who can meet the standards of admissions to the elite schools. Wealthy blacks underperform and underachieve academically and cannot compete with the poorest Asian Ams and whites. Don't even mention the other poorer blacks, because they are in a deeper hole academially. Many of them can't even qualify for a college and drop out before high school.
The rich black multi- millionaire college educated families have children who cannot compete on an equal basis with the POOREST Asian Americans and Whites from parents with less than a high school diploma. Forget about the lower middle and lower class blacks, because, as a group, they are EVEN MORE ACADEMICALLY DEFICIENT AND UNDERPREPARED. Race based AA does absolutely nothing for these poorer blacks, comprising the vast majority of of blacks in America.
Just think about this!! That's a fact that the flaming pro-race based AA liberals can't admit to or even acknowledge. They support this AA policy in denial of this to make them "feelgood", even though it may even do irreparable harm to underprepared blacks, while not attacking the main problem of poor k-12 education. Therefore, rich blacks from upper class families who are immigrants from the Carribean and Africa are the blacks that benefit from this demented and unjust policy, not the descendants of the African American slaves for whom AA was intended initially. The vast majority of blacks, about 70%, at Harvard are from middle and upper class recent immigrant families, who were not the object of the racist Jim Crow Laws in America. These economically privileged blacks were admitted with race preferences and lower academic standards ( lower SAT scores and GPAs, academic awards, etc..) than the rest of the class.
THE MAIN POINTS (POLITICALLY INCORRECT POINTS)
Re: Standardized Testing resuts
!. This would show that blacks from the highest income levels of $100k/year or more score lower than Asian Americans and Whites from the lowest income levels of $40k/year or less. The real question is simply, "How do you explain this? What are the reasons for this?
2. This would also show that blacks from parents with a college degree or more score lower on the SAT I that Asian Americans and Whites from parents will a high school diploma or less. Again, the real question is simply, "How do you explain this? What are the reasons for this?
3. The College Board had released these figures up to 1995 (I had given you the source for these figures from the CB), and they stopped afterwards because these facts were politically incorrect and damning for the pro-race based AA people, because they could not explain the disparity of scoring based on income alone or with parental education. There are many other factors involved, including cultural, sociological, psychological, and possibly "innate differences", to use Pres. Summers' own words in this instance, that may explain the differences between the races in scoring. Obviously, more research needs to be done, but just the mere mention of this to highlight the aformentioned facts from these SAT I testing results, previously released from the College Board, would bring forth charges of racism, which will do nothing to close the racial gap in testing and academic achievement.
Here's a link to verify the facts above:
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm
STANDARDIZED TESTS: THE INTERPRETATION OF RACIAL AND ETHNIC GAPS (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2004895) |
|
Date: January 26th, 2005 10:59 AM Author: flatulent den gaming laptop Subject: I am an asian parent Remember that diverity is not a bad idea, if you admit 3-5% URMs who have less money but are willing to work hard and they are given support, some will succeed. This in turn will allow others to compete like asians. Policies are made to make changes. Howvere currnt policies is only helping wealty but underperforming URMs. It is not heling others who really need it. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2005223) |
|
Date: January 26th, 2005 11:32 AM Author: Aphrodisiac toaster ::Yawns:: Hero, you sound bitter.
I do agree that there should be caps on the number of Africans and Caribbean students at Harvard who do not benefit from affirmative action. I'm African-American, and sometimes it hurts me internally when I see my black peers or professors who are mostly of Caribbean ancestry. What is this supposed to mean for African-American youth? Therefore they lived different hardships than what my family had to endure in the Jim Crow South.
However, your rant that colleges should admit students based on a meritocracy is highly flawed. Colleges will never go that route. That would be an injustice not only for Hispanics and Blacks who make up a larger portion of the population than Asians, but for those students who prefer diverse environments, not the sheltered academic schools ::coughs::UC-Irvine::coughs:: of the world.
Hero, I think you need to focus on what URMs are doing after they graduate from college. Lots of URMs who went to selective colleges are doing very well academically and professionally. I had to debunk your "so-called" facts. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2005403) |
|
Date: January 30th, 2005 12:40 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> Hero, I think you need to focus on what URMs are doing after they graduate from college. Lots of URMs who went to selective colleges are doing very well academically and professionally. I had to debunk your "so-called" facts. <<
How well are URMs (blacks) doing after graduation, if they graduate? Professionally? Lets look at medical school and law school where they also receive race preferences by being admitted with the thumbing down of standards
I think you are in a state of denial of the facts.
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm
Need a Lawyer? In 1988, New York State's Chief Judge established a committee, The New York State Judicial Commission on Minorities. Its purpose was to study the presence and effects of racism in the state's courts. Buried in its final 2000-page report was the finding that minorities passed the New York bar exam at significantly lower rates than whites. The commission found that for the period spanning 1985 through 1988, first-attempt pass rates were 31.1 percent for blacks and 73.1 percent for whites. Applying the methods of Appendix A, we translated these pass rates to a corresponding black-white mean difference of 1.11 SD.
Several years later, commenting on the Commission's findings, Edna Wells Handy wrote in The New York Law Journal of April 1996, "Determining whether those pass rates have remained constant since the Commission's report must await the completion and dissemination of the national bar exam study presently being conducted by the Law School Admission Council." Ms. Handy was referring to the most ambitious study of law students ever attempted. The Law School Admission Council is the organization that administers the Law School Admission Test (LSAT). At the time Handy's article appeared, it was tracking 27,000 students who enrolled in U.S. law schools in the fall of 1991. The students were followed from law school entry to the bar exam. The Council issued its report in 1998, finding that 92 percent of white law-school graduates passed the bar exam on the first attempt, as did 61 percent of black graduates. This implies a black-white mean difference of 1.13 SD. The Council also reported the results of repeated attempts at the bar exam. It found that eventually 97 percent of white and 78 percent of black law graduates passed, corresponding to a black-white mean difference of 1.11 SD.
The one-plus SD gap between black and white lawyers stubbornly refused to go away. Others, however, viewed the Council's findings differently. "This study strongly refutes the myth that affirmative action policies tend to set students up for failure on the bar exam," hallucinated Henry Ramsey Jr., a retired California state judge and member of the committee that oversaw the study.
Tamar Lewin, covering the Council's report for the New York Times, characterized the Commission's findings as "likely to provide important support for advocates of affirmative action." Her column appeared under the headline: "Minorities Achieve High Success Rate in Bar Exams, Study Says."
The fact is that affirmative action has stratified the bar by race and ability. Black lawyers lag behind their white colleagues in measured ability by about 1.1 SD. Affirmative action creates a racial gap at law-school entry that never goes away. When entrance credentials are controlled, racial differences mostly vanish. More than 20,000 adult blacks in the U.S. have an IQ of 130 or more, but because of affirmative action, the chance that your black lawyer will be one of them is vanishingly small.
Need a Doctor? Medical school admission is uncommonly competitive, there being many more applicants than slots. The competition is so intense that if black applicants were held to the same admission standards as whites and Asians, we would turn out almost no black physicians.
We now have a double standard for admission to medical school brought about by affirmative action. As a result, two tiers of American physicians have emerged separated by race and ability. We have seen that law students admitted under affirmative action do not measure up to their white and Asian peers as law-school graduates. Can we say the same for doctors? We will quantify the performance gap for physicians.
A benchmark for medical competence is the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) Exam Part I. Every medical student in the US must pass it to become a physician. Students take the exam two years before graduation. It is one of several ways the profession keeps itself honest. The most comprehensive study of NBME pass rates was published in 1994 by Beth Dawson et al (JAMA 1994 272:9 674-9). The authors examined the performance of every medical student in the US taking the June exam for the first time over the years 1986, 1987 and 1988. Dawson and her colleagues found that white medical students passed the NBME test at a rate of 87.7 percent and blacks at 48.9 percent. Again, using methods described in Appendix A, we found these pass rates equivalent to a black-white mean difference of 1.19 SD. Mean differences for the bar and NBME exams are conspicuously similar. The one-plus SD gap does not yield easily.
Notably, when Dawson's study looked at entering students with similar academic credentials, the pass rates on the NBME exam were independent of race, pointing an accusing finger directly at affirmative action. For all its good intentions, affirmative action has created two levels of competence in American medicine, separated by a bit more than one standard deviation. When you are wheeled into the ER at 2:00 a.m., if you pray, pray that the black doctor who greets you entered medical school through the front door.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2026763) |
|
Date: January 30th, 2005 1:41 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: You prefer antt- Asian Am quotas and race preferences then >> who prefer diverse environments, not the sheltered academic schools ::coughs::UC-Irvine::coughs:: of the world. <<
How about the most prestigious, academically elite and diverse public university in America and in the world, UC Berkeley, where Asian Americans are 45% of the students. Can you think of more diverse environment, intellectually and academically?? Would you "cough" here?
Well, race preferences never worked in history, not in Nazi Germany or present day Bosnia.
How about Stanford, where Asian Ams are 25% of the students, and it would be higher, were it not for Stanford's anti-Asian Am quota?
How about Harvard, where Jews are over 30% of the students for only 2.5% of the American population? Do you have a problem with this. I DO NOT.
I don't care if Harvard is 40% or 50% or 60% or 2.5% Jewish or even 30% Jewish, which it is. You obviously don't care. Harvard has no quotas for Jews, yet it has for Asian Ams, the only non-preferred group, limiting Asian Ams to 17%. The 8 Ivies, on the average, limit Asian Ams to 15%, where Jews are 25% of the Ivies, sans quotas.
Then why should you object to UC Irvine being 60% Asian Am or UC Berkeley being 45% Asian Am, making Berkeley the most illustious and meritocratic university in the world, without race preferences in admissions?
"Racial diversiy", "proportional respresentation of the races" and "critical masses" are synomyns for RACIAL QUOTAS. Quotas will never work, no matter what you call them. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2027094) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2005 8:43 PM Author: Pink motley spot Racial diversiy", "proportional respresentation of the races" and "critical masses" are synomyns for RACIAL QUOTAS. Quotas will never work, no matter what you call them.
They work now. They are working. They will continue to work. Get rid of them, and you'll see the decline in the top schools. Who wants to attend a school with an overrepresented Asian population? NOT EVEN ASIANS!! (Refer to your first post for proof.) (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2090919) |
|
Date: January 26th, 2005 9:34 AM Author: exhilarant nursing home Good thing the ivy league degree is losing its luster in the marketplace then, hmmmm...maybe basing admissions more on bullshit factors instead of academics could be the cause? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2004916) |
|
Date: January 26th, 2005 9:42 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: The "new Jews"-- Asian Americans "The true issue is whether we want or need a policy that systematically restricts the places for Asian-Americans in our elite universities."
"Then as now, university administrators wished to control the racial mix (Jews were considered and called a "race" then). Otherwise, they feared their campuses would be "overrun" with members of a small but academically very high-achieving group."
According to Dean of Admissions at UPenn, Asian Americans are the "new Jews" in admissions to elite colleges. They are subjected to de facto quotas with "diversity goals" for fear of another "Yellow Peril" from Asian Americans of all colors, including the dark hues of Indians from South Asia. As a group of applicants, they are highest achieving, most stellar and MOST QUALFILIED for admissions to the elite colleges, according any standards or criiteria, both objectively and holistically, which these elite schools use for admission.
Skin hue, color or tone, contrary to politically correct beliefs, should not be qualifications for admissions to the elite colleges, graduate schools and professional schools.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2004930) |
|
Date: January 27th, 2005 3:35 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: BUMPPPPPPPPPPPPPP (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2012825) |
|
Date: January 27th, 2005 3:38 PM Author: Aphrodisiac toaster You are such a bitter child. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2012847) |
|
Date: January 30th, 2005 12:52 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: de facto quotas against Asian Ams >> You are such a bitter child. <<
You have skirted the issue. This has nothing to do with "bitterness". It has to do with anti-Asiam American QUOTAS at highly selective colleges.
Quote from previous post:
[We will never resolve this contentious issue if we continue to frame
the debate in simplistic and misleading terms of white versus black.
Recasting the debate can also help us see why so much of the current
rhetoric supporting affirmative action to include minority groups as
defined today sounds so much like the rhetoric used earlier in the 20th
century to exclude a minority group as defined then -- Jews. Then as
now, university administrators wished to control the racial mix (Jews were
considered and called a "race" then). Otherwise, they feared their
campuses would be "overrun" with members of a small but academically
very high-achieving group.
Until the early 20th century, even the most elite American universities,
such as Harvard, Yale and Princeton , were largely regional campuses.
But faced with a high influx of academically talented Jewish students,
they sought to reduce the numbers of that group. Aware that Jews (and to a
lesser extent Roman Catholics) were concentrated in Northeast cities,
they devised a system of national recruitment to restrict numbers of Jews
while avoiding charges of overt discrimination.
Then as now, a key concept was diversity, only then it meant (in public)
geographic diversity. Then as now, quotas were publicly denied even
while an elaborate system to maintain de facto quotas evolved. Then as now,
administrators argued that other things besides grades and examinations
mattered as much or more -- character, for example, or obstacles overcome.
Then as now, the result was to transfer places that would have gone
disproportionately to members of an academically talented minority
group to members of other groups.]
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2026831) |
|
Date: January 29th, 2005 9:58 PM Author: exciting circlehead Subject: Bah Admissions today at ivies are more meritocratic than ever.
Ivies built their reputations on admissions standards that ranked the preppiness of your boarding school and the eliteness of your family. Today it is much more meritocratic and just than it has ever been. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2026189) |
|
Date: January 30th, 2005 12:58 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Bah Bah Bah Bah Bah Bah Bah Bah Bah Bah to "Admissions today at ivies are more meritocratic than ever."
Meritocratic?
From Jay Mathews' 1st article, Oct. 12, 2004, which was posred:
[He noted the recent estimate by Harvard humanities professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. that two thirds of blacks at Harvard were not descendants of American slaves, but the middle class children of relatively recent immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa. "Why should they deserve admission with lowered standards (relatively speaking) based solely on the color of their skin over a high achieving Asian American living in a Chinatown ghetto or a Black ghetto (many Asians live in Black and Latino ghettos) or a poor white from the slums of NYC?" Chin said.]
[The solution to the problem of lower average achievement among African Americans and Hispanics is not "the Band-Aid approach of race-based affirmative action," Chin said. "It is solved by improving the K-12 schools for the lower economic classes which are disproportionately Black and Latino." ] (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2026872) |
|
Date: January 30th, 2005 1:05 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> Admissions today at ivies are more meritocratic than ever. <<
Bullshit!!
The Economist special report: Meritocracy in America
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560
>> “affirmative action”—programmes designed to help members of racial minorities. These are increasingly used by elite universities, in the belief that race is a reasonable proxy for social disadvantage, which it may not be. <<
>> In most Ivy League institutions, the eight supposedly most select universities of the north-east, “legacies” make up between 10% and 15% of every class. At Harvard they are over three times more likely to be admitted than others. The students in America's places of higher education are increasingly becoming an oligarchy tempered by racial preferences. This is sad in itself, but even sadder when you consider the extraordinary role that the same universities—particularly Conant's Harvard—played in promoting meritocracy in the first half of the 20th century. <<
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2027947) |
|
Date: January 30th, 2005 1:31 PM Author: exciting circlehead Ivies played a role in promoting meritocracy in the first half of the 20th century?
All of these schools favored white, rich, boarding school kids from prepped out families over anyone else. The teens, 20's and the 50's were particularly bad about this. Meritocracy in college admissions is a late 20th century invention.
Legacies are admitted at higher rates, but I would argue that they are beneficial for a variety of reasons, and many don't get in. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2028019) |
|
Date: January 30th, 2005 1:42 PM Author: Aphrodisiac toaster Hero is a lost cause.
He doesn't understand that many (not all, but many) of these so-called legacies are from families who not only donate BOOGLES of money to the university so that people like you and me can enjoy a liberal arts education (thank some of the alumni to create buildings so that professors can teach and research!), but that it REALLY looks good for a university's public relations image if alumni donate and persuade their children to apply to their alma maters.
Universities even accept their own employee's children for admission, and not all these children are across-the-board National Merit Scholars. Colleges have never been a true meritocracy and won't be for a long time.
Life is unfair, hero. Go somewhere and take an anger management class as well as an honesty course while you're at it. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2028053) |
|
Date: January 30th, 2005 2:16 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> Life is unfair, hero. Go somewhere and take an anger management class as well as an honesty course while you're at it. <<
>> Universities even accept their own employee's children for admission, and not all these children are across-the-board National Merit Scholars. Colleges have never been a true meritocracy and won't be for a long time. <<
There you go again with your disingenuoius bullshit again!!
Legacies do not score 2 1/2 standard deviations below the mean SAT I and SAT II scores of the elite colleges they are admitted to. They score 4 points below the Harvard's mean SAT I score of 1500, not SAT I scores of 1000 or even 900 for some admitted URMs and athletes, who may be both black, a legacy and an athlete combined. 2 and 1/2 standard deviations below the mean or FIVE HUNDRED POINTS OR MORE BELOW THE MEAN SCORES of these elite colleges. These low scoring students, should not be in the elite colleges, but in lower tier colleges, where there is ample opportunity for a college education for these academically deficient and underprepared students, regardless of their race. That is what the underprepared Asian Ams and whites are doing, so why should not academically deficient blacks do the same??
Yo, you are back with your bullshit!!
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2028217) |
|
Date: January 30th, 2005 2:23 PM Author: Aphrodisiac toaster Like I said, hero, take an anger management and honesty course. Your shouting doesn't do anything here. Read my statement: True meritocracy does not exist.
------------------------------------------------- The bitter debate over race-conscious admissions policies has drawn scrutiny and criticism to some other admissions preferences, like those that benefit applicants with connections to alumni or big donors.
But little attention has been paid to the significant edge that many selective colleges give to the children of their own employees, even though such applicants tend to be white -- reflecting the lack of diversity in college faculties and administrations -- and to come from academically rich settings that already have offered them significant educational advantages.
A Chronicle survey of about 50 selective colleges, both private and public, has found that most of them give at least some extra consideration, as well as substantial tuition breaks, to applications from the children of their full-time employees. All of those surveyed say they do so as a way to express appreciation and to promote employee retention.
Critics see the practice as another way in which many students who shouldn't need preferences to get into college receive them anyway, making their campuses less diverse. Based on their middling academic records, some don't deserve to be there, one critic says.
The colleges that say they give such an edge to their employees' children represent a cross section of selective higher education. They include prestigious private research institutions like Duke, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, and Stanford Universities; flagship state universities like the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities; small liberal-arts colleges like Kalamazoo College, Pomona College and St. Mary's College of Maryland; well-known Roman Catholic universities like Georgetown University and the University of Notre Dame; and Ivy League institutions like Brown, Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale Universities.
At other colleges, being the child of an employee does not give an applicant more weight in admissions decisions, but it does help ensure that one's application is processed in a manner that confers some advantage. Swarthmore College, for example, weeds out many applicants during its multistage admissions process, but it does not remove any of the children of its employees from consideration until the very end, according to James L. Bock, dean of admissions and financial aid.
Some colleges give applications from the children of their employees both special handling and extra weight in the admissions decision itself.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2028243) |
|
Date: January 30th, 2005 2:32 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> Like I said, hero, take an anger management and honesty course. Your shouting doesn't do anything here. Read my statement: True meritocracy does not exist. <<
I never said "true meritocracy" ever existed.
Cut the bullshit again!!
Racial preferences will be and were the bain of a democracy and a meritocracy. Racial preferences NEVER WORKED!! That was the point and you have missed it again.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2028280) |
|
Date: January 30th, 2005 2:36 PM Author: Aphrodisiac toaster Bain? what's that? Did you mean "bane?"
And please give me a source? Don't ignore my article above as you always do. There are so many forms of affirmative action that colleges practice that race is only ONE of them. Why are you not criticizing those?
Oh yeah, check this book out: Jennifer Hochschild (Associate Professor at Harvard) The New American Dilemma: Liberal Democracy and School Desegregation.
Enlighten yourself (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2028305) |
|
Date: January 30th, 2005 2:43 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Yes bane, pardon the spelling error!
>> Enlighten youself. <<
You are in no position to tell anyone that and who is going to do it, the self-proclaimed, "Enlightened One", ltorivia485??
You do jest. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2028336) |
|
Date: January 30th, 2005 2:50 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Sorry for the spelling error. It is "bane". Thanks for the correction.
I have not ignored your article. What is your GOD DAMNED point? You have not answered or refuted my points, any of them with your OWN WORDS, simply because you have nothing else to say, instead of going off in tangents and mumbling to yourself with shouts of RACISM, and EXCUSES, typical of your modus operandi,
Yo, YOU ARE BACK, with a vengence.
I thought you called it the "End".
Bullshit from you again. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2028370) |
|
Date: January 30th, 2005 3:21 PM Author: Aphrodisiac toaster There are so many forms of affirmative action that colleges practice that race is only ONE of them. What about legacies, children of university employees, athletes, etc.? Why are you not criticizing those groups? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2028539) |
|
Date: January 30th, 2005 3:41 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> There are so many forms of affirmative action that colleges practice that race is only ONE of them. What about legacies, children of university employees, athletes, etc.? Why are you not criticizing those groups? <<
Yes there are. What about them?
All the other forms that you mentioned TRANSCEND RACE. YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I MEAN BY THIS?
For example, a legacy can be black, white or yellow. I0% of Harvard's legacy admits are URMs and they are given the legacy preference which is minimal ( on average they scored 4% lower on the Harvard mean SAT I) in comparison to the race perference. Many of the black or URM legacies, the children of rich and highly educated black or URM parents, also received the race preference in admissions, A DOUBLE PREFERENCE, given to them, lowering the standards of admission and increasing the chances for admissions many times more. Why should these black or URM legacies receive the race preference? No one else does. Do you get the point?
A black or a URM, can be an athlete, a VIP, rich and affluent, or a legacy, or economically disadvantaged and so can every other applicant, regardless of their race. These forms of preferences do not exclude blacks.
Economic-based AA also transcends race. I favor this form of AA.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2028615) |
|
Date: January 30th, 2005 3:20 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> And please give me a source <<
In the late 1960s, Yale adopted a "meritocracy" and subsequently Jews and Asians became the most populous minority groups on campus, each outnumbering Episcopalians.
Source: Yale Alumni Magazine, "Birth of a New Institution" by G. Kabaservice, Dec. 1999
I also said, "He (Conant) instituted the SAT tests, which allowed the Jews and Asian Americans to be the largest minority groups in Harvard, and the rest of the Ivies, in search of MERITOCRACY, INSTEAD OF MEDIOCRITY. Now, the pendulum has gone full swing back to racial preferences for preferred racial groups, going back to MEDIOCRITY, using race as factor for admissions."
Source: The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy, by Nicholas Lehmann, Publisher Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 1999. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2028538) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2005 11:43 AM Author: Pink motley spot How can you be so sure that all the URMs that are accepted to the Ivies are kids of affluent, educated parents?
Not only that, but HOW can you be sure that, if a particular URM is the son of affluent, educated parents, their stats ARE subpar?
In my own experience, I know of only 2 URMs who were accepted at Yale. One is Hispanic and the other is black. They are both dirt POOR, and are both first generation to attend college in their families. Oh, and one scored 1350 in the SAT, the other scored 1500, while their GPAs were 4.0 and 3.9. Subpar stats, kids of affluent parents?
Of course, this is just my particular experience with URMs accepted to top schools, but I'd like to see where you're getting your numbers and your information regarding all those "kids of affluent parents" with "subpar stats", "accepted to top schools."
Where do you get the FACT that URMs are ALL if not MOST (1) kids of affluent, educated parents, and (2) all with subpar stats?
This myth is just as strong as the myth that Asians only go for science and don't do sports. Now, if you don't want people to rely on prejudiced stereotypes of Asians, you'd better STOP relying on prejudiced stereotypes of URMs accepted at Ivies. Get your facts straight, and if you want to make a point, then provide a link that has some proof, because otherwise, it's pure bullshit. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2067705) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2005 5:51 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> How can you be so sure that all the URMs that are accepted to the Ivies are kids of affluent, educated parents? <<
Please read the following article;
6/24/04 New York Times: “Top Colleges Take More Blacks, but Which Ones?”
Cambridge , Mass. : At the most recent reunion of Harvard University 's black alumni, there was lots of pleased talk about the increase in the number of black students at Harvard.. But the celebratory mood was broken in one forum, when some speakers brought up the thorny issue of exactly who those black students were. While about 8 percent, or about 530, of Harvard's undergraduates were black, Lani Guinier, a Harvard law professor, and Henry Louis Gates Jr., the chairman of Harvard's African and African-American studies department, pointed out that the majority of them - perhaps as many as two-thirds - were West Indian and African immigrants or their children, or to a lesser extent, children of biracial couples. They said that only about a third of the students were from families in which all four grandparents were born in this country, descendants of slaves. Many argue that it was students like these, disadvantaged by the legacy of Jim Crow laws, segregation and decades of racism, poverty and inferior schools, who were intended as principal beneficiaries of affirmative action in university admissions. What concerned the two professors, they said, was that in the high-stakes world of admissions to the most selective colleges - and with it, entry into the country's inner circles of power, wealth and influence - African-American students whose families have been in America for generations were being left behind. "I just want people to be honest enough to talk about it," Professor Gates, the Yale-educated son of a West Virginia paper-mill worker, said recently, reiterating the questions he has been raising since the black alumni weekend last fall. "What are the implications of this?" Both Professor Gates and Professor Guinier emphasize that this is not about excluding immigrants, whom sociologists describe as a highly motivated, self-selected group. Blacks, who make up 13 percent of the United States population, are still underrepresented at Harvard and other selective colleges, they said. The conversation that bubbled up that weekend has continued across campus here and beyond as these professors and others publicly raise painful and complicated questions about race and class and how they play out in elite university admissions, issues that some educators and black admissions officers have privately talked about for some time. There is no consensus on the answers, and since most institutions say they do not look into the origins of their black students, the absence of hard data makes the discussion even more difficult. Some educators, including the president of Harvard, Lawrence H. Summers, declined to comment on the issue; others are divided. The president of Amherst College , Anthony W. Marx, says that colleges should care about the ethnicity of black students because in overlooking those with predominantly American roots, colleges are missing an "opportunity to correct a past injustice" and depriving their campuses "of voices that are particular to being African-American, with all the historical disadvantages that that entails." But others say there is no reason to take the ancestry of black students into account. "I don't think it should matter for purposes of admissions in higher education," said Lee C. Bollinger, the president of Columbia University , who as president of the University of Michigan fiercely defended its use of affirmative action. "The issue is not origin, but social practices. It matters in American society whether you grow up black or white. It's that differential effect that really is the basis for affirmative action." Professors Gates and Guinier cite various sources for their figures about Harvard's black students, including conversations with administrators and students, a recent Harvard undergraduate honors thesis based on extensive student interviews, and the "Black Guide to Life at Harvard," which surveyed 70 percent of the black undergraduates and was published last year by the Harvard Black Students Association. Researchers at Princeton University and the University of Pennsylvania who have been studying the achievement of minority students at 28 selective colleges and universities (including theirs, as well as Yale, Columbia, Duke and the University of California at Berkeley), found that 41 percent of the black students identified themselves as immigrants, as children of immigrants or as mixed race. Douglas S. Massey, a Princeton sociology professor who was one of the researchers, said the black students from immigrant families and the mixed-race students represented a larger proportion of the black students than that in the black population in the United States generally. Andrew A. Beveridge, a sociologist at Queens College , says that among 18- to 25-year-old blacks nationwide, about 9 percent describe themselves as of African or West Indian ancestry. Like the Gates and Guinier numbers, these tallies do not include foreign students. In the 40 or so years since affirmative action began in higher education, the focus has been on increasing the numbers of black students at selective colleges, not on their family background. Professor Massey said that the admissions officials he talked to at these colleges seemed surprised by the findings about the black students. "They really didn't have a good idea of what they're getting," he said. But few black students are surprised. Sheila Adams, a Harvard senior, was born in the South Bronx to a school security officer and a subway token seller, and her family has been in this country for generations. Ms. Adams said there were so few black students like her at Harvard that they had taken to referring to themselves as "the descendants." The subject, however, remains taboo among some college administrators. Anthony Carnevale, a former vice president at the Educational Testing Service, which develops SAT tests, said colleges were happy to the take high-performing black students from immigrant families. "They've found an easy way out," Mr. Carnevale said. "The truth is, the higher-education community is no longer connected to the civil rights movement. These immigrants represent Horatio Alger, not Brown v. Board of Education and America 's race history." Almost from its inception, following the civil rights struggles of the 1960's, affirmative action has been attacked and redefined. In its 1978 Bakke decision, the Supreme Court shifted the rationale away from issues of social justice to the educational value of diversity. One black admissions official at a highly selective college said the reluctance of college officials to discuss these issues has helped obscure the scarcity of black students whose families have been in this country for generations. "If somebody does not start paying attention to those who are not able to make it in, they're going to start drifting farther and farther behind," said the official, who declined to be identified because the subject is so charged. "You've got to say that the long-term blacks were either dealt a crooked hand, or something is innately wrong with them. And I simply won't accept that there is something wrong with them." Mary C. Waters, the chairman of the sociology department at Harvard, who has studied West Indian immigrants, says they are initially more successful than many African-Americans for a number of reasons. Since they come from majority-black countries, they are less psychologically handicapped by the stigma of race. In addition, many arrive with higher levels of education and professional experience. And at first, they encounter less discrimination. "You need a philosophical discussion about what are the aims of affirmative action,'' Professor Waters said. "If it's about getting black faces at Harvard, then you're doing fine. If it's about making up for 200 to 500 years of slavery in this country and its aftermath, then you're not doing well. And if it's about having diversity that includes African-Americans from the South or from inner-city high schools, then you're not doing well, either." Even among black scholars there is disagreement on whether a discussion about the origins of black students is helpful. Orlando Patterson, a Harvard sociologist and West Indian native, said he wished others would "let sleeping dogs lie." "The doors are wide open - as wide open as they ever will be - for native-born black middle-class kids to enter elite colleges," he wrote in an e-mail message. There is also wide disagreement about what, if anything, should be done about the underrepresentation of African-American students whose families have been here for generations. Even Professor Gates, who can trace his ancestry back to slaves, and Professor Guinier, whose mother is white and whose father immigrated from Jamaica , emphasize different ideas. "This is about the kids of recent arrivals beating out the black indigenous middle-class kids," said Professor Gates, who plans to assemble a study group on the subject. "We need to learn what the immigrants' kids have so we can bottle it and sell it, because many members of the African-American community, particularly among the chronically poor, have lost that sense of purpose and values which produced our generation." In Professor Guinier's view, there are plenty of other blacks who could also succeed at elite colleges, but the institutions are not doing enough to find them. She said they were overly reliant on measures like SAT scores, which correlate strongly with family wealth and parental education. "Colleges and universities are defaulting on their obligation to train and educate a representative group of future leaders," said Professor Guinier, a Harvard graduate herself who has been studying college admissions practices for more than a decade. "And they are excluding poor and working-class whites, not just descendants of slaves." Harvard admissions officials say that they, too, are concerned about attracting more lower-income students of all races. They plan to spend an additional $300,000 to $375,000 a year to recruit more low-income students and provide more financial aid to these students. "This increases the chances that we will be able to reach into the communities that have not been reached," said William R. Fitzsimmons, dean of admissions and financial aid. While Harvard officials ignore the ethnic distinctions among their black students, Harvard's black undergraduates are developing a body of literature in the form of student research papers. Aisha Haynie, the undergraduate whose senior thesis Professor Guinier cited, said her research was prompted by the reaction from her black classmates when she told them that she was not from the West Indies or Africa, but from the Carolinas . "They would say, 'No, where are you really from?' " said Ms.. Haynie, 26, who earned a master's degree in public policy at Princeton and is now in medical school. Marques J. Redd, a 20-year-old from Macon , Ga. , who graduated in June and was one of the editors of Harvard's black student guide, said that Harvard officials had discouraged them from collecting the data on who the black students were. "But we thought it was one aspect of the black experience at Harvard that should be documented," he said. "The knowledge had power. It was something that needed to be out in the open instead of something that people whispered about."
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2069468) |
|
Date: January 30th, 2005 1:48 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Conant's Harvard did exactly just that, because very few or no Jews, Blacks, East Asians, South Asians, South East Asians, Asian Americans, Catholics, Moslems, Arabs, and American Indians, were admitted before President Conant of Harvard started the "meritocracy" at Harvard. Previously, the vast majority all of Harvard's students were predominately White Anglo Saxon Protestants (WASP), the vast majority of them coming from mainly New England boarding prep schools, started by WASPS, which included St. Paul's, Exeter, Andover, Milton, Groton, etc. with racial preferences for Whites. The prerequisite for admission is being White and Protestant, mainly Episcopalian, who were mainly the "Robber Barons" of America. He institututed the SAT tests, which allowed the Jews and Asian Americans to be the largest minority groups in Harvard, and the rest of the Ivies, in search of MERITOCRACY, INSTEAD OF MEDIOCRITY. Now, the pendulum has gone full swing back to racial preferences for preferred racial groups, going back to MEDIOCRITY, using race as factor for admissions.
Racial prefrences of any kind, in admissions, whether they be for whites, blacks, yellows, Asians, Africans, Arabs, has nothing to do with THE MERITOCRACY!!!
Before Conant's Harvard in the 1920s, the RACIAL PREFERENCE WAS FOR WHITES, NOW IT IS FOR BLACKS AND THE LATINOS. It does not make for a MERITOCRACY, you hypocrite!! WTF are you talking about? You don't know WTF you are talking about.
Racial preferences and religious preferences for whites never worked at Harvard or Nazi Germany yesterday, or in Bosnia today. Racial preferences will not work in the Ivies and the elite colleges today.
Can't you get that through your thick skulls!!
Please read the article in the Economist in its entirety.
The Economist special report: Meritocracy in America
Click on http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2028079) |
|
Date: January 31st, 2005 9:16 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig From the book, "Beyond the Classroom," by Laurence Steinberg, B. Bradford Brown and Sanford M. Dornbusch,the authors said
"of all the demographic factors we studied in relation to school performance, ethnicity was the most important. . . . In terms of school achievement, it is more advantageous to be Asian than to be wealthy, to have non-divorced parents, or to have a mother who is able to stay at home full time." (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2034028) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 12:31 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Re; Anti- Asian American racist quotas in the Ivies Asian Americans are required to a meet a higher standard of achievement and a higher holistic criteria than blacks, hispanics and whites, in order to be admitted to the Ivies and elite colleges. As the highest performing group. they are admitted at the lowest rates.
For the complete article click on:
The secret world of college admissions
Sunday, January 30, 2005
By PATRICIA ALEX
STAFF WRITER
Forget "The Apprentice." For real competition, check out "The Applicant" - a contest in which high-achieving Asian kids from New Jersey's moneyed suburbs jockey for the Ivy League.
Consider the case of a Chinese-American girl at Holmdel High School. Her grades and test scores were top-notch, she ran cross-country and she was an accomplished pianist. Still, her prospects seemed uncertain.
The problem: her all-too-familiar profile.
She didn't, and couldn't, stand out among her peers. She ranked in the top 20 percent in the highly competitive school where nearly a fifth of the students are Asian.
"We needed to get her away from the other Asian kids,'' said Robert Shaw, a private college consultant hired by the girl's family.
Shaw advised bold steps: The family got a place in Keyport, a blue-collar town near their home, and the girl transferred to the local high school. There she was a standout: The only Asian kid in the school, she was valedictorian for the Class of 2004.
Next came an extracurricular makeover, one a bit out of character for a Chinese-American girl, said Shaw. "We suggested some outrageous activities, like Miss Teen New Jersey,'' where she won a talent competition playing piano.
"We had to create a contrarian profile,'' Shaw said. "We put her in places where she could stand out."
The girl was accepted to Yale and to Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where she is now a freshman.
Shaw helped the family play the admissions game. The ethnic, geographic and racial profiling that goes into assembling classes at the nation's top-tier colleges and universities is the worst-kept secret in American higher education.
"It's a very well-known thing but colleges don't want to talk about it,'' Shaw said. "It is certainly not a meritocracy, it's about being the right type of kid."
More than grades
With a huge pool of outstanding applicants, admissions at the top schools long ago stopped being about the numbers.
Good statistics alone are not the key to the Ivy League, said Willis J. "Lee" Stetson Jr., dean of admissions at the University of Pennsylvania. "In a really competitive pool, it's the extracurricular stuff that makes the difference."
Penn gets almost 19,000 applications for 2,400 seats a year, and the odds are no better at other top-tier schools. So how does a kid stand out in a large pool of students who have 1,500s on their SATs and 4.0 grade-point averages?
The children of alumni usually get preference, as do athletes. Admissions officers look for geographic balance as well, courting a mix of international and American students.
And, even as the nation's highest courts have ruled against racial and ethnic quotas, a de facto system remains in place as admissions officers strive for "balance" and the inclusion of so-called "underrepresented" populations, like blacks and Latinos.
"If you give me a Hispanic kid with a 1,350 (SATs), I can get that kid into every Ivy League college, or an African-American kid with 1,380 to 1,400,'' Shaw said. "But give me an upper-middle-class Caucasian or Asian with a 1,600, and I can't guarantee anything."
Recently, an Asian client of Shaw's from suburban Philadelphia got "wait-listed" at Yale despite a 1,600 SAT score and a 4.1 grade point average.
Shaw, a partner in the Long Island-based Ivy Success, honed his pragmatism while working in the admissions office at Penn. He recently changed his name from Hsueh to make it easier to pronounce, he said, but allows that a less Asian-sounding name may be an advantage when his young daughters reach college age.
A 'hidden agenda'
The schools deny quotas exist. On its Web site, Princeton University says: "We do not have a profile of the ideal applicant, nor do we map out a checklist of all the particular 'types' of students we plan to admit in a given year." Asians make up 13 percent of the Princeton enrollment.
Lauren Robinson-Brown, Princeton's director of communications, said admissions staffers consider all applications without "criteria such as ethnicity or geographic region."
But admissions counselors and parents who've been through the process say they know differently. "I'm not saying that colleges have racial quotas, but I imagine that most schools want representation of different cultural and ethnic groups,'' said Jonni Sayres, a counselor in Englewood and Teaneck.
Bev Taylor, director of the Ivy Coach on Long Island, is more blunt. "Colleges have a hidden agenda. They are not going to say this,'' she said. "They look for diversity and unless you know the culture of the school, you are not going to know what's diverse."
A bulge in the college-age population has made admission harder for everyone, said Stetson of Penn, which just filled almost half its incoming freshman class through early admission.
Although less than 4 percent of the population, Asians make up about 14 percent of the Ivy League. And the numbers are even higher for schools located in cities, where Asians generally gravitate. At Penn, Asians make up almost 23 percent of the student body, 16 percent at Harvard.
Still, because they are in such a highly competitive subgroup, they are admitted to the Ivies at a lower rate than other groups, with about one in every 15 gaining entry compared with an average of one in 10, Shaw said.
As a group, Asians score the highest on standardized tests - a testament to a cultural emphasis on scholarship - and generally have high grade-point averages.
When California eliminated racial preferences - set-asides for underrepresented groups - Asian enrollment skyrocketed in the venerable University of California system. Although Asians are 13 percent of the state's population, they make up 42 percent of students of the campus at Berkeley, 38 percent at Los Angeles and 61 percent at Irvine.
Some counselors advise Asian students to apply to top-tier schools outside urban centers, such as Duke University in North Carolina or Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, where they will still be considered a minority.
"One of my biggest obligations as a counselor is to get across to the parents that they need to look at areas who will appreciate them more," said Sayres, the Teaneck counselor.
Politics of admission
The glut of A-students presents a dilemma for top-tier universities that want their classes to mirror the broader society. Such institutions are more likely to "attribute a higher degree of importance to a student's race or ethnicity," according to a soon-to-be-released report from the National Association for College Admissions Counseling.
Shaw and others say the system can work against individuals in a highly competitive pool like Asians. There are also complaints that Asians are counted as minorities by colleges but don't receive minority preferences at many top-tier schools. Others balk at an analysis that views admissions as a competition among minorities - that blacks and Latinos take what otherwise would be places occupied by Asians. They note that whites remain the majority at most selective colleges.
There is concern, as well, that almost 30 distinct groups are lumped together under the Asian rubric, from the fifth-generation Japanese-American to the entrepreneur from India to the poor Hmong farmer newly arrived stateside. Despite their variety, there is a belief that the bar is set higher for the entire ethnic group.
"The perception is that there are so many who are qualified that they have to be a little higher up on the ladder," said Lance Izumi, who studies education at the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, a California think tank.
Shaw and others have no doubt that the perception is a reality when it comes to admissions. They worry that the trend is creating upper-limit quotas for Asians at the best schools, such as those imposed on Jews prior to World War II when they began to break into the Ivy League after decades of overt anti-Semitism.
The politics of admissions can be bewildering and disheartening, especially for parents. "They are very disappointed because they've done everything right,'' said Sayres. "For the Asian students, especially the Korean students, they lose faith if their child doesn't get into the Ivies. And it's just not possible anymore. There are too many kids and too few places."
E-mail: alex@northjersey.com
Copyright © 2005 North Jersey Media Group Inc.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2060043) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 11:19 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Any comments, ltorivia485?
Loss for words or tired of yelling RACISM again for race preferences? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2061269) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 11:35 AM Author: Aphrodisiac toaster Hero, I suggest you read the post where someone mentioned about the Law of Diminishing Returns. If you have taken economics, you will know what that means. When you have SO MANY students with the same profile (Asians are notorious for this), colleges weed them out because having too many of the same students with the same courses and extracurrculars does nothing for the image and curriculum of the school especially if they're pro-AA.
How do you think schools would feel if they accepted all Asian-American applicants with high test scores but they concentrated heavily in the sciences, economics and engineering? What about the other departments in liberal arts or professional arenas like journalism? They need student enrollment which is associated with funding and faculty hiring too. If schools want a "diverse" campus, they want exceptional and unique students. They have the right to "cap" students to meet their departments' needs.
And for those who are against whites being the majority at top-tier private schools: these schools reflect the geography of the United States and the applicant pool for that particular university. They will (and certainly not their predominately white alumni) never have predominately Asian population unless there is a massive shift in the racial/ethnic geography in the United States in the near future. Sorry to burst your bubble, hero, but get a life.
You have become the new XOXO troll.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2061331) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 12:24 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig From hero in reply to ltorivia485
Date: February 4th, 2005 11:38 AM
Author: hero
>> How do you think schools would feel if they accepted all Asian-American applicants with high test scores but they concentrated heavily in the sciences, economics and engineering? What about the other departments in liberal arts or professional arenas like journalism? They need student enrollment which is associated with funding and faculty hiring too. If schools want a "diverse" campus, they want exceptional and unique students. They have the right to "cap" students to meet their departments' needs. <<
That's BULLSHIT.
UC Berkeley, without racial quotas or "caps" is the one of the most diverse and intellectually stimulating schools in the world, in addition to be the highest university in the world according to WORLD RANKINGS, simply because it has no racial quotas, with Asian Americans at 45%, studying and and excelling in every and subject at Berkeley, including Journalism, English Literature and Criticism, all the Humanities, and ALL the liberal arts. Stop with your FUCKING RACIST stereotypes of Asian Americans. Asian Americans, despite RACIST Quotas, are 10% of America's top 25 law schools, including Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and the U.of Chicago. Without the RACIST anti-Asian American quotas, they are 25% to 30% of Berkeley's and UCLA's law schools. Asian Americans EXCELL in EVERY FIELD of study including the professional schools of journalism, education, divinity, business, law, architecture, medicine and denistry, in addition to engineering.
(Elite school needs to give boost to poor Afro American)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: February 4th, 2005 11:45 AM
Author: hero
>> And for those who are against whites being the majority at top-tier private schools: these schools reflect the geography of the United States and the applicant pool for that particular university. They will (and certainly not their predominately white alumni) never have predominately Asian population unless there is a massive shift in the racial/ethnic geography in the United States in the near future. Sorry to burst your bubble, hero, but get a life. <<
I am not against any group being the "majority group" in elite colleges and the whites are. So what? You are the one playing the race card, because WITHOUT the race card, you would never have been admitted to your Northwestern, with lowered standards and your privileged middle to upper class background from college educated parents, you hypocrite!! You are the one twisting and turning. I am for a race-blind and ethnic group blind admissions process, using any standards of admissions or criteria these elite schools deem necessary, BUT LEAVE RACE OUT OF IT.
REAL DIVERSITY TRANSCENDS RACIAL DIVERSITY.
I DON'T CARE IF HARVARD OR BERKELEY IS 80% BLACK, OR 90% WHITE OR 50% ASIAN AMERICAN, AS LONG AS RACE IS NOT USED IN ADMISSIONS.
I don't want to know the race of the applicant and the adcom should not either. That's the point. Diversirty, TRUE Diversity, will be achieved.
Hello, "geographic quotas" were synomynous with the "Jewish quota" at Yale and in the Ivies in the past when Jews lived mainly in NYC and the eastern cities.
So you are in favcor of the racist anti- Asian American quotas. A racist would be in favor of this quota.
>> You have become the new XOXO troll. <<
I have not been on long enough to replace the true real racist troll, who speaks out of ignorance and racist stereotypes against Asian Americans, and not "Chinese immigrants", whom you compared all stellar Asian Americans applicants to in the Ivies.
Dumb and Stupid!!
(Elite school needs to give boost to poor Afro American)
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2061625) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 1:40 PM Author: Aphrodisiac toaster How would you feel if colleges accepted athletes over Asians? Keep in mind that athletes bring in LOTS of revenue for college.
Like I said, and you continue to ignore me: Private (and to some extent some elite publics) Colleges accept what they NEED. They don't accept "who should be ENTITLED." Colleges and universities are so complex nowadays you need people from all walks of life even if they didn't score high on the SAT to contribute to the campus environment.
You refuse to ignore that. UCBerkeley is a public university in California. Ivies are NOT public nor are they in California. They can do whatever they want and what they're doing is legal. Get a life. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2062132) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 1:53 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> even if they didn't score high on the SAT to contribute to the campus environment. <<
These schools have a double standard, or a triple standard for admissions, DETERMINED BY RACE. Where are the dirt poor Asian Americans who didn't score 1600 or 1500? They are being displaced by rich affluent academically deficient blacks and URMs and preferred whites who scored 1100, 1000, or even 900, who have displaced this most diverse stellar group of Asian Americans, not unlike yesterday's Jewish applicants subjected to racist and religious quotas for fear of these schools being OVERRUN by them
I say BULLSHIT!!
Harvard is over 30% Jewish today.
Do you have a problem with this??
Harvard is onli 17% Asian American. It should be at least 30% Asian American
Do you have a problem with this?
I don't have a problem with the Jews' numbers, because they are not limited by quota, but I do have a problem with your racist attitude and the stereotyping of Asian Americans with your RACIST BULLSHIT. Asian Americans should be at least 30% of Harvard, if they represent 39% of the apps, AND EVEN MORE IF THEY ARE MORE STELLAR than the other groups in the total applicants group.
Admissions should be RACE BLIND.
You are dumb and stupid with your racist rationalizations. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2062214) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 2:06 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> You refuse to ignore that. UCBerkeley is a public university in California. Ivies are NOT public nor are they in California. They can do whatever they want and what they're doing is legal. <<
BTW, you are ignorant. Private schools just CAN"T DO what they want. The private schools were shaking in their boots, because had the last US Supreme Court 5 to 4 decision in favor of using race as a factor gone the other way, the private schools would have had to change their ways. The Ivies, would have had to change or abolish race based AA, but not all of AA, such as economic AA or even legacy AA, or athletic AA. The other forms of AA TRANSCEND race, and race-based AA violates the 14th Amendment of equal access. A black can be a legacy, an athlete, etc..
Also, schools such as Harvard Medical School receive about $700 mil/year in goverment funding for research, labs, professors, student scholarships and stipends and even school construction, mainly from the NIH (National Institutes of Health). These funds can be stopped in an instance if HMS is found in violation. Sure, they could do what they want, but without government money, my tax money and the American people's tax money.
The jury is still out on race-based AA, since most assuredly, there will be more cases in the future. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2062305) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2005 12:34 AM Author: Pink motley spot "REAL DIVERSITY TRANSCENDS RACIAL DIVERSITY. I DON'T CARE IF HARVARD OR BERKELEY IS 80% BLACK, OR 90% WHITE OR 50% ASIAN AMERICAN, AS LONG AS RACE IS NOT USED IN ADMISSIONS. I don't want to know the race of the applicant and the adcom should not either. That's the point. Diversirty, TRUE Diversity, will be achieved."
Oh really? So racial diversity is not true diversity? Diversity means "randomly choosing the highest scorers with different majors, ECs, and personal statements?" Would a group of 700 Asians with 4.0s and 1500s, going for a bunch of different academic subjects, amount to "true diversity"? I bet Asians would change their majors and EC's as often as their socks, just to create amazing diversity at HYP.
Also, your assumption regarding AA is that the Asian culture is NOT different from the African-American culture, NOR from the Hispanic culture, NOR from the Caucasian culture? They are all totally EQUAL, so mixing them would not create any kind of diversity. The only thing that makes them different is their color!! Not their customs, or language, or values. Just their skin color, right?! (Almost nobody knows this.. you should tell the world!) So, to paraphrase you, the meaning of true diversity is: "A random rounding up of a group of people who have high scores and different interests regarding their majors and extracurriculars. Schools should choose their students with that criteria and then throw them all in a class. If they all happen to be Asians, so be it!" So if your classmate did horseback riding and languages, you did painting and social work, you both have 4.0s and 1500's, you are diverse!! Even if you're twin brothers!!
So let's say, 78 Asians with 4.0's, 1550+ SAT's, and completley different majors constitute a wonderfully diverse group in your opinion? Would you really like to be in a classroom where there is a total of 30 students: 20 Asians and 10 whites? That would suck!
Why would Harvard, Yale and the rest of the elite universities choose that kind of "diversity"? Just because of all the whiny Asians and whites who ended up in their 3rd choice instead of their top?
HYP doesn't care if the Asians who didn't get into their top choice want to end with affirmative action just in order to make sure they get into their first choice, while occupying 90% of the seats at top schools. The top schools WANT to have an environment of accomplished, interesting, and DIFFERENT people, not a bunch of Asians who spent all the summer prepping for the SAT forced by their parents, and who chose the most bizarre and flamboyant extracurriculars just so that they'd get in.
Personally, I would not want to go to Harvard or Yale if I would end up in a group of 68% Asians and 38% whites. What the hell do I want to do there? I don't give a shit if I'm among intelligent 4.0's who played the violin and swim, I'd still have a crappy experience.
Get real. Life is more than SAT's GPAs and resume padding. A university full of people with high SATs, GPAs and padded resumes would be a sytematic, easy to cheat, number-oriented place, not a human, cultural center for higher learning. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2066561) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2005 11:58 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Trickmaster; Stop with your racist HYSYERIA What you said about Asian Americans was said of the Jews.
Now Jews are 33% of Harvard and were 60% to 70% of Columbia pre WW II, when the other Ivies had anti-Jewish quotas. Today there are no quotas against Jews, but quotas against Asian Ams. This is OK with you obviously, because you are a FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRITE.
You say the the Ivies would be overrun by Asian Ams, the furthest from the truth, you fucking hysterical racist!! They said the same for Jews and Jews said, NEVER AGAIN!!
The "new Jews"-- Asian Americans
"The true issue is whether we want or need a policy that systematically restricts the places for Asian-Americans in our elite universities."
"Then as now, university administrators wished to control the racial mix (Jews were considered and called a "race" then). Otherwise, they feared their campuses would be "overrun" with members of a small but academically very high-achieving group."
According to Dean of Admissions at UPenn, Asian Americans are the "new Jews" or "today's Jews" in admissions to elite colleges. They are subjected to de facto quotas with "diversity goals" for fear of another "Yellow Peril" from Asian Americans of all colors, including the dark hues of Indians from South Asia.
As a group of applicants, they are highest achieving, most stellar, DIVERSE, and MOST QUALFILIED for admissions to the elite colleges, according any standards or criiteria, both objectively and holistically, which these elite schools use for admission.
Skin hue, color or tone, contrary to politically correct beliefs, should not be qualifications for admissions to the elite colleges, graduate schools and professional schools.
UC Berkeley, without racial quotas or "caps", is the one of the most diverse and intellectually stimulating schools in the world, in addition to be the highest university in the world according to WORLD RANKINGS, simply because it has no racial quotas, with Asian Americans at 45%, studying and and excelling in every subject and field of study at Berkeley, including Journalism, English Literature and Criticism, all the Humanities, and ALL the liberal arts. Stop with your FUCKING RACIST stereotypes of Asian American. Asian Americans, despite RACIST Quotas, are 10% of America's top 25 law schools, including Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and the U.of Chicago. Without trhe RACIST anti-Asian American quotas, they are 25% to 30% of Berkeley's and UCLA's law school. Asian Americans EXCEL in EVERY FIELD of study including the professional schools of journalism, education, divinity, business, law, architecture, medicine and denistry, in addition to engineering.
I am not against any group being the "majority group" in elite colleges and the whites are. So what? You are the one playing the race card, because WITHOUT the race card, you would never have been admitted, with lowered standards and your privileged middle to upper class background from college educated parents, you hypocrite!! You are the one twisting and turning. I am for a race-blind and ethnic group blind admissions process, using any standards of admissions or criteria these elite schools deem necessary, BUT LEAVE RACE OUT OF IT.
REAL DIVERSITY TRANSCENDS RACIAL DIVERSITY.
I DON'T CARE IF HARVARD OR BERKELEY IS 80% BLACK, OR 90% WHITE OR 50% ASIAN AMERICAN, AS LONG AS RACE IS NOT USED IN ADMISSIONS.
I don't want to know the race of the applicant and the adcom should not either. That's the point. Diversirty, TRUE Diversity, will be achieved.
"Geographic quotas" were synomynous with the "Jewish quota" at Yale and in the Ivies in the past when Jews lived mainly in NYC and the eastern cities.
So you are in favcor of the racist anti- Asian American quotas. A racist would be in favor of this quota.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2067729) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2005 12:13 PM Author: Pink motley spot Subject: What? Excuse me, could you say that again, without all the off-the-walls cursing and ommitting all those misplaced quotes?
Actually, of all the bullshit you wrote, I only need 3 answers:
(1) "REAL DIVERSITY TRANSCENDS RACIAL DIVERSITY."
Explain that. What the hell is "real diversity"??? (If you can actually explain it, because it sounds more like bs.)
(2) Show that all URMs are (a) kids of affluent, educated parents, (b) they all have subpar stats.
(3) I DON'T CARE IF HARVARD OR BERKELEY IS 80% BLACK, OR 90% WHITE OR 50% ASIAN AMERICAN, AS LONG AS RACE IS NOT USED IN ADMISSIONS.
That's the point. YOU don't care. But it's not about YOU. HYP doesnt' care what YOU think. It's about the group of people that the university WANTS. They couldn't care less what YOU think.
If a college wants to have all races in their class, it is THEIR choice. If you don't like a culturally diverse group, then get yourself a class of 100% Asians.
It's ridiculous that you call me racist because I say I don't want to be in a classroom 90% one race. The only racist person here is yourself. Whether you like it or not, there ARE URMs who have top stats as well. You are saying that ALL URMs have subpar stats and are kids of affluent parents, so YOU are the hysterical, ignorant racist here. So shut up, and if you didn't get into your first choice, nobody cares.
There's URMs who are better qualified, and/or are better people than you, and would benefit the school more than your Asian ass. HYP doesn't care if there's 700 Asians with top stats who can fill all their sits. Perfect scores is NOT true diversity. True diversity is a diverse group of people who have different cultures and backgrounds. Race can create diversity, whether you like it or not. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2067769) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2005 3:02 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig What you said about Asian Americans was said of the Jews.
Now Jews are 33% of Harvard and were 60% to 70% of Columbia pre WW II, when the other Ivies had anti-Jewish quotas. Today there are no quotas against Jews, but quotas against Asian Ams. This is OK with you obviously, because you are a FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRITE.
>> If a college wants to have all races in their class, it is THEIR choice. If you don't like a culturally diverse group, then get yourself a class of 100% Asians. <<
Then why don't you get a class of 100% blacks, or 100% Jews with your racial engineering??
You are so full of shit, because without the use of race or racial engineering, the classroom will NEVER be a 100% of any group. You are a fucking MORAN for even saying what you said above, because you can't even see how racist you are for inferring that the classroom will be overrun by Asian Americans, if the racist quotas against Asian Americans were lifted, as they they were for the Jews. Well, are the classrooms being OVERRUN by Jews? The anti-semites and racists who imposed these anti-Jewish quotas said that the classrooms will be overrun by Jews, if the quotas were lifted. You are similar to the racists who yelled "Yellow Peril", when they passed anti-Chinese laws in this country and when the white majority lynched the Chinese in America, who had no rights or the Writ of Habeas Corpus, with impunity for just exactly the SAME SENTIMENTS you have, for fear of being overrun. You know absolutely nothing with your racist political correctness. You do not know anything about history. Race and ethnic group preferences are evil, immoral, and unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.
You are either plain stupid, ignorant or so racist that you cannnot see what I am saying.
Admission should have NOTHING to do with your race. It should be race blind and ethnic group blind.
Race preferences never worked in Nazi Germany, and Bosnia, and it will not work in college admissions will RACE ENGINEERING.
You are full of shit, because you had no problems with Columbia being 60% Jewish, pre WW II, and Harvard being over one-third Jewish, yet you had a problem with Asian Americans being over their current 14% of the Ivies.
I am for a race-blind and ethnic group blind admissions process, using any standards of admissions or criteria these elite schools deem necessary, BUT LEAVE RACE OUT OF IT.
You are a RACIST hypocrite with your racist stereotyyping of the Asian American applicant group as not being DIVERSE. As a group, they are most diverse.
So you are in favcor of the racist anti- Asian American quotas. Only a racist would be in favor of this quota.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2068625) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2005 5:34 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> There's URMs who are better qualified, and/or are better people than you, and would benefit the school more than your Asian ass. HYP doesn't care if there's 700 Asians with top stats who can fill all their sits. Perfect scores is NOT true diversity. True diversity is a diverse group of people who have different cultures and backgrounds. Race can create diversity, whether you like it or not. <<
BTW, I never said PERFECT SCORES is true diversity. There are many Asian Americans with low scores, but they have a snow ball's chance in hell of being admitted, simply because they are held to a higher standard of acheivement for admission, higher than that for whites. Asian Am are required to score higher on average in order to be admitted to the Ivies, as much as over 100 points higher than whites or 300 pointb higher than blacks in order to be admitted to the elite schools. That's the point you missed.
Blacks admitted with the race preference and AA are NOT BETTER QUALIFIED OR EVEN EQUALLY QUALIFIED. If they were, they would not need PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN ADMISSIONS and AA would be totally uneccessary.
You can't have it both ways.
Certainly, there are blacks who are admitted to the Ivies and other competitive colleges with EQUAL QUALIFICATIONS, without the benefit of race based Affirmative Action and preferential treatment. They are pitifully very few in number, because the black applicant group , by and large, lack the qualifications on an equal basis with the rest of the admitted class. According to the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (JBHE), if lower standards and qualifications were not used for blacks with race based AA, blacks would only be between 1% to 2% of the highly competitive colleges, instead of the 6% to 8% blacks that are there now who were admitted by lower standards and qualifications, enabling thousands upon thousands of addittional blacks to attend the elite, highly selective and more competitive colleges.
These underprepared, lower qualified blacks really belong in the lower tier colleges and there is nothing wrong with this, because there are 4000 other institutions of higher learning in America, giving plenty of opportunity for blacks, as well as anyone of any race, to obtain a higher education, because over 98% of Americans who received college degrees were educated in these other schools. Students should attend schools commensurate with their qualifications and preparedness according to the qualifications of the students in each school. Every other American does, so why not blacks? There is abundant opportunity for everyone to acheive a college education in America in the year 2005, especially for blacks. There are the community colleges, city and smaller state colleges and other private colleges which collectively represent the best higher educational system in the world.
An Asian student with a 3.5 GPA and 1300 SAT may decide not to waste an application fee on a school where his odds of admission are only one-tenth that of a preferred minority (black) with a 2.5 GPA and an 1100 SAT. if these schools made their admissions process more transparent and let the truth be known, exposing the perversity of the process and how demented, unfair and immoral it is. These schools will never reveal their admissions data according to each admissions standard used and the criteria met by each student, DISAGGREGATED by race and ethnic group, because this will expose the adcoms' hypocrisy, their double and triple standards in admissions, by using different standards of admission for different groups. Asian Americans are required to meet higher objective standards of achievement, such as SAT scores and GPAs, and a higher holistic criteria than any other group, including blacks, latinos and whites, in order to be admitted. The holistic criteria consists of charcacter, leadership, special talents, awards (Intel Finalists, International Math, Physics and Chemistry Olympiad Gold Medals, national literary and music awards, etc.)motivations, perseverance, and the overcoming of obstacles, such as economic disadvantage and cultural and language differences for Asian Americans, from being one of the smallest racial minorities in America.
Again, being "qualified" for a black admitted with race prefrences with lower standards through race based AA DOES NOT MEAN BETTER QUALIFIED OR EVEN EQUALLY QUALIFIED. If this black was EQUALLY QUALIFIED, there would be no need for preferential treatment in admissions. They are LESS QUALIFIED. Its all relative.
The purpose of race based AA in elite college admissions is not legally justified to "right the previous wrong of slavery" in the US Supreme Court, but to provide racial diversity for the class, whose benefits have yet to be proven. The Court never justified the use of race as a factor in college admissions to "right the wrong" of black slavery which was abolished over 150 years ago. The court never ok'd the use of one wrong to "right" another wrong. In fact, the swing vote, Justice Sandra O'Connor, in the US Supreme Court decision's 5 to 4 in favor of the use of race as a factor in the U.of Michigan Law School case, said it should only be used for another 25 years. Well it has been 40 years since the first use of AA, and it has solved nothing in closing the racial gaps in academic achievement, execpt for benefitting underperforming and underachieving midlde and upper class blacks, admitted with lower standards via race preferences and AA. Over 2/3 of these blacks are children of immigrants from the Carribean and Africa, and not the descendents of Americans slaves, the intended beneficiaries of AA. Why should UNDERPERFORMING AND UNDERACHIEVEING affluent blacks who are are not descendants of Afro-American slaves receive a HUGE tip in admissions based soley on the black color of their skins?? The decendants of Afro-American slaves were the ones who sufferred under Jim Crow, not the affluent black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean. They do not deserve race prefrences.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2069368) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2005 12:13 PM Author: Pink motley spot Subject: 2ble post (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2067772) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2005 6:39 PM Author: Aphrodisiac toaster Trick, ignore 'hero.' That fool is beyond saving. The fact that he screams and curses at you should be the sign that he can't argue nor hold an intelligent debate.
He thinks getting rid of race in admissions will provide wonders. He sounds more like Ward Connerly the more I think about it. Yet, Asian-American and multiracial groups went all out to OPPOSE Connerly's 'multicultral' category in California. Such actions WOULD HURT the admissions!!
"The Association of MultiEthnic Americans (AMEA), Hapa Issues Forum (HIF), and MAVIN Foundation, three of the nation's leading mixed-race advocacy organizations are actively opposing the addition of a multiracial/multiethnic category.
"We feel that this proposal will reduce the accuracy of data collection on UC applicants, undermine federal reporting guidelines, and threaten the effectiveness of civil rights research and enforcement," the organizations said in a joint statement.
They continue, "One box simply isn't enough to accurately and completely acknowledge the diversity of mixed race UC applicants."
The three organizations have helped to publicize a petition and letter-writing campaign to urge the Board of Regents to oppose the proposal when it faces a vote on Thursday."
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~kang/aajclass/aajblog/2004/11/students-organizations-testify-against.htm
Takes a fool to know one. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2069711) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2005 7:42 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: To ltorivia485- To debunk your stereotypes of Asian Americans >> Trick, ignore 'hero.' That fool is beyond saving. The fact that he screams and curses at you should be the sign that he can't argue nor hold an intelligent debate. <<
How about refuting the following points, Itoriva485, if you can? You CAN"T, because you are lost for a credible response. Now, who is the fool, but you?
To debunk your stereotypes of Asian Americans
Asian Americans to my knowledge HAVE NEVER received race-based AA in elite
college admissions. They never asked for it, nor they want it or require
it for admissions to Harvard or the elites. Race-based AA discriminates against Asians Americans with de facto quotas limiting their numbers, not increasing their numbers,
no matter what criteria or standards are used for admission EVEN EXCLUDING
SAT SCORES AND GPAs. Asian Americans have all the characteristics necessary
for admission, including sports, special talents, motivation, hard work,
creativity and the overcoming of hardships and economic disadvantage.
Of course if you factor in SAT scores and GPAs Asian Americans will win
hands down without considering other criteria for admissions. What I am
saying is that even if you FACTOR OUT SAT scores and GPAs and use holistic
criteria only, leaving race out as a factor for admissions, Asian Americans
are also disproporrtionately qualified. THEY ARE NOT ONE-DIMENSIONAL
PRE-MED VIOLINIISTS, according to the RACIST stereotypes used by some,
because they are in every field of study and endeavor and in every field of
extracurricular activities on the college campus.There is no truth to this
stereotype. For instance, just look at the writers for the Harvard Crimson
or any other college newspaper. There are hardly ANY Blacks or Latinos as
writers on the college newspaper staffs, but many Asian Americans .Students at Brown even bemoaned this fact. Look at Harvard's 41 varsity sports teams which are
non-contact, such as tennis or gymnastics. Asians are well represented. The
Yale women's team in Gymnastics won the Ivy Championship last year with
their best NATIONALLY ranked female gymnast, Ms. Fong, a Chinese American,and a graduate of St. Ann's School in Brooklyn, NYC, a prestigious day prep ranked as a top feeder for the Ivies by Worth Magazine and the Wall Street Journal. The best tennis player on the Exeter's New England Prep League Championship team was a Chinese American last year which enabled the team to dominate in its league. Andover's best female swimmer on their women's League championship team this year is a Korean born swimmer who qualified for the summer Olympics and enabled the Andover team to dominate female swimming. I could go on and on tto break these racist stereotypes of Asian American students.
We must eliminate race-based admissions. Admissions must be race-neutral.
Asian Americans are required to meet a higher standard of achievement for
admissions and this most highly qualified group are admitted at the lowest
rates compared to very other group, including whites.
Studies (done internally when charges of bias were presented) at Brown and
Stanford have clearly disputed the stereotyped image of an Asian American
applicant as being "one dimensional" with no extracurricular activities
except for music. This image only existed in the biased views of the some
of the admission officers. These studies have shown that there was an
unexplained bias in admissions and in fact, the Asian American group
appeared better prepared by any standards used, yet had only a 60% to 70%
admission rate compared to the white applicant group at Stanford. The
Admissions Dean of Stanford could not explain the disparity, but at least
she admitted that there was one. Many of the heads and admission officers
of the elite schools don't even acknowledge that the problem even exists.
The Asian applicants were better prepared than the white group, yet have a
lower admission rate.
Stanford's Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid
discovered, after an inquiry, that between 1982 and 1985 Asian Americans
were one-third less likely than whites to be offered admission, even though
they were on average better prepared than white applicants. Annual Report
of CUAFA, Stanford University, 1986, reprinted in "Campus Report",
November 12, 1986.
Some admissions officials have complained that Asian Americans tend to be
lacking in extracurricular and personal qualities, which universities
consider along with grades to ensure that they get well-rounded
individuals. But there is no systematic evidence to this; indeed a report
by the Corporation Committee on Minority Affairs (CCMI) at Brown,
established to investigate charges of anti-Asian discrimination, found such
assumptions to be the result of "cultural bias and stereotypes which
prevail in the admissions office." In the early 1980s, these attitudes
contributed to a 14% acceptance rate for Asians, who are on the average the
best qualified applicants to Brown, compared to the other students who
averaged an acceptance rate of 20%. See Report of CCMI, Brown University,
February 1984. Between 1978 and 1986, there was a 430% increase of Asian
Americans applying to Brown, but the number of these students remained
fairly constant. Grace Tsang, "Equal Access of Asian-Americans", "Yale Law
Journal", January 1989, pp. 659-78.'
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2070066) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2005 7:53 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: "The true issue is whether we want or need a policy that systematically restricts the places for Asian-Americans in our elite universities."
"Then as now, university administrators wished to control the racial mix (Jews were considered and called a "race" then). Otherwise, they feared their campuses would be "overrun" with members of a small but academically very high-achieving group."
According to Dean of Admissions at UPenn, Asian Americans are the "new Jews" or "today's Jews" in admissions to elite colleges. They are subjected to de facto quotas with "diversity goals" for fear of another "Yellow Peril" from Asian Americans of all colors, including the dark hues of Indians from South Asia.
As a group of applicants, they are highest achieving, most stellar, DIVERSE, and MOST QUALFILIED for admissions to the elite colleges, according any standards or criiteria, both objectively and holistically, which these elite schools use for admission.
The percent of African American and Hispanic students in selective college freshman classes is often higher than the percent of applicants from that group, while the opposite is true of Asian Americans. In 2001, 20.3 percent of applicants to Brown University's class of 2005 were Asian American, but only 16 percent of the acceptances were. The percent of white applicants and acceptances was about the same, 66 percent, while African Americans comprised 9 percent of the acceptances and only 6 percent of the applicants, and Hispanics had 9 percent of the acceptances and only 7.1 percent of the applicants.
Skin hue, color or tone, contrary to politically correct beliefs, should not be qualifications for admissions to the elite colleges, graduate schools and professional schools.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2070136) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 12:36 AM Author: Pink motley spot Subject: To ltorivia485 Date: February 5th, 2005 6:39 PM Author: ltorivia485
"Trick, ignore 'hero.' That fool is beyond saving. The fact that he screams and curses at you should be the sign that he can't argue nor hold an intelligent debate."
Exactly. I can' figure out what his point is, since all he does is curse, write about the Jews, curse some more, quote, curse, quote, curse, quote, curse, name-call, call everybody racists, repeat over and over that "acial diversity is not true diversity," but conveniently leaving out the actual definition of "true diversity" which apparently he doesn't even know. It's pretty tedious to read such and incoherent & lengthy rant.
My guess is that hero is one of the mediocre Asians in the bottom of his class who didn't get into HYP because he was "held to higher standards" and so, he blames his defeat on AA. Obviously a loser.
And if he didn't get into any top school, I bet it had nothing to do with his race. He doesn't sound smart; he's rude, incoherent and hysteric; he can't even argue or present his points clearly. If his personal statement accurately depicted his personal character, it definitely killed him in admissions. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2072366) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 8:06 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: To Trickmaster from hero >> And if he didn't get into any top school, I bet it had nothing to do with his race. He doesn't sound smart; he's rude, incoherent and hysteric; he can't even argue or present his points clearly. If his personal statement accurately depicted his personal character, it definitely killed him in admissions. <<
You are quite presumptuous along with your racist sterotyping of Asian Ams.
I have received my degrees from a most illustrious Ivy League school many years ago, and so have many members of my family. I was a top graduate of my magnet high school and had almost perfect scores on my SAT I and IIs.
I have posted my views on racial diversity/quotas/goals (all synomyns) clearly and I have stated how DIVERSE UC Berkeley is with its present composition of all the races and its offerrings in ALL its vast range of fields of study, and intellectual pursuits, with real or true diversity, despite being over 40% Asian American, making it the number one university in the world, by all the WORLD RANKINGS of the school. You obviouly can't read.
You cannot comprehend the truth and avoid the issue of ANTI-ASIAN AMERICAN QUOTAS, the topic of this thread and of the articles from Jay Mathews, the Education Editor of the Washington Post, which is a politically incorrect issue for a racist like you. Mark my words, this will come back and kick you in the azz, someday soon.
The analogy between the anti-Jewish quotas, now abolished, and the racist anti-Asian Am quotas, which you support, is not only appropiate, but relevant. You just cannot handle this and avoid even commenting on it.
Click on for Jay Mathews' first article on Asian Americans limiting quotas at highly selective colleges in the Washington Post, Oct. 12, 2004 :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26499-2004Oct12?language=printer
Jay Mathews said in regards to Jews, "But there is one part of his argument, a reference to a sad era in American history, that is hard to ignore. Many selective colleges before World War II had quotas on Jews. They turned down many brilliant applicants in favor of non-Jewish prep school students with lesser records. They didn't call this striving for diversity, but it was a perverse form of affirmative action, and it left a bitter taste for decades."
In other words, this "perverse form" of AA was for thw WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) at the time, who could not compete out of bigotry and jealousy, for fear of being "overun", according to Mathews. This is exactly what you said about the Asian American applicants.
So you are in favcor of the racist anti- Asian American quotas. Only a racist would be in favor of this quota.
Only one word decribes you trickmaster, RACIST.
Ad hom attacks by you prove nothing.
So you are in favcor of the racist anti- Asian American quotas. Only a racist would be in favor of this quota. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2074076) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 1:00 AM Author: Pink motley spot Subject: hero, you're quite a moron Date: February 5th, 2005 3:02 PM Author: hero
"What you said about Asian Americans was said of the Jews."
Completely unrelated. Cut the crap with the Jews. Stop using that pathetic example. We're here today, in the US, in 2005, with a different problem. So stop babbling about the Jews and get to the POINT of the Affirmative Action in the UNITED STATES in 2005. Enough with your bullshit.
"Today there are no quotas against Jews, but quotas against Asian Ams. This is OK with you obviously, because you are a FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRITE."
A fucking what? Are you able to argue without cursing, or is it that your points lack strength, to the point where you feel compelled to curse, to make up for your weakness?
Anyway, yeah, there should be quotas for Asians, for whites, for Hispanics and for blacks. Why? Well, simple. Harvard has only 2000 or so spots per year, and 15 or more applicants per spot. So, if there were no quotas, they would end up with far more students than they can take. In addition, nobody wants to go to a school where you give one step, and see an Asian with a book at every corner you turn to look at on campus. Then when you go out in the real world, you'll realize there US is more than Asians. You'll look around and see whites blacks Hispanics and Asians, you'll be educated in an unrealistic setting, different from the world you're being prepared to face upon graduation.
"Then why don't you get a class of 100% blacks, or 100% Jews with your racial engineering?? You are so full of shit, because without the use of race or racial engineering, the classroom will NEVER be a 100% of any group."
Full of shit because of something I never even said?? When the hell did I ever say that I wanted a single-raced class, retard? I stated QUITE the opposite--I WANT a diverse class. I DO NOT want a class with 100% one race. Are you pretending to be stupid, or you are genuinely stupid? Do you not know how to read? My suggestion to you, which you obviously still can't grasp, like most concepts so far, was that if you didn't believe in racial diversity, and if you didn't think that racial diversity is true diversity, that you had freedom, and the OPTION to escape the burning flames of this hell by getting yourself on a plane and flying yourself overseas, where Beijing University will welcome you with open arms, and you will see nothing but beautiful qualified Asians surrounding you. There you have your "true diversity," with 100% Asians with top stats and all kinds of interests, EC's, hardships, you name it. Can't get enough diversity in the US? Get the hell out ship yourself back home. The US is a diverse country with immigrants from all over the world, and American universities prepare their students to undertake the real world they will face upon graduation. If you don't like it, then go back to China and compete against all the Asians overseas. Who is forcing you to remain here, burning in hell?
"You are so full of shit, because without the use of race or racial engineering, the classroom will NEVER be a 100% of any group."
Oh really? Without racial engineering, the classroom would NOT be 100% any group? So why the fuck then, did you write THIS, moron:
"Asian Americans have all the characteristics necessary for admission, including sports, special talents, motivation, hard work, creativity and the overcoming of hardships and economic disadvantage. Of course if you factor in SAT scores and GPAs Asian Americans will win hands down without considering other criteria for admissions."
So you're just fucking saying that without racial engineering the classes will not be overrun by Asians, even though Asians will win hands down without considering other criteria for admission? Should I dumb myself down to your level and pretend I don't realize you're beating your own arguments? Or should I point out the hundreds of holes you have shoot in all and everyone of your arguments?
So basically, your goal is to rise the Asian enrollment in the Ivies, from their current meager 14%, by say, eliminating 8% blacks, 5% Hispanics, 20% whites, and achieving the fenomenal result of TRUE DIVERSITY!! True Diversity: 50% Asians, 10% internationals, 39% Caucasians, 0.24% Hispanics, 0.75% blacks, and 0.01% Native Americans?!!! Is that your goal? Is that your definition of "true diversity"? Which, by the way, you say "it has nothing to do with perfect stats", right?
Hero: YOU NEED, FOR THE LOVE OF GOOD, TO GODDAM GET TO BUSINESS AND DEFINE WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR SO CALLED TRUE DIVERSITY IS. THIS IS THE 3RD FREAKING TIME I ASK YOU WHAT IS TRUE DIVERSITY, AND YOU CAN'T EVEN ANSWER MY QUESTION. ALL YOU EVER SAY ABOUT TRUE DIVERSITY IS:
"BTW, I never said PERFECT SCORES is true diversity. There are many Asian Americans with low scores, but they have a snow ball's chance in hell of being admitted... blah blah blah..."
Is that true diversity?
"BTW, I never said PERFECT SCORES is true diversity. Asian Am are required to score higher on average in order to be admitted to the Ivies, as much as over 100 points higher than whites or 300 points higher than blacks in order to be admitted to the elite schools."
Is that true diversity??
"BTW, I never said PERFECT SCORES is true diversity. You can't have it both ways. Blacks admitted with the race preference and AA are NOT BETTER QUALIFIED OR EVEN EQUALLY QUALIFIED. If they were, they would not need PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN ADMISSIONS and AA would be totally unnecessary."
AGAIN, Is that true diversity?
So, you have repeatedly refused to state what true diversity is. So, since all you do is provide sneaky "hints" as to the definition of true diversity, I will do you a favor and synthesize your convoluted rambling.
Hero's true diversity, paraphrased:
Ok, my name is hero. I am an Asian American in the bottom of my class. I was dinged at almost every college I applied. I know for a fact I didn't get into HYP because a black or Hispanic took my spot. Because of this, personally, I don't believe racial preferences can create true diversity. If it weren't for AA, I wouldn't be held to higher standards, and today, I'd be at HYP. Therefore, this situation has led me to believe that there is not true diversity in affirmative action. Here is, finally, my highly-awaited definition of true diversity in college admissions:
True diversity, by hero.
True diversity, dear friends, is.. (a) Asian Americans are required to score higher on average in order to be admitted to the Ivies. They shouldn't, because that creates a cap. If we remove the cap, there would be true diversity. Why? don't ask me. (My point: More average Asians admitted at Ivies = true diversity. I can't elaborate on this, though, so don't even bother asking.)
(b)"Blacks admitted with the race preference and AA are NOT BETTER QUALIFIED OR EVEN EQUALLY QUALIFIED. These under-prepared, lower qualified blacks really belong in the lower tier colleges. There are 4000 other institutions of higher learning in America, giving plenty of opportunity for blacks, as well as anyone of any race, to obtain a higher education." (My point: Blacks sent to TTT colleges + more average Asians admitted at Ivies = true diversity at Ivies.)
(c)"Students should attend schools commensurate with their qualifications and preparedness according to the qualifications of the students in each school. Every other American does, so why not blacks? There are the community colleges, city and smaller state colleges and other private colleges which collectively represent the best higher educational system in the world." (My point: More under-qualified blacks sent to community colleges, freeing spots for mediocre, yet higher-scorers-than-blacks Asians = true diversity at top universities.) BTW, I know I said this: "BTW, I never said PERFECT SCORES is true diversity." The truth is, I'm a sneaky bastard. I meant to say that Asians with higher scores than blacks and Hispanics should be admitted at Ivy Leagues, and this would create true diversity. Don't ask me how or why, because I can't elaborate on that either.
(d)"An Asian student with a 3.5 GPA and 1300 SAT may decide not to waste an application fee on a school where his odds of admission are only one-tenth that of a preferred minority (black) with a 2.5 GPA and an 1100 SAT. If these schools made their admissions process more transparent and let the truth be known, exposing the perversity of the process and how demented, unfair and immoral it is." (My Point: Asians with higher scores than blacks should be accepted and the blacks rejected, even if that would amount to having a 0.0003% of blacks. Oh, and this simple process would create true diversity. By the way, I know I said "BTW, I never said PERFECT SCORES is true diversity" But again, when it comes to Asians, it is true diversity. But Shhhh...) (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2072651) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 8:17 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> If you don't like it, then go back to China and compete against all the Asians overseas. Who is forcing you to remain here, burning in hell? <<
You have exposed your true nature.
This is the most RACIST remark from you yet.
I DIDN'T COME FROM CHINA, YOU FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRITE.
I am a native-born New Yorker with many generations of my family in America.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2074080) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 9:26 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Trickmaster, in misrepresenting hero's views, said :
>> Hero's true diversity, paraphrased:
Ok, my name is hero. I am an Asian American in the bottom of my class. I was dinged at almost every college I applied. I know for a fact I didn't get into HYP because a black or Hispanic took my spot. Because of this, personally, I don't believe racial preferences can create true diversity. If it weren't for AA, I wouldn't be held to higher standards, and today, I'd be at HYP. Therefore, this situation has led me to believe that there is not true diversity in affirmative action. Here is, finally, my highly-awaited definition of true diversity in college admissions: <<
DON'T YOU EVER PARAPHRASE, MISREPRESENT, MISQUOTE, TWIST, AND SPIN MY POSTS AGAIN!
If you can't address my points or are incapable of understanding them, say nothing, because you don't have anything credible to say. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2074106) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 1:03 AM Author: Pink motley spot Subject: And while the bottom Asians whine about the misery of AA And while the bottom Asians whine about the misery that AA has brought them by misplacing them in a top 6 rather than top 2, Harvard concentrates on THE REAL issues:
http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/news/pressreleases/deseg05.php
Press Release
Disparity in Nation's Schools: Race and Poverty Linked to Educational Inequality and Higher Dropout Rates
Cambridge, MA--January 13, 2005--Today, The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University (CRP) announces a new study showing that public school students across the nation are increasingly segregated by race, poverty, and educational opportunity. The study, Why Segregation Matters: Poverty and Educational Inequality, conducted by Gary Orfield and Chungmei Lee, demonstrates that the nation’s shockingly high dropout problem is squarely concentrated in heavily minority high schools in big cities.
The report finds that an alarming disparity remains in our nation’s schools. White students are the most segregated within their own group and most concentrated in middle class schools, and except in the border regions, whites in racially isolated schools rarely confront substantial levels of poverty. Eighty-two percent of the students in low poverty schools are white, compared to less than 10% of the minority students. In contrast, black and Latino students are isolated by both race and poverty in their schools: 77% of Latino students and 73% of black students are in predominantly minority schools and close to half of the students in schools attended by the average black and Latino student are poor.
"Segregation has not gone away or been rendered harmless," stated Orfield, director of The Civil Rights Project and a professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. "It is intense and much of its harm is based on the strong link between poverty segregation, racial segregation and school failure. As we enter into serious review and possible renewal of the No Child Left Behind Act and discussion of high school accountability, we must take the reality of segregated schools into consideration. Policies that ignore segregation often end up compounding existing inequalities.”
Other major findings include:
More than half of white students across the nation attend schools where less than 30% of the students are poor compared to less than one in five black and Latino students.
Only 1% of white students attend extreme poverty (90-100%) schools, compared to 12% black and Latino students and 4% Asians.
The most isolated group is white students in low poverty schools in the Midwest: the average white student attends a school that is 91% white. The second most isolated group is black students in extreme poverty Southern schools: 87% of the average black students’ peers are black. Latino students in extreme poverty schools in the West attend schools that are, on average, 83% Latino.
The districts with the lowest high school completion rates are central city systems and in many of these districts, more than 90% of black and Latino students attend majority minority schools.
Suburban districts have among the highest graduation rates. However, despite the large concentration of white students in the suburbs, blacks and Latinos are isolated in majority minority schools.
White students attend very isolated schools: 41% of white students are in schools that are almost all white. Given the high white isolation, more than one third of black and Latino students attend schools that are more than 90% minority.
One in nine Latino students and about one in six black students attend almost totally segregated schools, compared to less than one percent of white students. “Segregation has always been more than skin deep,” said study co-author Chungmei Lee. “Reforms that ignore the concentration of minority students in poor schools and the overwhelming odds which these schools must overcome in order to provide quality education only reinforce the existing inequalities. Unless we do something about it, all students will attend increasingly racially isolated schools and will not be prepared to fully engage in a multiracial society." To view the report, visit: http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/deseg/deseg05.php
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2072682) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 8:24 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig What is your point?
I have always stated that I favor economic based AA, but not race based AA in the elite colleges.
In fact, race based AA in the elite colleges has done absolutely nothing in closing the racial gaps in academic achievement which has widened in recent years.
Your article does not justify race based AA in the elite school admissions. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2074085) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 8:35 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Click on http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/555860/posts
From Larry Elder:
Affirmative Action
In America in Black and White, Stephen and Abigail Thernstrom clearly show that the black middle class preceded affirmative action. Moreover, it insults the hardworking black men and women of this country who, since slavery, built the black middle class, day by day, brick by brick, backache by backache. The first black member of the Federal Reserve Board, Arthur Brimmer, studied affirmative action’s impact. By affirmative action, I mean preferences, the lowering of standards to achieve "diversity" or "multi-culturalism" or "inclusion." I do not include outreach, or using efforts to inform others, irrespective of race, gender, etc., of available opportunities.
Brimmer concluded, "I would say that most blacks I know did not get [their jobs] because of affirmative action, but it’s impossible [to determine the exact number]."
In 1962, Ebony magazine ran a series of motivational articles called, "If I Were Young Today." Each month, they asked a black achiever—Federal District Judge Herman Moore, union leader A. Philip Randolph, famed Los Angeles architect Paul Williams—to provide advice to today’s youth. Each spoke of drive, vision, hard work, and preparation. Not one even implied the need or desire for preferential treatment.
In 1963, Whitney Young, then head of the Urban League, proposed a kind of a "Marshall Plan" for blacks. A member of the league, however, objected to what he called "the heart of it--the business of employing Negroes [because they are Negroes]." Moreover, Whitney Young suggested his "Marshall Plan" for a period of ten years. This means, if Young prevailed, affirmative action would have ended in 1973!
The Detroit News recently wrote that, at seven Michigan colleges and universities, blacks within six years graduate at a rate of 40% compared to 61% for whites and 74% for Asians. Blame lowered standards to achieve to achieve campus "diversity." This mismatching of students—placing someone in a major league school when he or she would have been better at Triple A ball—causes, according to one study a loss of $5 billion a year to the black community. Moreover, affirmative action, in the educational field, masked the real problems, substandard education K-12. Yet you, the Democratic Party, and the unions all resist many changes urban parents want, including vouchers.
Besides, hard work wins. Back in 1901, thirty-six years after slavery, Booker T. Washington said, "When a Negro girl learns to cook, to wash dishes, to sew, to write a book, or a Negro boy learns to groom horses, or to grow sweet potatoes, or to produce butter, or to build a house, or to be able to practise medicine, as well or better than some one else, they will be rewarded regardless of race or colour. In the long run, the world is going to have the best, and any difference in race, religion, or previous history will not long keep the world from what it wants.
"I think that the whole future of my race hinges on the question as to whether or not it can make itself of such indispensable value that the people in the town and the state where we reside will feel that our presence is necessary to the happiness and well-being of the community. No man who continues to add something to the material, intellectual, and moral well being of the place in which he lives is long left without proper reward. This is a great human law which cannot be permanently nullified."
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2074088) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 8:39 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Diversity transcends race.
The adcoms admit INDIVIDUALS into their schools, and should evaluate each applicant as an INDIVIDUAL, not by generalizing, stereotyping, or racial profiling the individual according to race, ethnic group, religion and creed. There is absolutely no place for this in admissions. This is immoral, unjust and unconstitutional. This makes for biases and discrimination against Asian Americans in admissions to the Ivies and the elite colleges, simply because they are overrepresented at about 15% of the Ivies and some of the elite colleges, on the average.This percentage for Asian Ams is capped, limiting their numbers by a de facto quota against Asian Ams.
Admissions should be race and ethnic group blind. The adcoms should not have to know the race or ethnic group of the applicant. They should not ask the applicant about his race. Even if adcoms knew the race of the applicant, it should play no role or factor in admissions.
The adcoms do not ask Jewish applicants if they are Jewish. They do not know and they don't want to know. The adcoms used to know, during the pre WW II period to the 1960s, when they used discrimnatory quotas against stellar Jewish applicants, excluding them from the Ivies. These anti-Jewish quotas have been abolished, and in their place are the anti-Asian American quotas against stellar Asian applicants. Jews are over 30% of Harvard and about 33% of UPenn today. Jews are only 2 and 1/2 % of the American population. I have no problems with this. Asian Americans are 4% of the population, but their numbers are capped at about 15% in the Ivies and elites by a de facto racial quota against stellar Asian Ams. I have a BIG PROBLEM with this. If it were not for the anti-Asian Am quotas, the percentage of Asian Ams would be much higher than their ppresent 15% in the Ivies and the elite colleges. Asian Americans are over 40% at UC Berkeley and UCLA and even 20% of U.of Texas-Austin, where they are less than 3% of the Texas population because racial quotas were abolished at these 3 schools.
In the book, "Getting In: Inside the College Admissions Process" , by Bill Paul, published by Addison Wesley, 1995, on pages 201 and 202, the Admissions Dean of UPenn, Mr. Lee Stetson, stated that Asian Americans are "today's Jews" in admissions, inferring that Asian Ams are discrimnated against in the same manner the Jews were with exclusionary or limiting quotas or caps on their numbers. With all due respect to Jews, Asian Americans do not want to be "today's Jews" in admission and be subjected to caps and racial quotas against them. This is immoral, unjust, discrimnatory and unconstitutional, as it was with yesterday's Jews. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2074091) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 12:35 PM Author: Aphrodisiac toaster Maybe because some Jews are physically impossible to identify along with Protestant whites? Besides the "Stein/Rosen-" surname, many Jews have European-American names. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2074487) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 1:24 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig So what? You missed the point.
The adcoms do not ask the applicant if he/she is Jewish, but they ask the applicant if he/she is black, Latino, or Asian American. The adcoms should not ask.
The adcoms don't want to know if the applicant is Jewish, and by the same reasoning, they should not have to know if the applicant is black, Latino, or Asian American.
The adcoms abolished the discriminatory quota against Jews, and they should do the same for the racist quotas against Asian Americans.
Anyone who supports these anti-Asian Ams quotas in admissions to the elite colleges, while abolishing the Jewish quotas is SIMPLY A RACIST HYPOCRITE.
This is very easy to understand and it is not rocket science. The racists who support anti-Asian Ams quotas are in denial, and do not acknowledge this because, it debunks their case by being politically correct. Well. this will come back soon and kick them in the azz.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2074735) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 8:50 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> And while the bottom Asians whine about the misery of AA <<
Jews do not whine, because there are no quotas against them. They said, "NEVER AGAIN"! Over one-third of Harvard is Jewish for two and one half percent of the population and the President of Harvard, Larry Summers is Jewish as were the Presidents of Princeton, Columbia, Dartmouth, UPenn, Cornell and Yale. There are no discrimnatory quotas for Jews anymore. They are not "overuning" the Ivies, yet Asian Ams are, according to you.
I don't have a problem with the Jewish numbers in the Ivies and yet, you have a problem with abolishing anti-Asian Am quotas, because they may become "100% Asian" and be overun by Asians. The anti-semites and racists said exactly the same thing for Jews, as you are saying for Asian Ams.
This is the truth, and you can't handle it or even acknowledge it, because you are a RACIST. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2074097) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 8:53 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Reread this, Trickmaster >> Why not reward the poor URMs over wealthy URMs! <<
Simply stated, there are just not even enough WEALTHY URMs, especially blacks who can meet the standards of admissions to the elite schools. Wealthy blacks underperform and underachieve academically and cannot compete with the poorest Asian Ams and whites. Don't even mention the other poorer blacks, because they are in a deeper hole academially. Many of them can't even qualify for a college and drop out before high school.
The rich black multi- millionaire college educated families have children who cannot compete on an equal basis with the POOREST Asian Americans and Whites from parents with less than a high school diploma. Forget about the lower middle and lower class blacks, because, as a group, they are EVEN MORE ACADEMICALLY DEFICIENT AND UNDERPREPARED. Race based AA does absolutely nothing for these poorer blacks, comprising the vast majority of of blacks in America.
Just think about this!! That's a fact that the flaming pro-race based AA liberals can't admit to or even acknowledge. They support this AA policy in denial of this to make them "feelgood", even though it may even do irreparable harm to underprepared blacks, while not attacking the main problem of poor k-12 education. Therefore, rich blacks from upper class families who are immigrants from the Carribean and Africa are the blacks that benefit from this demented and unjust policy, not the descendants of the African American slaves for whom AA was intended initially. The vast majority of blacks, about 70%, at Harvard are from middle and upper class recent immigrant families, who were not the object of the racist Jim Crow Laws in America. These economically privileged blacks were admitted with race preferences and lower academic standards ( lower SAT scores and GPAs, academic awards, etc..) than the rest of the class.
THE MAIN POINTS (POLITICALLY INCORRECT POINTS)
Re: Standardized Testing resuts
!. This would show that blacks from the highest income levels of $100k/year or more score lower than Asian Americans and Whites from the lowest income levels of $40k/year or less. The real question is simply, "How do you explain this? What are the reasons for this?
2. This would also show that blacks from parents with a college degree or more score lower on the SAT I that Asian Americans and Whites from parents will a high school diploma or less. Again, the real question is simply, "How do you explain this? What are the reasons for this?
3. The College Board had released these figures up to 1995 (I had given you the source for these figures from the CB), and they stopped afterwards because these facts were politically incorrect and damning for the pro-race based AA people, because they could not explain the disparity of scoring based on income alone or with parental education. There are many other factors involved, including cultural, sociological, psychological, and possibly "innate differences", to use Pres. Summers' own words in this instance, that may explain the differences between the races in scoring. Obviously, more research needs to be done, but just the mere mention of this to highlight the aformentioned facts from these SAT I testing results, previously released from the College Board, would bring forth charges of racism, which will do nothing to close the racial gap in testing and academic achievement.
Here's a link to verify the facts above:
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm
STANDARDIZED TESTS: THE INTERPRETATION OF RACIAL AND ETHNIC GAPS
There are only 70 blacks who scored 1500+ and only 190 blacks who scored 1450+ on the SAT I out of 130,000 black SAT I test takers in 2003. This a PITIFUL and shameful number of high scorers for blacks and glaring defciency for blacks, especially for the most affluent economically advantaged blacks with family incomes of more than $100k/year and parents with graduate degrees, who also "game" the system by taking test prep, foreign travel, good schools, etc., yet these affluent blacks, on the average, can't even perform better than the poorest whites or Asian Ams who have no advantages. This is PITIFUL and sad for blacks, especially the academically underachieving affluent blacks, the only ones who benefit from AA . THESE AFFLUENT LOWER PERFORMING BLACKS DO NOT DESERVE AA. Why should they?? Many of them are children of recent immigrants from Africa and the Carribean and not descendants of Afro-American slaves, the ones who sufferred from slavery under Jim Crow laws. The even lower achieving, poorer blacks receive no benefit from AA to the elite colleges, and they are so underforming, relatively speaking, they would not even qualify for a college, let alone an elite college. Simply speaking, there are VERY FEW QUALIFIED BLACKS for the elite colleges. As we speak, the racial gaps in academic achievement between blacks and whites (Asians) with the use of raced based AA in the elite colleges, are widening, solving nothing but causing a tremendous disservice to blacks, by not addressing the root causes for these racial gaps.
Similar results would hold for the SAT II tests, which some say are better indicators for academic success, although the CollegeBoard refuses to release the results according to race. There are not enough blacks, who are EQUALLY QUALLIFIED as the rest of the admitted class of whites and Asian Ams, to fill the 10,000 thousand or more spots in the more competive colleges. Therefore the colleges must resort to the use of race based AA, by lowering the standards of admissions for admission of blacks.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2074099) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 9:20 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Click on:
http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/v...6/4199b52f0c9db
Study questions benefits of race-based admission By anna haigh November 16, 2004
Daily Pennsylvanian
[In the study, University of California, Los Angeles law professor Richard Sander argues that black students would be better off without affirmative action, and presents data showing that students who benefit from the policy generally have low grade point averages that hinder their ability to pass bar exams and complete law school.
The study will be published in the November issue of the Stanford Law Review.
"In the case of blacks, at least, the objective costs of preferential admissions appear to substantially outweigh the benefits," Sander wrote in a summary of the study, called "A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools."
Job "market data strongly suggests that most black lawyers entering the job market would have higher earnings in the absence of preferential admissions," he wrote. He added that he believes stronger grades, rather than a high-profile school, lead to better employment prospects.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Only about 40% of blacks graduate law school and pass their respective State Bar Exams nationally for licensure to practice law.
Click on:
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm
"STANDARDIZED TESTS: THE INTERPRETATION OF RACIAL AND ETHNIC GAPS" (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2074101) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 9:42 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH JUSTIFYING RACE-BASED AA >> “Segregation has always been more than skin deep,” said study co-author Chungmei Lee. “Reforms that ignore the concentration of minority students in poor schools and the overwhelming odds which these schools must overcome in order to provide quality education only reinforce the existing inequalities. Unless we do something about it, all students will attend increasingly racially isolated schools and will not be prepared to fully engage in a multiracial society." <<
This again has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR JUSTIFICATION OF RACE-BASED AA IN THE IVIES OR THE ELITE COLLEGES.
Read the following from the thread, "Elite school needs to give boost to poor Afro American"
Please click on:
Elite school needs to give boost to poor Afro American
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: January 29th, 2005 8:35 AM Author: hero
http://www.nationalreview.com/15sept97/hu091597.html
AMERICA'S SCHOOLS
EDUCATION AND RACE
The performance of minority students in affluent areas refutes the prevailing educational shibboleths.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR HU
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hu is a writer living in Kirkland, Washington..
DESEGREGATION is at a crossroads. As many analysts are declaring the integration experiment a failure, Harvard's desegregation guru, Gary Orfield, keeps telling us that minority education could be fixed if only we desegregated more. Educators and the media routinely slam city schools for poor minority performance while holding up affluent suburban districts as models because of their better test scores. Yet, if Orfield is right that segregated districts don't produce equal outcomes, no one has answered the more important question, which is whether ``integrated'' districts produce equal outcomes.
Oddly, while the courts have used inequality as the justification for busing, Orfield himself notes in his 1991 book The Closing Door that there isn't much direct evidence that busing creates more equality. Almost as a footnote, he concedes that you would have to examine data broken down by race within mixed districts to prove that busing actually resulted in better performance for minorities.
After some cursory research -- a few phone calls to local school districts, a ride on the Internet -- I tracked down reports that do chart test scores and grades against race, not only in the worst but also in the best districts. The reason that people like Gary Orfield don't have the numbers is that it's safer to uphold the myth that minorities will perform as well as their white peers in good suburban schools than to expose the reality that the racial gap exists even in the best suburbs.
Test scores and grades for blacks in integrated urban neighborhoods aren't any better than those in predominantly minority ghetto areas. Some affluent suburbs did no better than nearby urban areas, and even at the best suburban schools blacks on average lagged behind their white classmates. But a bigger secret is that even the poorest Asians tended to get better grades -- if not test scores -- than more affluent whites. Asians from poorer suburbs consistently outscored Euro-Americans in nearby more affluent suburbs. For all the talk about the superiority of schools in Japan or Korea, Asian-Americans are also nearly two years ahead in math, just as far ahead of their classmates as students in their ancestral lands are, even when they go to the same schools that fail other American minorities.
In short, predominantly minority schools have low test scores because minorities have lower test scores regardless of the segregation factor, not the other way around. And American schools would match Asian schools if they were dominated by Asian students. Perhaps that chilling reality is the reason that every newspaper I have contacted has chosen to ignore these data.
California's 1994 CLAS (California Learning Assessment System) test introduced massive multiculturalism and had several questions for which more than one answer was counted as correct. Yet nobody noticed that elementary-school blacks and Hispanics did just as poorly in predominantly minority areas of Oakland, East Palo Alto, and Alum Rock as in legally integrated San Francisco. At Grade 10, only 10 to 15 per cent of black students got 3 or better in math whether they went to integrated San Francisco, the segregated communities of Contra Costa County, Oakland, or Silicon Valley's Santa Clara County. Asians continue to stampede into Cupertino, home of the founders of Apple Computers, because of its excellent schools. But US News (April 21, 1997) highlighted the poor performance of blacks there, and they lagged the state average on the CLAS.
Meanwhile, the Asians of the Chinatown ghettos in San Francisco scored as well as children of affluent engineers in Santa Clara County. Asians in Santa Clara County scored as well as whites in posh San Ramon Valley or Cupertino. Asians in Cupertino scored as well as whites in Palo Alto, the best district in the Bay Area. Blacks in San Ramon Valley scored no better than state average for all races, while Asians there outscored every other race and community.
The Seattle Times annually slams Seattle's math scores (just the 50th-percentile for Washington as a whole) compared to suburban Bellevue's 67th-percentile performance, and highlights the race gap as an urban problem. But broken down by race, whites score at about 67 in either city, but blacks score worse in Bellevue, at 34 compared to 40 for Seattle. Seattle has an ``African-American Academy,'' but its test scores are virtually indistinguishable from the city average. Suburban inequality is much the same at nearby Issaquah (41) and Redmond (35), even though there are no minority ghettos in the suburbs, and there has never been any news coverage of racial differences in performance there.
Seattle is one of the few cities where Asians are so poor and white parents so highly educated that white students score better even in math. But Asians still have the highest grade-point average in the city. In the suburbs, Asian 8th-graders score 74 in 59th-percentile blue-collar Renton, hopping rungs over whites in 67th-percentile Bellevue. Asians in Bellevue score 82, equal to top-ranked Mercer Island's 83. Asians in Mercer Island score an astounding 90, not far below the average at the best Lakeside private school.
Meanwhile, nobody ever asks in print why fourth-graders in nearly all-white (but poor) Edmonds or Mukilteo scored only 34 to 44, as badly as Seattle's blacks. Nobody ever demanded that they be bused into richer school districts to remedy this inequity.
The Boston Globe also offered no explanation why black students who entered the Metco voluntary busing program from Boston with 50th-percentile scores didn't score as well as their new suburban classmates in 88th-percentile Newton. Yet the whites from working-class Revere or Brockton have an SAT average of 411 -- near the national black average. No Italian-American Revere youth dripping with gold chains and roaring upon his '82 firebird could expect that sending him to Newton for four years would turn him into Ivy League material. Yet the Harvard gurus remain mystified.
Fairfax County near Washington, D.C., has a 569 (1996) SAT math average, good enough for the University of California at Riverside. But Fairfax's black average of 465 isn't any better than ``Can't we just get along'' Los Angeles. The black suburb of Prince George's County is among the top 30 per cent of U.S. counties in average household income. The school district proudly claims that its black students perform as well as their ``counterparts'' throughout the state -- but that's only their black counterparts. Measured by Maryland's MSPAP (Maryland School Performance Assessment Program) test, it ranks as 22 of 24 districts in the state.
It is widely accepted that test scores increase with family income. However, SAT breakdowns for 1995 show that even the most affluent blacks, from families with incomes over $70,000, have average scores of 426, lagging behind whites or Asians from families with incomes under $10,000. But Asians from families with incomes under $10,000 have average scores of 482, ranking them with whites from families making $40,000. And it is not just test scores. Oakland's poor school system highlighted its low 1.8 black GPA to justify Ebonics. But GPAs aren't any better in integrated Seattle or San Francisco.
Data books and health surveys all show that even in cities like Seattle, Boston, and San Francisco where the per-capita incomes of Asians are no higher than that of blacks, it is Asians, not whites, who have the best outcomes. The omission of Asians from the local news stories is probably deliberate because their statistics don't support the thesis that racism and poverty are the reasons for poor outcomes. As much as the activists continue to deplore the model-minority ``myth,'' except in the most distressed Asian refugee communities, Asians generally have the best grades and test scores; the lowest rates of special and remedial education, dropouts, and expulsion; the highest rates of attendance; and the lowest rates of arrest, teen pregnancy, AIDS, and substance abuse.
If civil rights can be measured by affirmative action, multiculturalism, and desegregation, then they have massively succeeded in almost every urban school district in the country. Compared with Asians, blacks in California are at or near parity among teacher hires, college faculty, staff, and principals, and they are twice as well represented among superintendents. American history books now look like African-American history books, even casting revolutionary sailors as blacks, while Asians are all but completely absent from indexes. Yet these nifty educational strategies have utterly failed to raise black grades and test scores.
Last year, with little fanfare, Lawrence Steinberg, B. Bradford Brown, and Sanford Dornbusch released a new book, Beyond the Classroom that offered a very different explanation from the standard ``racism and poverty'' for why different groups perform differently in school. ``Of all the demographic factors we studied in relation to school performance, ethnicity is the most important . . . In terms of school achievement, it is more advantageous to be Asian than to be wealthy, to have non-divorced parents, or to have a mother who is able to stay at home full time.'' They found that no matter which school they looked at, Asians got the best grades and test scores, and blacks and Hispanics the worst. The problem was not the schools, but the attitudes and habits of the students themselves. The underachievers didn't fear failure, didn't study as hard, skipped class more often, and blamed their failures on racism. The overachievers didn't tolerate failure, hung out with overachievers, spent the most time studying, and attributed their success to individual effort.
IRONICALLY, it is an even darker secret that blacks and Hispanics can succeed solely on the basis of merit. Brian D. Ray, President of the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI) did a study that shows that minority home-schoolers are in the 80th- to 85th-percentile of home-schooling students.
There are formal schools where blacks and Hispanics do well, too. The December 2, 1995, Economist highlights the Barclay Elementary School in Baltimore. It adopted a severe prep-school curriculum and zero-tolerance approach toward spelling mistakes to get suburban-level 60th-percentile scores in a city where failure is the norm. Seattle's Zion private school boasts test scores above average with a largely black student body. The story of how Jaime Escalante fashioned a class of Advanced Placement calculus whiz kids out of a barrio school was made into a movie.
Whitney Young Magnet High in Chicago rivals many suburban schools. With a student body that is mostly black or Hispanic, it ranks above the 99th percentile among state high schools in 8th- and 10th-grade math and writing, and has ACT (American College Testing) averages that make it the equal of Asian-dominated Lowell in San Francisco. The best SAT scores in Georgia aren't in a rich white suburb, but at Davidson Fine Arts Magnet in Richmond with a 42 per cent black student body, near an Army Signal Corps base.
At the college level, Martin Vaern Bosangue of Mt. San Antonio Community College near Los Angeles found that black and Hispanic students who took a calculus workshop and studied more hours than whites and Asians who started with higher SAT math scores wound up getting better grades than even the Asians.
Economic and race-based interventions have never been shown to achieve the equality that was set as their justification in the first place. After all, the numbers that matter are not the percentage of blacks on the staff or in the classroom, but grade point average, reading and math test scores, and hours spent on homework and attendance. As Thomas Sowell and Lawrence Steinberg observe, if students of all races worked equally hard, their disparate rates of success and failure would plausibly lead to explanations based on, on the one hand, racism and poverty, or, on the other hand, innate superiority or inferiority. When they differ on every measure of effort, what else would you expect?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Elite school needs to give boost to poor Afro American)
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2074110) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 10:08 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: To Trickmaster,: Please read these threads also. 1. "Elite school needs to give boost to poor Afro American"
Elite school needs to give boost to poor Afro American
2. "How Whites Use Asians to Further Anti-Black racism"
How Whites Use Asians to Further Anti-Black racism
3. Re; Anti- Asian American racist quotas in the Ivies
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2074123) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 4:22 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Trickmaster obviously has no credible rebuttals to my posts. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2075810) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 7:02 PM Author: Pink motley spot No, actually, I just don't have time or desire to read so many pages of BS.
If you could write one single post with no more than 300 words explaining what is true diversity, I will rebutt it. Otherwise, I've had it with your rambling. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2076427) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 8:37 PM Author: Aphrodisiac toaster 'hero' doesn't know the definition for 'true diversity' because it does not exist, at least in his mind. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2077006) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 8:58 PM Author: Pink motley spot I know. He claims he will achieve "true diversity" by enrolling the most qualified students and sending the least qualified students to TTTs.
That is not diversity, that is just screening out applicants based on their stats. How is that "diversity"?
I can't believe that after so many posts and so many articles, he still insists that the ONLY way to achieve 'true diversity' is by removing the cap for Asians.
There are plenty of Asians at every top school. Increasing their number will NOT create "diversity," so STOP for once saying that it will.
If you want to make the point that you think it's 'UNFAIR' to put a cap for Asians, then be honest and SAY SO. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
Diversity in the United States is having the best of each race, because the country is formed by many races.
And race is NOT skin color. Each race has a different culture, different values, different ideals, different strengths and different backgrounds and perspectives. If your definition of diversity doesn't match that of US universities, nobody cares.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2077131) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 9:08 PM Author: chartreuse gunner mad cow disease well diversity in itself should not be a goal. genius>"diversity" There is few of these rouges who encompass genius and don't do well on standardize test. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2077185) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 9:33 PM Author: Pink motley spot "Well, diversity in itself should not be a goal."
This is just one opinion among thousands. Unfortunately for you, diversity *is* a goal for US universities.
I wonder if anyone ever thought about the fact that a college education is not only about academics? A university prepares you academically, yes. But it also provides a social education, where grades and stats don't play a role, and where students are expected to mesh with a diverse group that resembles the real world they'll undertake when they graduate college. Of course Asians want college to be 100% stats. They have an obvious advantage: Their parents, their values and their reason of being is to get straight A's and excell academically. That is a huge cultural advantage. Blacks and Latinos only have disadvantages, and if you're going to use that to push them to the bottom, you will end up in a bloody battle that will only destroy the US society as it is evolving today. So, like it or not, academics is only one part of it all.
Universities have more important and complex goals in mind when they create a group. They are not trying to "be fair to Asians who worked hard and deserve a spot at #1 in US-rankings." The Asian WILL get a fucking education, maybe not in the #2, but in the #3, or #4? Why the hell is that such an issue?
But what about the blacks and Latinos? Asians are just selfish, prestige whores who think that not getting into HYP will be the end of the world. YOU WILL STILL GO TO A TOP SCHOOL!!! While MOST blacks and Latinos won't even graduate college! GET OVER YOUR PRESTIGE-WHORE SELF for once!!
Listen to HARVARD UNIVERSITY SPEAKING:
http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/news/pressreleases/bmetrojobs.php
RAPIDLY GROWING MINORITY WORKFORCE FACES BARRIERS TO GOOD JOBS IN METRO BOSTON
RESEARCH
Cambridge, MA—December 7, 2004--- People of color in Metro Boston face substantial challenges in battling discrimination, obtaining employment, reaching locations of rapid job growth, and in earning a livable income, according to a new study by The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. A recent poll of 400 Metro Boston blacks and Latinos revealed that over one in five African Americans (21%) and one in six (17%) Latinos reported that they were discriminated against at work during the past year because of their race/ethnicity. Almost a third of blacks (31%) and 15% of Latinos reported that they were denied a job they applied for over the past decade because of their race or ethnicity.
“These levels of overt racial discrimination in the workplace are very troubling”, said study author, Nancy McArdle, “but residential segregation also has a pernicious effect on the employment opportunities of workers of color. The vast majority of job growth is occurring in the overwhelmingly white outer suburbs, far from the areas where workers of color live. To make matters worse, about a third of black and Latino households have no access to a car.”
The vast majority of people of color live far from the outer suburban areas where most job growth has occurred. The majority (71%) of Metro Boston’s net job growth over the 1990s occurred in the outer suburbs. While all of net white population growth occurred in these outer areas--which are 92% white--only 18% of Latino, 24% of black, and 30% of net Asian population growth occurred there. In contrast, only about 4% of job growth took place in the urbanized satellite cities (a group of 17 larger cities outside Boston such as Lowell, Lawrence and Brockton,) but 56% of Latino, 48% of black, and 33% of Asian net population growth occurred there. While people of color are finding jobs in suburban locations to a greater degree than in the past, if current trends persist, minority residential patterns and the geography of job growth will continue to diverge.
“It is crucial to produce more affordable housing in outlying, high employment growth areas; provide information about non-traditional destinations to home seekers of color; increase the number and reach of realtors who work with minorities; and vigorously enforce Fair Housing laws,” stated McArdle. “We also need to facilitate transportation to job sites for workers who live at a distance. Whether through fixed route services or--more flexibly, subscription taxi, van services, or short term rentals--the public sector, employers, and non-profits must continue to strive to connect people with employment opportunities. At the same time, as part of a “smart growth” strategy, it is also important to develop good employment opportunities near locations where workers of color already live. “
Latinos, heavily concentrated in declining manufacturing sectors and in low-wage service sector jobs, face major hurdles, with poverty rates over four times higher than whites. As of 2000, Latinos were twice as likely as the general population to work in production and related occupations. Latinos, particularly new immigrants, are also quite concentrated in low-wage service sector jobs.
Particularly disturbing are the relatively high shares of Latino young people who have no high school diploma, yet are neither enrolled in school nor working. Over ten percent of Latinos ages 16-19 fall into this category. A high school diploma is strongly associated with lower unemployment rates for all groups and is equally important as a gateway to higher education. For example, the unemployment rate of young (aged 25-44) black men without a diploma in 2000 was 13.5% in Metro Boston. That rate dropped to 9.7% for high school graduates and 3.5% for those with post-secondary education. Similarly, Latino women without a diploma earned $18,000 per year in 1999 while those with a diploma alone earned $20,000 and those with further education earned $28,000 annually. As the economy increasingly rewards workers with higher skills, college is even more crucial to earning a livable income.
“Closing the achievement gap and reducing drop-out rates will take a multi-pronged effort including more equitable funding, early childhood intervention, smaller classes, and greater parent involvement. The substantial segregation of students of color in concentrated poverty schools must also be challenged,” stated Gary Orfield, Director of The Civil Rights Project. “Many students of color are segregated into high-poverty schools that have trouble obtaining the best teachers, have less challenging curriculum, and higher drop out rates.As society becomes more multi-racial, the ability to interact successfully with co-workers and clients of different backgrounds becomes more important. Major expansion of plans that encourage interaction between youth of different races, such as METCO, are needed to create more successful and harmonious workplaces.”
The study also finds that blacks and Latinos are over-represented in lower-paying service jobs, relative to their share of the total workforce, and greatly under-represented in professional and technical jobs. “The very serious under-representation of African American and Latino teachers and realtors in the suburbs, even relative to the low minority population there, raises serious questions about whether non-white families will get fair access to the housing market and whether the suburban schools are doing anything to prepare for the racial diversity that will clearly grow in Metro Boston’s future,” said Orfield.
Other study findings include:
The Latino workforce has increased over 10 times faster than the rate of total employment growth in Metro Boston, and the Asian workforce has increased almost 20 times faster.
Despite rapid minority growth, the Metro Boston workforce remains overwhelmingly (85%) white--the third whitest workforce among large metro areas.
Foreign immigration is the main driver behind minority employment growth. As of 2000, over 80% of employed Asian workers and over half of Latino workers were immigrants. To view the report, visit: http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/metro/jobs_boston.php
The Metro Boston Equity Initiative at The Civil Rights Project (CRP) is a research and community outreach effort designed to study the region’s changing demographics and to investigate patterns of segregation and social inequality as the metro area becomes increasingly multi-racial and multi-cultural. It focuses on the seven-county metropolitan area, stretching between the New Hampshire and Rhode Island borders, and from Worcester in the west to Plymouth in the east. The Initiative is funded by the Foley Hoag Foundation, the Hyams Foundation, the Boston Foundation, the John Hancock Foundation, and the Fannie Mae Foundation, and its community advisory committee includes leaders from many communities and organizations in the Boston region.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2077307) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 9:40 PM Author: chartreuse gunner mad cow disease so I gather your point is by having AA or whatever you can cure these society "ills" but what evidence do you have for such a claim? For instance one could say AA has been around for a while and from what i "heard" scores are relatively the same.
However i gather if you put a whole bunch of people who are geniuses where the best labs, etc are at the output will be more beneficial to society? don't you think (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2077360) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 9:45 PM Author: Pink motley spot The problem is very complex. It's not going to be resolved overnight. It takes a LONG time to correct something that has been wrong for so long.
I mean, how long did it take for whites to achieve their current status? CENTURIES. Blacks were enslaved for CENTURIES. Hispanics come from 3rd world countries where their levels of poverty and lack of education have remained for CENTURIES.
Do you think such problems are going to be resolved in just a few years? They won't. It will take a LOT of work and a lot of help. But the goal is to achieve a better, healthier and more educated society, not one where the disadvantaged groups get pushed further down because "it's unfair to help them achieve equality." (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2077397) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 9:56 PM Author: chartreuse gunner mad cow disease well maybe...but I'm not wholly convinced that giving people an advantage in college admit ions will fix the problem (which seems to be some type of inequality). Like you said before which is sort of like paraphrasing,"why don't they go to the next best college, it's not like it's going to matter much" well i ask you if it doesn't matter much to one group, why would it matter much to another? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2077459) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 10:48 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig You posed an excellent question for Trickmaster, which he can't answer in his use of different standards for different races. This hits the nail on the head by showing his hypocrisy. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2077791) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2005 7:16 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: There is evidence that AA does irreparable harm to blacks 12/06/04 National Journal: "Do Racial Preferences Limit Black Lawyers?"
By Stuart Taylor Jr.,
© National Journal Group Inc.
[Remarkably, these four critics and other defenders of racial preferences have not challenged some of Sander's key factual premises, even though these premises belie the rosy portrayal of affirmative action in the mainstream media and in the June 2003 Supreme Court opinion upholding the University of Michigan Law School's racial preference program (Grutter v. Bollinger):
- Very large racial preferences are prevalent at almost all law schools, not just the most elite ones.
- The preferences used by the top-ranked schools have the "cascade effect" of pulling in many underqualified black students who would do much better at the second-tier or third-tier schools that they now shun. These less competitive schools must in turn go far down in their own applicant pools to fill their racial targets. The result is a "game of musical chairs where blacks are consistently bumped up several seats in the law school hierarchy, producing a large black-white gap at nearly all law schools in the academic credentials of students"
-- that is, in their undergraduate grades and LSAT scores.
- Once in law school, "around 50 percent of black students [end up] in the bottom tenth of the class; and around two-thirds of black students are in the bottom fifth." Only 8 percent of black students place in the top half of their classes.]
- Contrary to the widespread view that preferences give black students opportunities to "catch up" with more-privileged whites, black law students' grades "go down a little from the first to the third year."
- About 19 percent of black law students never graduate, a dropout rate more than double that of whites.
- More than 40 percent of entering black law students never pass the bar and never become lawyers. Blacks are four times as likely as whites to fail their first bar exams and six times as likely to fail on each of five successive attempts.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2079914) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2005 12:29 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Good point which trickmaster can't answer >> so I gather your point is by having AA or whatever you can cure these society "ills" but what evidence do you have for such a claim? For instance one could say AA has been around for a while and from what i "heard" scores are relatively the same.....However i gather if you put a whole bunch of people who are geniuses where the best labs, etc are at the output will be more beneficial to society? don't you think <<
From
http://www.nationalreview.com/15sept97/hu091597.html
AMERICA'S SCHOOLS
EDUCATION AND RACE
The performance of minority students in affluent areas refutes the prevailing educational shibboleths.
[Economic and race-based interventions have never been shown to achieve the equality that was set as their justification in the first place. After all, the numbers that matter are not the percentage of blacks on the staff or in the classroom, but grade point average, reading and math test scores, and hours spent on homework and attendance. As Thomas Sowell and Lawrence Steinberg observe, if students of all races worked equally hard, their disparate rates of success and failure would plausibly lead to explanations based on, on the one hand, racism and poverty, or, on the other hand, innate superiority or inferiority. When they differ on every measure of effort, what else would you expect? ]
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2078389) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 10:02 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Hey, trickmaster >> Of course Asians want college to be 100% stats. Of course Asians want college to be 100% stats. <<
That's BULLSHIT
Who TF are you to say WHAT ASIANS WANT?
You totally misrepresented and missed my point.
You have yet to answer any of my points.
DON'T YOU EVER "PARAPHRASE", MISQUOTE, MISREPRESENT, AND SPIN MY POSTS AGAIN, YOU FUCKING RACIST MORAN!! IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO COMPREHEND THEM, DON'T SAY ANYTHING THEN.
DIVERSITY TRANSCENDS RACIAL DIVERSITY AND QUOTAS. LOOK AT UC BERKELEY. ITS CLASS IS ONE THE MOST DIVERSE IN THE NATION. READ MY POSTS. BULLSHITTER.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2077494) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 10:09 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Another RACIST statement by trickmaster >> Universities have more important and complex goals in mind when they create a group. They are not trying to "be fair to Asians who worked hard and deserve a spot at #1 in US-rankings." The Asian WILL get a fucking education, maybe not in the #2, but in the #3, or #4? Why the hell is that such an issue? <<
This is simply a RACIST statement. Blacks and Latinos can get the SAME FUCKING EDUCATION AND A PROVEN BETTTTTTTTTTER EDUCATION if they go to #50 or #100 or #200, where they have a better academic fit, and less harm would come to them giving them a better chance to excel and to graduate. WFT are you saying?
You are a FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRITE for telling only Asian Americans to go to a less selective and competitive school, not the underprepared blacks or latinos, and even the academically underprepared whites, where they are better academically fitted and have a better chance to excel. In the case of law schools, blacks will have a better chance to complete law studies and pass the Bar exams. The vast majority of the black middle and upper class did not attend the elite colleges and there is a triving black intelligentsia and upper middle and upper class before race base AA in the elite colleges.
Trickmaster, you don't know WTF you are talking about. "Diversity" and race based AA do more harm to blacks than Jim Crow ever did to blacks, by placing them in situations where they are UNDERPREPARED for.
You are bursting your ownbubble and blowing away your logic with your racist idealism and racial engineering. FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE!!!!!. Race based AA only makes the flaming guilt ridden white liberals feel good, and do nothing to close the racial achievement gaps.
Trickmaster, you don't WTF you are talking about and you are a RACIST for telling ONLY Asian Americans to go less competitive schools, instead of the more selective and competitive, which they are well prepared for.
WHY DON'T YOU TELL THE JEWS THIS, WHEN THEY ARE 33% OF HARVARD AND 25% OF ALL THE IVIES, YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE, AND JEWS WILL TELL YOU WHERE TO GO, YOU FUCKING RACIST. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2077531) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 10:53 PM Author: Aphrodisiac toaster Who the hell cares what UCBerkeley does?
California currently has no affirmative action since 1996. The UC system, last time I heard, is a PUBLIC institution. They use economic means and characteristics.
California, nor does the UC system, represent the entire United States. California is ~25% Asian. What state on the East Coast has that kind of population, hero?
Get that through your head. Get a life. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2077838) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 11:50 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> California, nor does the UC system, represent the entire United States. California is ~25% Asian. What state on the East Coast has that kind of population, hero? ...Get that through your head. Get a life. <<
You conviently brush California aside. Well, California represent the MOST DIVERSE state in the Union, and UC Berkeley represent the MOST DIVERSE SCHOOL in America, public or private, without the use of racial preferences and racial engineering, because they never worked. The UC has always been in the forefront of higher education and represent the best of all higher education in this country as well as the world. Asian Americans are 13% of California and 45% of Berkeley.
You get a life!!
Race preferences never worked in Nazi Germany, and Bosnia and they will never work in elite college admissions. A good example of this is in California, Washington State, Florida, Texas, etc.. Who cares? America and the majority of the American people care!!
Get out of your racist politically correct bullshit.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2078120) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2005 12:17 AM Author: Aphrodisiac toaster What state on the East Coast has that kind of population, hero? ...Get that through your head. Get a life (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2078301) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2005 12:37 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Hello, Florida is on the East Coast. So Whattttttttttttt?
How about Washington, Texas, and Georgia?
In Texas, Asian Americans are 20% of U.of Texas- Austin, for their 3% of the Texas population.
BTW, UC Berkeley, uses the "Comprehensive Review" in admissions today, which encompasses objective standards, such as grades and test scores, and a holistic criteria which encompasses essays, special talents, and the overcoming of obstacles for admissions. They do not use racial preferences, or at least they deny they do, but they admitted their class at its present racial composition without using race as a factor (this is still questionable).
The UC Berkeley admissions process is similar to the one in the Ivies, but they don't use racial preferences, yet UC Berkeley achieved one of the most DIVERSE student populations in the nation with its present racial composition. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2078462) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2005 1:25 AM Author: Aphrodisiac toaster What state on the East Coast has that kind of large state-wide Asian-American population similar to California, hero? ...Get that through your head. Get a life. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2078932) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2005 7:02 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Again, what's the point?
So what??
Look at Texas, which only has 3% Asian Americans, yet U.of Texas- Austin is 20% Asian Ams. U.of T is DIVERSE.
Everything is relative. Get that thru your politically correct THICK skull. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2079913) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2005 11:06 AM Author: Aphrodisiac toaster Again, define "true diversity."
Oh, I forgot, you can't.
The last thing I checked, Texas doesn't even have affirmative action nor is it a private school. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2080076) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2005 11:50 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig So what is the point?
Then, look at Rice U. in Texas, a very PRIVATE ELITE college. Private schools just can't do what they want to do. That's simple to understand. Rice is also beholding to the taxpayer's money, as Harvard is, and Rice was shaking in their cowboy boots, when the Hopwood Case in Texas ruled against race-based AA in public universities. Rice, dissolved its race based AA admissions process and they don't use race preferences anymore. Now, it is considered one of the best universities for Hispanics with its many outreach programs, in a state where the hispanic population is sizable and it is DIVERSE with its present student population and racial composition. You know what? Asian Americans are 15% to 20% of Rice, without racial preferences and hispanics are over 10%.
You simply do not know WTF you are talking about. You are really IGNORANT.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2080216) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2005 12:07 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> Again, define "true diversity." ...Oh, I forgot, you can't. <<
Nope, you can't!!
I already did, many times over, but you are incapable of reading with your knee-jerk reaction in usung your race card again.
You are either in denial or you lack the basic reading compprehension skills needed to understand simple concepts.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2080237) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 10:33 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> RAPIDLY GROWING MINORITY WORKFORCE FACES BARRIERS TO GOOD JOBS IN METRO BOSTON <<
This does not justify race based AA in elite and highly competive schools.
You are again, avoiding the issue and the OP's topic of quotas.
You are full of shitttttttt!!
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2077675) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2005 12:21 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Another racist statement by Trickmaster >> But what about the blacks and Latinos? Asians are just selfish, prestige whores who think that not getting into HYP will be the end of the world. YOU WILL STILL GO TO A TOP SCHOOL!!! While MOST blacks and Latinos won't even graduate college! GET OVER YOUR PRESTIGE-WHORE SELF for once!! <<
The Facts:
Here are the facts of admission for Brown from the Brown Daily Herald, which are similar in all the Ivies:
The percent of African American and Hispanic students in selective college freshman classes is often higher than the percent of applicants from that group, while the opposite is true of Asian Americans. In 2001, 20.3 percent of applicants to Brown University's class of 2005 were Asian American, but only 16 percent of the acceptances were. The percent of white applicants and acceptances was about the same, 66 percent, while African Americans comprised 9 percent of the acceptances and only 6 percent of the applicants, and Hispanics had 9 percent of the acceptances and only 7.1 percent of the applicants.
WHITES ARE 66% OF THE APPLICANTS AND 66% OF THE ACCEPTANCES, BUT ASIAN AMERICANS ARE 20.3% OF THE APPLICANTS AND 16% OF THE ACCEPTANCES.
IF BROWN IS GIVING SLOTS TO BLACKS AND LATINOS AND THESE SLOTS ARE A GIVEN, WHITES DON'T LOOSE, BUT ASIAN AMERICANS LOOSE. OF COURSE BLACKS AND LATINOS GAIN FROM AA.
IN OTHER WORDS, WHITES DON'T LOOSE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE ASIAN AMERICANS, IF THE BLACK AND LATINO GAINS ARE A GIVEN.
NOW, WHO IS THE THE "PRESTIGE WHORE' AND "SELFISH", BUT YOU, AND WHITES, TRICKMASTER, YOU HYPOCRITE?? LET ASIAN AMERICANS COMPETE AGAINST WHITES ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, SANS QUOTAS, TRICKMASTER, YOU FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRITE. WHITES DON'T LOOSE. ASIAN AMERICANS ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO LOOSE!!
WHITES DON'T LOOSE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE ASIAN AMERICANS!! WHITES DON'T LOOSE. ASIAN AMERICANS ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO LOOSE BECAUSE THEY HAVE MUCH LOWER ADMIT RATES THAN WHITES DESPITE BEING MORE QUALIFIED ACCORDING TO ALL STANDARDS AND CRITERIA USED IN ADMISSIONS!!
WHITES DON'T LOOSE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE ASIAN AMERICANS!! WHITES DON'T LOOSE. ASIAN AMERICANS ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO LOOSE BECAUSE THEY HAVE MUCH LOWER ADMIT RATES THAN WHITES DESPITE BEING MORE QUALIFIED ACCORDING TO ALL STANDARDS AND CRITERIA USED IN ADMISSIONS!!
Race based AA in the elite colleges have worsen the state of blacks over the course of its use and have not solved anything.
From Jay Mathews:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26499-2004Oct12?language=printer
[He noted the recent estimate by Harvard humanities professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. that two thirds of blacks at Harvard were not descendants of American slaves, but the middle class children of relatively recent immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa. "Why should they deserve admission with lowered standards (relatively speaking) based solely on the color of their skin over a high achieving Asian American living in a Chinatown ghetto or a Black ghetto (many Asians live in Black and Latino ghettos) or a poor white from the slums of NYC?" Chin said.]
[The solution to the problem of lower average achievement among African Americans and Hispanics is not "the Band-Aid approach of race-based affirmative action," Chin said. "It is solved by improving the K-12 schools for the lower economic classes which are disproportionately Black and Latino."]
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2078323) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2005 8:28 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Utterly failed to raise black grades and test scores Arthur Hu said in, "Race and Education",
[If civil rights can be measured by affirmative action, multiculturalism, and desegregation, then they have massively succeeded in almost every urban school district in the country. Compared with Asians, blacks in California are at or near parity among teacher hires, college faculty, staff, and principals, and they are twice as well represented among superintendents. American history books now look like African-American history books, even casting revolutionary sailors as blacks, while Asians are all but completely absent from indexes. Yet these nifty educational strategies have utterly failed to raise black grades and test scores.]
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2079929) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 11:16 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig You state that Asian Americans ONLY have "stats" or high SAT scores and GPAs and nothing else, a racist stereotype which was proven false by internal studies at Brown and Stanford, yet you insist on spewing your racist politically correct bullshit. They have much, much more. They have all the characteristics the admitted whites have, yet they are rejected.
Asian Americans represent, one of the MOST STELLAR AND TALENTED GROUP OF APPLICANTS, even without their "stats", you FUCKING RACIST MORON!! That's what you refuse to acknowledge. Whites are admitted with the SAME characteristics that Asian Americans were rejected with. This has absolutely nothing to do with "stats", but with the holistic criteria each applicant has to meet. Asian Americans have to meet a HIGHER HOLISTIC CRITERIA, IN ADDITION TO A HIGHER LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT, IN ORDER TO BE ADMITTED, YOU RACIST HYPOCRITE.
Here are the facts of admission for Brown from the Brown Daily Herald:
The percent of African American and Hispanic students in selective college freshman classes is often higher than the percent of applicants from that group, while the opposite is true of Asian Americans. In 2001, 20.3 percent of applicants to Brown University's class of 2005 were Asian American, but only 16 percent of the acceptances were. The percent of white applicants and acceptances was about the same, 66 percent, while African Americans comprised 9 percent of the acceptances and only 6 percent of the applicants, and Hispanics had 9 percent of the acceptances and only 7.1 percent of the applicants.
WHITES ARE 66% OF THE APPLICANTS AND 66% OF THE ACCEPTANCES, BUT ASIAN AMERICANS are 20.3% OF THE APPLICANTS AND 16% OF THE ACCEPTANCES.
IF BROWN IS GIVING SLOTS TO BLACKS AND LATINOS AND IT IS A GIVEN, WHITES DON'T LOOSE, BUT ASIAN AMERICANS DO. THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!!
Studies (done internally when charges of bias were presented) at Brown and Stanford have clearly disputed the stereotyped image of an Asian American applicant as being "one dimensional" with no extracurricular activities except for music. This image only existed in the biased views of the some of the admission officers. These studies have shown that there was an unexplained bias in admissions and in fact, the Asian American group appeared better prepared by any standards used, yet had only a 60% to 70% admission rate compared to the white applicant group at Stanford. The Admissions Dean of Stanford could not explain the disparity, but at least she admitted that there was one. Many of the heads and admission officers of the elite schools don't even acknowledge that the problem even exists.
The Asian applicants were better prepared than the white group, yet have a lower admission rate. Stanford's Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid discovered, after an inquiry, that between 1982 and 1985 Asian Americans were one-third less likely than whites to be offered admission, even though they were on average better prepared than white applicants. Annual Report f CUAFA, Stanford University, 1986, reprinted in "Campus Report", November 12, 1986.
Some admissions officials have complained that Asian Americans tend to be lacking in extracurricular and personal qualities, which universities consider along with grades to ensure that they get well-rounded individuals. But there is no systematic evidence to this; indeed a report by the Corporation Committee on Minority Affairs (CCMI) at Brown, established to investigate charges of anti-Asian discrimination, found such assumptions to be the result of "cultural bias and stereotypes which prevail in the admissions office." In the early 1980s, these attitudes contributed to a 14% acceptance rate for Asians, who are on the average the best qualified applicants to Brown, compared to the other students who averaged an acceptance rate of 20%. See Report of CCMI, Brown University, February 1984. Between 1978 and 1986, there was a 430% increase of Asian Americans applying to Brown, but the number of these students remained fairly constant. Grace Tsang, "Equal Access of Asian-Americans", "Yale Law Journal", January 1989, pp. 659-78.
Trickmaster, you tell me and all Asian Americans to go back to China, and you were exposed as a FUCKING RACIST ASSHOLE!!
Well, I am not from China, you FUCKING RACIST!! I am a native-born New Yorker. Fuck You, Trickmaster!!
Now you tell Asian Americans to go to less selective colleges, and you are being exposed for the real FUCKING RACIST ASSHOLE that you are.
Hey, Trickmaster, Asian Americans are AMERICANS of Asian descent, where ever they or their ancestors came from. Why don't you tell Americans of Italian, Irish, Bosnian, Jewish, Arab, African or Hispanic descent to go back to where they came from, you FUCKING RACIST MORAN??
These sentiments and your statements are racist and they will come back and bite you in the ass!!
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2077974) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 11:27 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> I can't believe that after so many posts and so many articles, he still insists that the ONLY way to achieve 'true diversity' is by removing the cap for Asians. <<
Again, you spun my point and misrepresented what I had said which is quite "sneaky(your word)" or disingenuous of you, as usual.
I never said this. I said admissions should be race blind and ethnic group blind. Adcoms should use any standards or criteria for admissions they deem necessary.
Asian Americans are the only ones subjected to a restrictive racist quota, and this would be abolished with a race blind admissions process, without the adcoms knowing the race or the ethnicity of the applicant.
This is only true for the Jews, who formerly had a discriminatory quota against them, which does not exist today, because adcoms do not ask them if they are Jewish.
Adcoms should not ask the applicant for their race, ethnicity or religion. There should not be a box on the application form for race.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2078022) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2005 1:10 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: The best of one race can't measure up to the worse of the other >> Diversity in the United States is having the best of each race, because the country is formed by many races. <<
So what's your point? What if the best of one race can't measure up to the worse of the other?
The solution for correcting this inequity is not race based AA in the elite colleges. There is no evidence that this does, and the inequities are worsen because of it, as many studies have shown. This DOES NOT CORRECT THE INEQUITY. Rase based AA does more harm than good for blacks. It only makes the flaming guilt-ridden white liberals and the black victimologists "feelgood", with is a Band-Aid approach to solving the real inequities in k-12 education and the problems of black culural attitudes toward education, and indeed black culture itself with its dysfunctional families resulting in an over 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate, absent fathers or both parents, black on black crime, drug and alcohol abuse, and the lack of family values as a result. Blacks must change their culture in order to succeed, but for one to ask that of blacks will bring charges of RACISM, a knee jerk reaction, from the apologists and the victimologists who make a living with this excuse.
Again, What if the best of one race can't measure up to the worse of the another?
You are sadly mistaken, if you think racial preferences to elite colleges will correct this inequity. Show me the proof. Your justification for racial preferences is baseless and harmful to blacks.
Read this from,
12/06/04 National Journal: "Do Racial Preferences Limit Black Lawyers?"
By Stuart Taylor Jr.,
© National Journal Group Inc.
"In choosing among law schools, you should be aware that our racial preferences in admissions have costs as well as benefits. About half of our black students end up in the bottom tenth of their classes. While we have done our utmost to help them succeed, their dropout rates are far higher, and their bar-exam passage rates far lower, than those of our other students.
"If you choose a less selective school, you are likely to be more successful academically. Indeed, according to one study, you may even have a better chance of passing the bar -- a point vigorously disputed by other studies. We hope that you will take your chances here and will be glad you did."
Such a warning would no doubt be discordant. But would it be worse than selling would-be black lawyers a bill of goods?
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2078835) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2005 9:44 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Trickmaster said, "Diversity in the United States is having the best of each race, because the country is formed by many races."
The best of the blacks are outperformed by the worse of the whites and asian Ams.
The rich black multi- millionaire college educated families have children who cannot compete on an equal basis with the POOREST Asian Americans and Whites from parents with less than a high school diploma. Forget about the lower middle and lower class blacks, because, as a group, they are EVEN MORE ACADEMICALLY DEFICIENT AND UNDERPREPARED. Race based AA does absolutely nothing for these poorer blacks, comprising the vast majority of of blacks in America.
Just think about this!! That's a fact that the flaming pro-race based AA liberals can't admit to or even acknowledge. They support this AA policy in denial of this to make them "feelgood", even though it may even do irreparable harm to underprepared blacks, while not attacking the main problem of poor k-12 education. Therefore, rich blacks from upper class families who are immigrants from the Carribean and Africa are the blacks that benefit from this demented and unjust policy, not the descendants of the African American slaves for whom AA was intended initially. The vast majority of blacks, about 70%, at Harvard are from middle and upper class recent immigrant families, who were not the object of the racist Jim Crow Laws in America. These economically privileged blacks were admitted with race preferences and lower academic standards ( lower SAT scores and GPAs, academic awards, etc..) than the rest of the class.
THE MAIN POINTS (POLITICALLY INCORRECT POINTS)
Re: Standardized Testing resuts
!. This would show that blacks from the highest income levels of $100k/year or more score lower than Asian Americans and Whites from the lowest income levels of $40k/year or less. The real question is simply, "How do you explain this? What are the reasons for this?
2. This would also show that blacks from parents with a college degree or more score lower on the SAT I that Asian Americans and Whites from parents will a high school diploma or less. Again, the real question is simply, "How do you explain this? What are the reasons for this?
3. The College Board had released these figures up to 1995 (I had given you the source for these figures from the CB), and they stopped afterwards because these facts were politically incorrect and damning for the pro-race based AA people, because they could not explain the disparity of scoring based on income alone or with parental education. There are many other factors involved, including cultural, sociological, psychological, and possibly "innate differences", to use Pres. Summers' own words in this instance, that may explain the differences between the races in scoring. Obviously, more research needs to be done, but just the mere mention of this to highlight the aformentioned facts from these SAT I testing results, previously released from the College Board, would bring forth charges of racism, which will do nothing to close the racial gap in testing and academic achievement.
Here's a link to verify the facts above:
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2079974) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 10:36 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: TRICK, YOU RACIST HYPOCRITE- LEARN FROM THE JEWS >> I can't believe that after so many posts and so many articles, he still insists that the ONLY way to achieve 'true diversity' is by removing the cap for Asians. <<
That's right. REMOVING THE CAPS IS ONE OF THE WAYS TO ACHIEVE DIVERSITY, NOT THE ONLY WAY. THE OTHER WAY IS TO REMOVE ALL QUOTAS. THE CAPS FOR JEWS WERE REMOVED, YET YOU DON'T UTTER A PEEP AGAINST REMOVING JEWISH QUOTAS, BECAUSE YOU ARE A RACIST HYPOCRITE. Asian Americans are the only "non-preferred" group and Jews are not anymore, because Asian Ams have replaced the Jews as the object of racist bigotry in your feeble mind, Tricks (aka sly, slimey, disingenuous). And you can't give a credible argument against it.
If you want proportional racial representation of the population, go to the other 3500 colleges which don't use RACIAL PREFERENCES. Diversity is achieved without the use of race and ethnicity preferences.
LEARN FROM THE JEWS WHO ARE 33% OF HARVARD FOR 2% OF THE POPULATION. THEY ARE OVERRPRESENTED BY A FACTOR OF 15. JEWS ARE 25% OF ALL THE IVIES AND ARE OVERREPRESENTED BY A FACTOR OR 12. JEWS ARE 35% OF UPENN. THEY ARE THE LARGEST ETHNIC, RACIAL, OR RELGIOUS GROUP IN THE IVIES, YET THEY ARE THE SMALLEST MINORITY IN THE COUNTRY AT 2%.
WHY DON'T YOU SAY THIS ABOUT JEWS AND USE THE SAME RACIST STEREOTYPES YOU USED AGAINST ASIAN AMS?? YOU ARE FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRITE!! THE IVIES USED EXACTLY THE SAME FUCKING RACIST STEREOTYPES AGAINST JEWS, WHICH YOU ARE USING NOW AGAINT ASIAN AMS APPLICANTS.
>> There are plenty of Asians at every top school. Increasing their number will NOT create "diversity," so STOP for once saying that it will. <<
THEREB MANY, MANY MORE JEWS. THE SCHOOL WILL BE MUCH MORE DIVERSE WITHOUT RACIAL OR ETHNIC PREFERENCES, NO MATTER WHAT STANDARDS OR CRITERIA ARE USED IN ADMISSIONS. THE SCHOOLS WILL BE MORE DIVERSE EVEN IF THEY HAVE MORE ASIANS.
LEAVE RACE PREFRENCES OUT!!!!
ELIMINATE THE SAT I. USE THE SAT II OR ANOTHER TEST!! THE ASIAN AMERICAN NUMBERS WON'T CHANGE. THEY ARE LIMITED BY THE RACIST CAPS, THE ONLY GROUP SUBJECT TO THESE CAPS. THE ASIAN NUMBERS WOULD NOT GO DOWN IF THE SAT I IS DEVALUED OE ELIMINATED. BERKELEY HAS DEVALUED THE SAT I OR MADE IT IRRELEVANT, AND ASIAN AM NUMBERS ARE THE SAME, BECAUSE RACE IS NOT USED TO CAP THEM. YOU SUPPORT THE RACIST CAPS BECAUSE IT IS POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT AND CORRECT IN YOUR RACIST FEEBLE MIND, STEREOTYPES AND ALL. DISCRIMNATION AGAINST ANY GROUP, ESPECIALLY THE ASIAN AMS WITH THESE QUOTAS, NO MATTER HOW SMALL OR SEEMINGLY INSIGNIFICANT THEY ARE, POLITICALLY OR OTHERWISE, DIMINISHES OUR COUNTRY IN THE LONG RUN. LEARN FROM HISTORY. LEARN FROM THE JEWS!!
FUCK YOU, TRICKS.
YOU VIEWS WIIL COME BACK AND BITE YOU IN YOUR ASS SOME DAY SOON. SOONER THAN LATER!!
=============================
READ THIS
Learning It from American Jews and Those in Power
Learning It from American Jews and Those in Power
(From Arthur Hu and The American Cause)
Jews were 21 percent of the Ivy League vs. 1.5 percent of the college-age population (14 times overrepresentation) and the figure is higher at the graduate level (at Yale, for example, 60 percent of graduate students are Jewish - an astonishing figure). Asians are about 16 percent (4 times overrepresentation) and let's double that for Chinese and maybe Indians as well. (1999 Princeton Review Best 331 Colleges and the Hillel Guide to Jewish Life on Campus.)
More than a tenth of college professors are Jewish, and that figure rises to about 30 percent at elite schools. According to Alan Dershowitz in his book, The Vanishing American Jew, 76 percent of the 200 most influential intellectuals are of Jewish background.
About 40 percent of the lawyers at the most prestigious New York and Washington law firms are Jewish. In addition, 23 percent of the 500 wealthiest Americans are Jewish and about 85 percent of college-age Jews are in college (this is from Seymour Martin Lipset, a highly respected, but ridiculously centrist and un-innovative, sociologist).
George W. Bush opposes "quotas," even though it was fine for him to get into Yale with a C average, so that "rich quota" was fine and it works for his daughter. Bill Clinton, from an Arkansas single-parent family married Hillary Rodham, who attended Yale law School with Bill. Hillary was from a wealthy Illinois family and graduated from Wellesley College. Not to take any credit from President Clinton of his achievements, but Mrs. Clinton’s family and his roots at Yale and Georgetown contributed significantly to his success throughout his career. Jack Welsh, the retired CEO and Chairman of one of world's largest and most respected companies - General Electric, earned his PhD in chemical engineering from Illinois. He handpicked successor, Mr. Jeff Immelt, who holds a B.S. degree in Liberal Arts with a major in Applied Mathematics from Dartmouth College and an MBA from Harvard University.
“Harvard and the Ivy League have become the major access roads to power in America, and these roads are being closed off to ethnic Catholics and white Christians,” cried Pat Buchanan.
A few years back, Pat Buchanan’s view was echoed by a Harvard graduate, Ron Unz, who wrote in the Wall Street Journal about the admissions policies at his alma mater and the student body it produced: “With affirmative action for preferred minorities and set-asides for children of alumni and faculty, foreign students, and athletes, Harvard's student body, said Unz, had begun to look like the Greenwich Village Democratic Club. According to Unz, 15 percent of Harvard's student body is Hispanic or black, 20 percent is Asian, 25 to 33 percent is Jewish, but only 25 percent comes from that 75 percent of America that is white and Christian. Christians are being frozen out of the elite schools that control the access to power in a nation that Christians, primarily, built.
However, in challenging this Ivy League bigotry, Republicans have shown all the courage of Larry Summers. Nevertheless, Congress ought to demand that the Department of Education require all Ivy League schools to report annually on the religious and ethnic composition of their faculties and student bodies, and, if Unz's percentages hold, should be asked what they are doing to end this discrimination. After all, if it is illegal for Irish cops to get their kids preferences, why is it OK for Harvard professors?” Regardless the fact of 70% white American presence at Ivy schools, Ron Unz’s number on Asian American’s Ivy school presence typified today’s bashing on Asian Americans. And what really matters here is that he is advocating that Ivy schools to admit student based on % of population and not by merit. There is definitely a confused issue of affirmative action on ivy school admissions.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2094457) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 11:28 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Tricks is spinning and lying again. >> That is not diversity, that is just screening out applicants based on their stats. How is that "diversity"? <<
Hero never said this, Tricks (aka sly, slimey, disingenuous, bullshitter, and LIAR!!). Your namesake if more than full of "tricks", trickmaster. You are full of shit!!
DON'T YOU EVER PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH, PARAPHRASE, MISREPRESENT, MISQUOTE OR LIE ABOUT WHAT I HAD SAID AGAIN, BULLSHITTER. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2094714) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 10:10 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Hey ltorivia485, TRUE DIVERSITY is not skin deep or skin color only. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2077539) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 10:12 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> No, actually, I just don't have time or desire to read so many pages of BS. If you could write one single post with no more than 300 words explaining what is true diversity, I will rebutt it. Otherwise, I've had it with your rambling. <<
You are the one who is at a lost for words, simply because you don't have any credible respones. You are full of BS with your knee-jerk reaction and political correctness. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2077545) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2005 1:21 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig "Asian-Americans have nothing to celebrate," by Michelle Malkin, 6/25/03 ©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc., 6/26/03 Dallas Morning News There was only one thing that disturbed me more than President Bush's mushy comments praising socially engineered campus "diversity" this week. It was the newspaper photos and television broadcasts of militant Asian activists joining other liberal minority students across the country in a Sumatran gibbon-like celebration ritual of chest-beating, fist- pumping and pro-affirmative action whooping calls. Both Bush and the college zoo denizens were responding to the Supreme Court's racial preference rulings, which can be summed up thusly: It's dandy to discriminate in public university admissions. Just cloak your bigotry under the disingenuous guise of promoting "cross- racial understanding." Go ahead and trample the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. Just don't make it so damn obvious. Nearly 30 Asian-American political and legal organizations inexplicably filed amicus briefs in support of the University of Michigan's race-based admissions policies -- one of which awarded bonus points to blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans, but not to Asian-Americans or whites, on the mere basis of their skin color or ethnicity. The noxious point scheme was struck down, but the high court upheld the university law school's stealthier scheme of ensuring a "critical mass" of racial and ethnic minorities. Except, that is, for Asians. Out of political expedience, you see, "minority" has been redefined by racial-preference promoters. It is no longer an objective statistical category, but an ideological status. Members of minority groups who have overcome barriers to success -- and who oppose being tallied by race -- are no longer viewed as people with valuable heritages, diverse life experiences, or raw memories of discrimination and prejudice. They are effectively "white" and simply don't count. Clueless Asian-American students and leaders are proclaiming "victory" with other minority groups in the wake of the Michigan decisions. But as Peter Kirsanow, one of the rare voices of sanity on the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, notes, "were Asian-American students not discriminated against in the college-admissions process, they would constitute the largest minority group, if not an outright majority, at many schools." A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education reports that the percentage of Asian-American applicants granted admission at the University of Texas-Austin rose from 68 percent to 81 percent immediately after the Hopwood decision struck down race-based admissions policies in the Fifth Circuit. After California's Proposition 209 ended race-based admissions, the percentage of Asian-American freshmen at Berkeley rose 6 percent. Kirsanow continues: "Asian Americans, though only 4 percent of the nation's population, account for nearly 20 percent of all medical students. Forty-five percent of Berkeley's freshman class, but only 12 percent of California's populace, consists of Asian Americans. And at UT-Austin, 18 percent of the freshman class is Asian American, compared to 3 percent for the state." For liberal race-fixers, having "too many" Asian-American students winning admissions on their own merits is a bad, bad thing. Overcoming the encumbrance of colored skin is viewed not as an accomplishment, but as a liability. A sad irony of the battle over racial preferences on campus is that many of the leaders who want to re-jigger the numbers to fit a politically correct, proportional ideal are traitorous Asian Americans themselves. With a great deal of moral smugness and zeal, these "Me, Too" members of the cult of victimization are echoing calls to defend campuses against the supposed "threat" of race neutrality -- despite all the bald evidence that racial preferences are harming their very own constituents. In the name of diversity, they share President Clinton's demeaning concern that merit-only-based admissions could lead to universities filling "their entire freshmen classes with nothing but Asian Americans." In the more than a decade that I've been writing and reporting on the harm that government racial preferences causes Americans of all races and ethnicities, liberal Asian Americans have gleefully labeled me an "Aunt Tomasina," a "coconut" (brown on the outside, white on the inside) and a "sellout." But when you look at the numbers, when you look at the clear intent of the law, and when you cut through the smokescreen of politically determined "diversity," it's quite clear who is selling out whom.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2078909) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2005 1:28 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig 2/2/03 New York Times: "Asian Students: Not All of Them Are Pre-Med Violinists," by Jacques Steinberg As they have tried to diversify their campuses over the last three decades by giving special consideration to blacks and Hispanics, selective universities have struggled to decide whether Asian-Americans fit the definition of "underrepresented" minorities. Part of the problem is in the very way affirmative action works, some admissions officers say. Colleges often bundle Asian students from various ethnic or racial subgroups - Japanese, Korean, Filipino, Pakistani - into one category, they note, missing the substantial differences in upbringing and education between, say, a first-generation Vietnamese student and a fourth-generation Japanese-American. Nor do many affirmative action policies distinguish between an applicant from the black middle class, who might have been able to afford SAT tutoring, and a Chinese applicant from a low-performing urban public school. Ed Hu, who was an admissions officer at Brown University from 1989 to 1994 and was one of the first Chinese-American admissions officers in the Ivy League, said that when he began working at Brown, "there was a lot of stereotyping of Asians" among the staff. "Admissions people felt that all Asians were the same," he said, "that they were all pre-med or engineers, and that they all played the piano or the violin." For example, he said, many of his colleagues did not know that Filipinos are among the largest subgroups of Asians in the United States, at least by population, yet among the poorest and least educated. "They were natural candidates for affirmative action," said Mr. Hu, now a dean at Harvard-Westlake, a private high school in Los Angeles. Not only weren't such students given any special advantage in the admissions process, Mr. Hu said, they were often judged against an even harsher standard than white applicants. When Brown assembled the class of 1987, for example, it admitted 20% of all applicants, but only 14% of those who identified themselves as Asian. A committee appointed by the Brown trustees ultimately concluded that "Asian-American applicants have been treated unfairly," and the admission rate of Asians has subsequently pulled relatively even with those of the class as a whole. The solution, Mr. Hu suggested, rests with admissions officers' being more open to the notion that Asian-American applicants might face disadvantages, and have valuable contributions to make to a campus. At Cornell, for example, which does not formally consider Asian- Americans to be underrepresented, Ken Gabard, an admissions officer with 14 years of experience, said he had reached out to immigrants from the Philippines, Laos and Vietnam. In some instances, he said, he has not been daunted if such applicants are less accomplished academically than other Asian-Americans with more advantages. While Cornell does not disclose its admission rates by ethnicity or race, the undergraduate student body is 16% Asian, 5% black and 5% Hispanic. "It is always a question of how far you can define distinct groups as meriting special attention," Mr. Gabard said. "We know that it's an imperfect system."
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2078952) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2005 1:34 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig 12/06/04 National Journal: "Do Racial Preferences Limit Black Lawyers?" By Stuart Taylor Jr., © National Journal Group Inc. The 35-year-old debate about affirmative action in university admissions has often focused on whether the supposed benefits to black and Hispanic students justify the costs to whites and Asians who lose out, and the resulting racial divisions and resentments. Lately, some critics of racial preferences (including me) have also speculated that many of the supposed beneficiaries might be better off without preferences. They are so much less qualified academically than their white and Asian classmates, this argument goes, that they end up near the bottom of their classes and drop out in disproportionate numbers. Now comes Richard Sander, a UCLA Law School professor, with the first in-depth statistical study of how preferences actually affect black law students' academic performance, passage rates for the bar, and job prospects. His stunning and copiously documented conclusion: "Blacks are the victims of law school programs of affirmative action, not the beneficiaries." One reason is that racial admissions preferences "significantly worsen blacks' individual chances of passing the bar by moving them up to schools at which they will frequently perform badly." Indeed, says Sander, so debilitating is the effect on the academic performance of black law students that ending preferences would increase the number who pass the bar and become lawyers. To be sure, Sander says, the number of blacks admitted to law school would decline (by about 14 percent) if admissions were colorblind. And almost all of those admitted would end up at less elite law schools, with the percentage of blacks at the very top schools plunging from about 8 percent to 1 or 2 percent. But their grades, graduation rates, and chances of passing the bar would improve so dramatically that the number of African-Americans making it into the legal profession would rise by more than 8 percent. And most of those who make it would end up with better jobs than they get now. Sander's 113-page study, which the Stanford Law Review plans to publish in a week or two, has already provoked furious debate in legal academia. Critics have been on the attack since Sander circulated a draft for comment in May. The controversy has found its way into several newspapers since a critic leaked the Sander draft a few weeks ago. Four of the most vocal critics argue in a 30-page draft "empirical critique" that Sander is unrealistic to the point of being "irresponsible" in his optimism about the effects of abolishing law school admissions preferences. In fact, say David Chambers and Richard Lempert of the University of Michigan Law School, Timothy Clydesdale of the College of New Jersey, and William Kidder of the Equal Justice Society, a move to colorblind admissions would lead to declines of 35 to 45 (not 14) percent in the number of African-Americans admitted to law schools and to a decline of 25 to 30 percent in the number who graduate and pass the bar. Remarkably, these four critics and other defenders of racial preferences have not challenged some of Sander's key factual premises, even though these premises belie the rosy portrayal of affirmative action in the mainstream media and in the June 2003 Supreme Court opinion upholding the University of Michigan Law School's racial preference program (Grutter v. Bollinger): - Very large racial preferences are prevalent at almost all law schools, not just the most elite ones. - The preferences used by the top-ranked schools have the "cascade effect" of pulling in many underqualified black students who would do much better at the second-tier or third-tier schools that they now shun. These less competitive schools must in turn go far down in their own applicant pools to fill their racial targets. The result is a "game of musical chairs where blacks are consistently bumped up several seats in the law school hierarchy, producing a large black-white gap at nearly all law schools in the academic credentials of students" -- that is, in their undergraduate grades and LSAT scores. - Once in law school, "around 50 percent of black students [end up] in the bottom tenth of the class; and around two-thirds of black students are in the bottom fifth." Only 8 percent of black students place in the top half of their classes. - Contrary to the widespread view that preferences give black students opportunities to "catch up" with more-privileged whites, black law students' grades "go down a little from the first to the third year." - About 19 percent of black law students never graduate, a dropout rate more than double that of whites. - More than 40 percent of entering black law students never pass the bar and never become lawyers. Blacks are four times as likely as whites to fail their first bar exams and six times as likely to fail on each of five successive attempts. The 48-year-old Sander, who co-founded a civil-rights group to enforce the fair-housing rights of minorities in Southern California and has a half-black son, notes in his article that "the material harms to whites from affirmative action in law schools are comparatively slight" and that racial admissions preferences may be justified "if the benefits to minorities substantially exceed the costs to minorities." But the benefits to blacks (on whom Sander focuses) do not exceed the costs to blacks, he has concluded after years of empirical study, with the help of his doctorate in economics and his position as director of UCLA's Empirical Research Group. In an interview, Sander acknowledges that he is making an educated guess in predicting that ending preferences would increase the number of blacks passing the bar exam, "because we don't know what would happen to the number of applications." But he expresses confidence that at worst, the number of new black lawyers would drop by no more than 10 percent. The solid pillars of Sander's statistical analysis are that 1) black students do just as well in law school as whites with comparable undergraduate grades and LSAT scores; 2) this fact proves that blacks' academic difficulties stem from racial preferences, not from any racial problems in law schools; 3) black students who pull C's at the most elite law schools could be getting B's at second-tier schools, and so on down the pecking order; 4) the strongest black students would perform much better -- and thus would learn much more -- at the less prestigious law schools they would attend but for preferences; and 5) most employers would rather hire young black law graduates with decent grades from run-of-the-mill schools than those who barely got by at elite schools. The Chambers-Lempert-Clydesdale-Kidder group challenges each of these five points, but not very persuasively, in my tentative view. Perhaps their most surprising point is that -- contrary to the usual pro-preference argument that grades and test scores undervalue blacks' academic potential -- blacks do worse in law school than whites do with similar grades and LSAT scores. The problem, the four suggest vaguely, is "something about the atmosphere of law school." Sander, who is preparing a detailed response, sees this critique as an effort "to rally the troops with arguments that are technically complex but devoid of any basis in the real data." He concedes that racial preferences have benefits -- especially for white students, who are exposed to a more diverse group of classmates. And he stops short of urging complete abolition. But law schools should at least end what Sander calls the "pervasive public dissembling" by which they have concealed the costs imposed by preferences on their own black students, especially the many who will invest years of their lives and thousands of dollars without ever becoming lawyers. The law schools should start by adding something like the following warning message (my words, not Sander's) to their congratulatory letters to admitted black applicants: "In choosing among law schools, you should be aware that our racial preferences in admissions have costs as well as benefits. About half of our black students end up in the bottom tenth of their classes. While we have done our utmost to help them succeed, their dropout rates are far higher, and their bar-exam passage rates far lower, than those of our other students. "If you choose a less selective school, you are likely to be more successful academically. Indeed, according to one study, you may even have a better chance of passing the bar -- a point vigorously disputed by other studies. We hope that you will take your chances here and will be glad you did." Such a warning would no doubt be discordant. But would it be worse than selling would-be black lawyers a bill of goods?
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2079014) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2005 10:57 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Bumppppppppp (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2085012) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2005 7:15 PM Author: Pink motley spot Subject: Why BUMP? You will never convince anyone!!! GIVE UP. But maybe you'll get convinced that you're wrong.
Countering Arguments on AA:
Opponents of affirmative action advance a number of arguments and myths that should be answered forthrightly. Among the arguments are these:
(1)Affirmative action has caused reverse discrimination
FACTS: A 1995 analysis by the U.S. Department of Labor found that affirmative action programs do not lead to widespread reverse discrimination claims by whites, and a high proportion of claims that are filed are found to lack merit. (READ: LACK MERIT.)
These findings firmly REFUTE the charge that affirmative action has helped minorities at the expense of white males. The analysis found that fewer than 100 out of 3,000 discrimination cases filed involved reverse discrimination, and in only six cases were such claims substantiated.
An overwhelming majority of white Americans deny ever having been negatively impacted by affirmative action.
(2) Persons should be selected for positions based on merit alone.
The question is: HOW "MERIT" ITSELF IS MEASURED? Usually, when people say "merit," they mean scores on a test or an examination or some other standardized assessment. (i.e. ASIANS like hero.) However, as a spokesperson for the University of California Medical School said recently: "Medical school is NOT A REWARD FOR HIGH TEST SCORES OR GRADES. Medical schools have to decide WHO is going to fulfill the MOST PRESSING NEEDS OF SOCIETY, and that DOES NOT correlate extremely well with test results and grades" (Bernstein, 1995). Cultural sensitivity toward persons from different backgrounds, interpersonal skills, strength of character, insight, experience, maturity, judgment, and the ability to communicate effectively--all of these are MERITORIOUS qualifications that relate to an individual's performance on the job. (i.e. BEYOND SAT's, BEYOND GPA's, hero.)
(SO: MERIT =/= 1600 + 4.0, according to the University of California Medical School. Get it, hero?)
In stark contrast, in The Bell Curve, authors Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray imply that minorities in the District of Columbia would be better served by well-trained police officers who scored high on selection tests. IT IS QUESTIONABLE WHETHER THE CITIZENS OF ANY CITY IN THE NATION WOULD FEEL BETTER SERVED BY POLICE OFFICERS WHO WERE SELECTED ONLY FOR THEIR HIGH WRITTEN TEST SCORES.
"MERIT involves MUCH MORE THAN THE ABILITY TO PERFORM WELL ON PAPER-AND-PENCIL TESTS. (Take Note, hero.)
(3)Affirmative action produces a feeling of inferiority in minority men and women of all races and creates a negative stereotype in the minds of white males.
Both of these statements have been repeated over and over until they have assumed the semblance of fact. However, the fact is that NO NATIONAL SURVEY of affirmative action beneficiaries ever has been done, and the stories bandied about by affirmative action's detractors are mostly ANECDOTAL or SPECULATIVE.
(NOTE: Most of what hero has written so far falls into this category. ANECDOTAL and RIDICULOUSLY SPECULATIVE.)
The contention that affirmative action creates a negative stereotype in the minds of white males implies naively that wWHITES HAD NO NEGATIVE STEREOTYPES OF MINORITIES IN THEIR MINDS BEFORE (DUHH!!)
That theory runs decidedly COUNTER to the nation's history. "Any stigma or negative stereotypes associated with race have existed in this country long before affirmative action was ever thought of" (Wilson, 1995). In addition, it is never argued that a stigma is felt by the sons and daughters of alumni or athletes who are admitted to college with less than competitive qualifications.
(4) We should have a color-blind society.
That's what Dr. King wanted. Martin Luther King, Jr., wanted a society in which "people were judged by the content of their character." Unquestionably, he was referring to an ultimate state of race relations in our culture, but he was not talking about the path we would have to take to achieve that goal.
In the Supreme Court's 1978 Bakke case, Justice Harry Blackmun presents the most eloquent argument for affirmative action based on color to eradicate discrimination.
(TAKE NOTE OF THIS STATEMENT, hero)
"I suspect that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to arrange an affirmative action program in a racially neutral way and have it successful. To ask that this be so is to demand the impossible. In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently. We cannot--dare not--let the Equal Protection Clause perpetuate racial supremacy."
(Read this ten times, hero: IN ORDER TO GET BEYOND RACISM, WE MUST FIRST TAKE ACCOUNT OF RACE. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY. AND IN ORDER TO TREAT SOME PERSONS EQUALLY, WE MUST TREAT THEM DIFFERENTLY. WE CANNOT--DARE NOT--LET THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE PERPETUATE RACIAL SUPREMACY." )
As Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has argued, "angry white males" (AND NOW ASIANS, like hero) are venting their frustrations at minorities and women when the real problem they face (along with everyone else) is an increasingly competitive global economy that has produced massive changes in the domestic economy and drastically altered the nature and demands of the job market.
Is Affirmative Action Still Necessary?
Nearly two decades ago, some national higher education leaders wrote: "We hope that race and other minority status will be much less of a distinguishing feature of American society in the future as we overcome the consequence of past discrimination in education and elsewhere. Race or other minority status would thus become less germane to achieving diversity in student bodies and to ensuring prospective service to the public.... Significant progress has already been made within higher education, but there is still a substantial way to go."
That statement of the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education shows how overly optimistic we educators were about the possibility of rapid change in higher education. The following illustrations demonstrate that resistance to such change is characteristic of other areas of society as well. In spite of affirmative action, employers tend to favor whites, particularly white males, over equally qualified African-American or Hispanic applicants. As Crosby and Clayton have pointed out: "Much white male resistance to affirmative action may spring from an unwillingness on the part of any given white man to recognize the true extent to which his gender and his ethnicity, and not simply his own individual merit, have won him rungs on the ladder of success" (Clayton, 1990).
http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/descriptions/making_the_case/critics/counter.cfm (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2090068) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2005 7:51 PM Author: chartreuse gunner mad cow disease Point 2 is a piece of post modern trash in the spirit of foucault. I could say so what. Name specifically what you mean? *how would you judge someone future potential then, more effectively, what weight would you give each factor (and how is this diff. then now), how does someone's living environment and race contribute to them doing something different from you at a job (especially in the analytical), and so forth, etc.*
also what evidence do you have that high statistics on proper test doesn't correlate well to success?*at a job I want to see that study. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2090402) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2005 8:14 PM Author: Pink motley spot Trash? So basically a quiet, nerdy Asian with a 1600 SAT will always make a better doctor than say, a warm, friendly Hispanic or black, who might have gotten a decent SAT, yet not a 1600? Not all Hispanics and blacks score 1000, did you know that? Or you're like hero, who thinks every minority got an 800 and is at Harvard?
As for the "statistics", just refer to the post from NYCFan, a few weeks ago, where Collegeboard desperately tried to hide from the public its results. The results clearly show that SATs ACCURATELY correlate to income and class, NOT to INTELLIGENCE.
Lastly, you can read this article:
A response to "The Future of Affirmative Action" by Susan Sturm and Lani Guinier.
Americans harbor the collective deceit that most of the necessary academic attributes of schools, school children, applicants to colleges and universities, and even prospective employees can be neatly summed up with a single number--a test score. Defenders of this system call it meritocracy. More likely it's a pseudo-meritocracy, governed by a cult of measurement and the triumph of technocratic thinking. Many Americans believe in the comforting illusion that test scores permit their important institutions to rank, rate, and sort schools, students, and job applicants with nearly infallible precision. The numbers don't lie--or so we like to think. What's more, we've created a postmodern oddity in which one's potential for real-life achievement in school or work has become more powerful and real than one's actual achievement. We tend to forget that standardized tests are but distant and abstruse abstractions of the real world and all its rich complexity. Consider the case of Carmello Melendez, who came to the United States from Puerto Rico as a child and who encountered a lifetime of stigmatization and exclusion because of his poor test scores, both on achievement tests for school and aptitude tests for the military. He nevertheless excelled at every job he got a chance to perform--from host and producer of public affairs television to civil rights investigator. Melendez applied for a job as urban affairs manager with Illinois Bell. He was exceedingly well qualified for the job but missed the cut-off score on Illinois Bell's aptitude test for managers. Ninety percent of whites, but just 57 percent of Hispanics and African Americans, passed this test. Ample evidence showed the test was essentially worthless for predicting job performance--about as good as throwing dice--and yet the company continued to rely on the test as a gatekeeper for employment. Like so many other institutions, Illinois Bell believed that job applicants should be ranked based on the smallest differences in test scores, and that such a ranking was absolutely indicative of one's professional competence--despite real and proven track records in school and the workplace. Meanwhile, many institutions have been compelled to "fix" their gatekeeping systems with a Band-Aid that we've come to call affirmative action. When a democratic society can't tolerate a "whiteout" of its important academic and corporate institutions, owing to gatekeeping rules that block access to many minorities, then those rules must be modified. But instead of changing the system for all citizens, and rethinking the very meaning of merit in this society, colleges and universities have chosen to adopt two sets of gatekeeping rules, one for whites and Asians, and one for blacks and Hispanics. Indeed, the existence of two-tiered gatekeeping systems has been the focal point of the recent legal attacks on affirmative action, from California's Proposition 209 to the Hopwood case in Texas. That colleges and universities themselves continue to defend affirmative action as the chief means to diversify their campuses is laudable--and not a little curious. While affirmative action policies do, in essence, diminish the importance of test scores for some college aspirants, the prevailing and entrenched hegemony of test scores--the final "objective" arbiter of who has merit and who doesn't--continues to thrive for the vast majority of admissions decisions. Surely, implementing affirmative action has been a necessary and good fight, which has helped to redress higher education's past sins of exclusion. But I am in wholehearted agreement with Sturm and Guinier: defenders of race-based preferences--and Americans generally--have judiciously sidestepped the larger question of the legitimacy of the nation's prevailing notions of merit. Why have we failed to fully engage that question? A persuasive circumstantial case can be made that affirmative action is a useful tool of American elites, which enables them to preserve a social definition of merit that primarily serves their own economic interests. Even with affirmative action, the vast majority of the admissions remain subject to the prevailing views about merit that primarily benefit children of the well educated and well-to-do, even at public institutions. The law school at the University of California at Los Angeles is a remarkable case in point. Even with the help of its affirmative action program in the early 1990s, UCLA's law school relied on the usual numerical index of test scores and grades for most students--resulting in a student body with a socioeconomic profile that mirrored the upper crust of American society. The students' fathers had graduate degrees considerably more often than the average American dad; their moms were far more likely to have obtained bachelor's degrees. Their parents' income was more than double the national median. Institutions often look the other way, but the research evidence is overwhelming that gatekeeping tests are not objective, fair, nor accurate, and that they amount to artificial and arbitrary barriers for some Americans and keys to the kingdom for others. Some defenders of affirmative action counter that ending affirmative action as we know it would, in effect, spell doom for academic standards at America's colleges and universities. Race-blind admissions, this specious reasoning suggests, would by necessity mean reduced admissions standards applied to everyone, thus lowering average SATs, GREs, and LSATs, and diminishing the intellectual stature of nation's coveted system of higher education. But there's ample reason to suspect that a world without affirmative action, if it also shunned the prevailing ideology of merit, would not be apocalyptic. Based on what we know about the present system's failure to judge human potential--the lion's share of the variation in people's achievement is not accounted for by test scores and grades--we can take comfort in knowing that changing the gatekeeping rules for all college-bound Americans will not measurably erode academic quality. Indeed, there may be a silver lining with regard to ending affirmative action as we know it. For, as colleges and universities struggle to reinvent themselves, and to institutionalize far broader and more complete perspectives of merit, educational quality may be poised for a new renaissance in America. This renewal of the meritocracy may come not at the cost of racial and ethnic diversity, but may actually enhance the goals of affirmative action and equal opportunity. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2090584) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2005 8:37 PM Author: chartreuse gunner mad cow disease Subject: yes trash the answer to your question is of coarse, yes he/she could (after all the point being, if you get int eventually) and i would like it if you don't belittle me, thank you, i did know that black and Hispanic poeple score over 1000.
question, how would you judge merit? *which is what i asked you
Did the sat correlate to how well one does in college? after all one can be intelligent and not do well in academia because of the ridged structures in place. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2090858) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2005 9:18 PM Author: Pink motley spot "the question, how would you judge merit?
*which is what i asked you"
I don't have all the answers, but my answer would be: NOT JUST BY THE NUMBERS. It's pretty hard to get a clear picture of an applicant, but the admissions officers do their *best* to use (a)personal statements, (b)letter of rec, (c) interviews, (d) out-of-classroom talents,(e)overcoming of hardships and obstacles, and (f)intangible qualities that students may have, in order to make a selection. Race is an addition that MATTERS because our society is multiracial, and future leaders should be multiracial as well. Unless you want to keep racism alive, which is NOT the goal of universities. And athletes are ALSO necessary, even if they have lower scores. How would you like a top university with the WORST, most PATHETIC teams, and without a SINGLE high-achieving athlete, for the sake of keeping 1500+ Asians? Sounds unfair, but a university NEEDS a student body to fulfill all its needs, and those needs are being fulfilled.
So, saying that all those Asians are being unfairly denied a spot at HYP because they all have "higher stats" means nothing. The stats is only one portion of the deal. Students are not admitted based on stats ONLY. Why would schools need admission committees if it were as simple as numbers? A COMPUTER WOULD DO THE JOB IN 10 SECONDS!!
Applicants must have the stats (and not necessarily a 1580, a high score suffices, if the applicant contributes to the social education of the student body significantly) AND they must contribute to life on campus. If the college already has 18% Asians, why are they going to accept MORE just because they fulfill ONE of the requirements for admission? Especially considering there is ONE spot for every 15 applicants? What would you suggest? Eliminating the meager 6% of Hispanics, so that we can have more Chinese dudes who scored 1580s? Or eliminating 8% blacks to have more Chinese dudes with 4.0s?
"Did the sat correlate to how well one does in college? after all one can be intelligent and not do well in academia because of the ridged structures in place."
I will get back to you on that one. But I'm pretty sure it's NOT an accurate predictor. Some colleges are beginning to eliminate it. I wonder why. And why would collegeboard want to hide their results from the general public? The only reason I can think of, is... they're unfair standards that have kept the top at the top, and the bottom at the bottom, without taking into account REAL merit of low income applicants.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2091299) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2005 9:38 PM Author: chartreuse gunner mad cow disease talking about college here-"Race is an addition that MATTERS because our society is multiracial, and future leaders should be multiracial as well. Unless you want to keep racism alive, which is NOT the goal of universities"-well if a person really was of merit, then why would it matter where he/she goes to educate himself (as long as the standards are reasonable. If a genius fo rinstance goes to a state college 4 instance instead of an ivy, will he be hindered 10/20 years down the road. I don't see the connection.
also i question your assumption that people with high stats don't contribute to the cmapus society. What evidence you have that people with higher "stats" don't or in general at a lower %. Some of the most outgoing people i know are also the most intelligent.
"Especially considering there is ONE spot for every 15 applicants? What would you suggest? Eliminating the meager 6% of Hispanics, so that we can have more Chinese dudes who scored 1580s? Or eliminating 8% blacks to have more Chinese dudes with 4.0s?". -I would suggest letting the more interesting candidate in the school. I wouldn't care at all. But what statistic info. do you have that by virtue of his race, he is more "intresting". (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2091496) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2005 10:12 PM Author: Pink motley spot Do you really think it's that "simple"?
They have to balance a WHOLE LOT of different things at once, and on top of that, you want to be "pleased" with the results?
They have to balance:
Fill up with bright kids Fill up with diversity of race to fulfill university's mission Fill up with interesting, enriching, talented candidates to make for a learning experience for everyone Fill up with enough athletes, musicians, actors, singers, etc -- so that the campus doesn't die down in all other aspects besides academic Fill up with kids who can pay tuition (in schools where they can't afford not to)
I mean, do you think it's as simple as that?
"i question your assumption that people with high stats don't contribute to the cmapus society."
When did I assume that? I said it's not all about stats. If there are candidates who have both, good for them. But that's not always the case.
"What evidence you have that people with higher "stats" don't or in general at a lower %. Some of the most outgoing people i know are also the most intelligent."
And I've met people with super high-stats who live to study and never go out. So what? You admit there's no correlation, right?
However, hero's "point" is that Asian Americans, ALL OF THEM, even the POOREST OF ALL, HAVE IT ALL, are better qualified, have MORE talents, and can easily fill up an entire class with all the diversity, qualities, talents, in every aspect (overcoming obstacles, athletes, personal qualities &etc, etc..) necessary, and on top of that, they would WIN HANDS DOWN. It is HE, who must provide proof that all those Asians who are "unfairly" rejected, HAD ALL IT TAKES. He's being RACIST in saying that other races are INFERIOR in EVERY WAY to Asians!!
I cannot assure WHO will contribute more to the student body based on stats. But I highly DOUBT that high scores CORRELATE with the rest of the qualities that schools look for in candidates. You're almost saying that "Those with high scores are more likely to contribute to the social life and enrichment of the campus than those with lower stats" and that is an unfounded statements. While I don't have the answers to those extreme questions, my life experience has showed that the very brightest are hardly ever the ones who show other amazing qualities in the social/cultural scene of the campus. They exist, of course, but that is not to say that they are always the SUPER-HUMANS who have it all, and that you only need the test score to find them. That's is FLAWED. Again, if that were the case, why would universities employ Admission Comittees? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2091845) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2005 10:37 PM Author: chartreuse gunner mad cow disease You're almost saying that "Those with high scores are more likely to contribute to the social life and enrichment of the campus than those with lower stats" and that is an unfounded statements
actually i do think so, although i don't have the energy or will to provide evidence so i will just give up.
They exist, of course, but that is not to say that they are always the SUPER-HUMANS who have it all, and that you only need the test score to find them. That's is FLAWED. Again, if that were the case, why would universities employ Admission Committees? -I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying these "superhuman" will succeed regardless of choice of college and these people are going to be the ones that will influence society in a profound way, and that i don't see what the big deal would be if we got rid of the race box, but used factors like idk...previous work done or published, special talents, whatever. would you feel like your college life would be incomplete if instead of meeting 8% of this race and 5% of that race, everyone you meet would be "interesting" (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2092077) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 1:01 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> They exist, of course, but that is not to say that they are always the SUPER-HUMANS who have it all, and that you only need the test score to find them. That's is FLAWED. Again, if that were the case, why would universities employ Admission Committees? -I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying these "superhuman" will succeed regardless of choice of college and these people are going to be the ones that will influence society in a profound way, and that i don't see what the big deal would be if we got rid of the race box, but used factors like idk...previous work done or published, special talents, whatever. would you feel like your college life would be incomplete if instead of meeting 8% of this race and 5% of that race, everyone you meet would be "interesting" <<
That's the WHOLE POINT this Trickmaster refuses to even acknowledge.
GET RID OF THE RACE BOX IN ADMISSIONS.
Race prefrences never worked in Nazi Germany, and Bosnia and they will never work in elite college admissions.
Trick can rant and rave all he wants about his prejudice and bigotry towards Asian Ams, but the adcoms should not know the race of the applicant and they should not ask. They don't ask Jews, but they used to ask and imposed quotas on them, fearing that they will be "100%" of the campus. That's the bigotry, the jealousy, and the racism which Trick subcribes to, but not against Jews, but against Asian Ams. He's a racist hypocrite with his racist stereotyping of Asian Ams.
Just leave the race box off the application. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2093228) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 1:40 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Trick said, "So, saying that all those Asians are being unfairly denied a spot at HYP because they all have "higher stats" means nothing. The stats is only one portion of the deal. "
Asian Americans have more than just high stats. They have much more. I have given studies from Stanford and Brown stating otherwise.
I HAVE GIVEN YOU THE STUDIES. FIND THEM AND READ THEM. STOP WITH YOUR BULLSHIT!
I posted the following before to rebut your racist stereotypes:
Studies (done internally when charges of bias were presented) at Brown and Stanford have clearly disputed the stereotyped image of an Asian American applicant as being "one dimensional" with no extracurricular activities except for music. This image only existed in the biased views of the some of the admission officers. These studies have shown that there was an unexplained bias in admissions and in fact, the Asian American group appeared better prepared by any standards used, yet had only a 60% to 70% admission rate compared to the white applicant group at Stanford. The Admissions Dean of Stanford could not explain the disparity, but at least she admitted that there was one. Many of the heads and admission officers of the elite schools don't even acknowledge that the problem even exists.
The Asian applicants were better prepared than the white group, yet have a lower admission rate. Stanford's Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid discovered, after an inquiry, that between 1982 and 1985 Asian Americans were one-third less likely than whites to be offered admission, even though they were on average better prepared than white applicants. Annual Report f CUAFA, Stanford University, 1986, reprinted in "Campus Report", November 12, 1986.
Some admissions officials have complained that Asian Americans tend to be lacking in extracurricular and personal qualities, which universities consider along with grades to ensure that they get well-rounded individuals. But there is no systematic evidence to this; indeed a report by the Corporation Committee on Minority Affairs (CCMI) at Brown, established to investigate charges of anti-Asian discrimination, found such assumptions to be the result of "cultural bias and stereotypes which prevail in the admissions office." In the early 1980s, these attitudes contributed to a 14% acceptance rate for Asians, who are on the average the best qualified applicants to Brown, compared to the other students who averaged an acceptance rate of 20%. See Report of CCMI, Brown University, February 1984. Between 1978 and 1986, there was a 430% increase of Asian Americans applying to Brown, but the number of these students remained fairly constant. Grace Tsang, "Equal Access of Asian-Americans", "Yale Law Journal", January 1989, pp. 659-78.
YOU ARE SO FULL OF SHIT BY MISREPRESENTING MY POSTS. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2093467) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 1:55 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> I don't have all the answers, but my answer would be: NOT JUST BY THE NUMBERS. It's pretty hard to get a clear picture of an applicant, but the admissions officers do their *best* to use (a)personal statements, (b)letter of rec, (c) interviews, (d) out-of-classroom talents,(e)overcoming of hardships and obstacles, and (f)intangible qualities that students may have, in order to make a selection. Race is an addition that MATTERS because our society is multiracial, and future leaders should be multiracial as well. Unless you want to keep racism alive, which is NOT the goal of universities. <<
Everything EXCEPT the race of the applicant!!
You have not justified the use of racial preferences in elite college admissions.
Read this:
7/12/02 Wall Street Journal: "Extra Credit. To Get into UCLA, It Helps To Face `Life Challanges,'. University of California System Raises Number of Blacks and Hispanics Admitted. Are Obstacles Created Equal?" Stanley Park felt as if the University of California, Los Angeles, had revamped its admissions criteria just for him. UCLA was looking for students who had overcome "life challenges," such as family illness, being raised by a single parent or being the first in the family to go to college. After Mr. Park's parents, Korean immigrants of modest means, divorced three years ago, he lived with his mother. When she developed breast cancer, he began tutoring children to help pay the rent. Despite his work commitment, he scored an impressive 1500 out of 1600 on his SAT college admissions exam. UCLA and the state university's other elite campus, Berkeley, both rejected Mr. Park. Blanca Martinez also grew up in a working-class immigrant family, and also helped support it when his mother had breast cancer. Her SAT score, though, was 390 points below Mr. Park's. Both Berkeley and UCLA admitted her. The University of California has adopted a new admissions system, one that proponents say helps to equalize opportunity for all. Starting this spring, all applicants were weighed under a process known as comprehensive review, which awards extra credit for surmounting a wide range of personal, family, or psychological obstacles - what UCLA calls life challenges. But critics are wondering if the university cares more about life challenges for some students than for others, in violation of a 1996 state referendum that barred giving preferences to racial or ethnic groups. One outspoken critic is David Benjamin, owner of an SAT-preparation business. "It is simply shameful that it is worth less to be poor and Asian than to be poor and Hispanic," he says. The Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit law firm that defended the referendum, called Proposition 209, will seek to review admission records for signs of bias. Former UCLA admissions director Rae Lee Siporin says the new system also was intended to make the student body as reflective as possible of the state's population. She says UCLA determined that simply using poverty as an index of disadvantage would reduce diversity, because it wouldn't help middle-class blacks and Hispanics and it would "pull in" lots of low-income Asians. Latino legislative leader Marco Antonio Firebaugh, a force behind adoption of the new system, agrees: "We found that using poverty yields a lot of poor white kids and poor Asian kids," he says. The formulas UCLA and other campuses chose instead give hefty boosts to the students - predominantly Hispanic and African-American - who attend low-performing high schools targeted by university outreach programs. Under the new criteria, Hispanics and blacks admitted to the University of California for next fall rose to 18.5% of the total, nudging past pre-Proposition 209 levels for the first time. UCLA admitted 9% more Latinos and 19% more blacks than last year, but slightly fewer Asian-Americans and 7% fewer non- Hispanic whites. Nevertheless, the university's enrollment remains far from a mirror of California: Hispanics make up about a third of the state population but only an eighth of the University of California's nearly 150,000 undergraduates. Asians are 11% of the population but almost 40% of the undergraduates. At UCLA last fall, the average SAT score of Hispanics who got in was 1168. That was below the average score for Asians and non-Hispanic whites who didn't get in, 1174 and 1209 respectively. (Accepted whites scores an average 1355, and accepted Asians 1344). Applicants to the University of California must meet its minimum academic standards. Among other yardsticks for eligibility, they must take SAT II exams that measure mastery of a field of study. Starting last year, the university doubled the weight given to SAT II scores. The switch was a boon to Latinos, because one SAT II test they can take measures knowledge of Spanish. At Mr. Park's University High in Irvine, while the student body is 50% non-Hispanic white and 41% Asian-American, UCLA acceptances plunged to 69 students this year from 89 last year, and Berkeley admissions fell from 47 to 63. Principal Diana Schmelzer thinks she knows why: "Our students come from stable homes and their parents are teachers, doctors and lawyers. It feels as though the kid who works very hard and comes from an upper-middle class family is in fact the disadvantaged student" under the new admissions criteria. She has in mind students such as Albert Shin, an engineer's son turned down by UCLA and Berkeley despite a 1540 SAT score. Hyejin Jae, a classmate also spurned by Berkeley and UCLA, worries that she hurt her chances by soft-peddling family hardships. But "I didn't want too much of a pity party," says Ms. Jae, who scored 1410 on her SATs and is the daughter of a struggling Korean-immigrant pastor. "No matter how bad your situation is, somebody has it worse." She, Mr. Park, and Mr. Shin will attend the university's San Diego campus. At 99% Hispanic South Gate High School near Los Angeles, Blanca Martinez's alma mater, the number of seniors accepted by the university's elite campuses has surged. Berkeley took 16 South Gate seniors this year, compared with six two years ago. UCLA took 36, compared with 14 in 2000. Although UCLA overall accepted fewer than one-fourth of its applicants, it took more than half of those from South Gate. Most of these UCLA-bound students, like Ms. Martinez, are children of blue-collar immigrants from Mexico. Dania Medina, whose father is a machine operator and mother a cosmetologist, scored just 410 out of 800 on her verbal SAT, along with 640 in math. Ms. Medina, who wrote her admissions essay about having a sister with Down syndrome, expects to be placed in a low-level English course at UCLA. Classmate Susana Pena, daughter of a construction worker, will enter UCLA with a 940 SAT score, 380 points below the average for students admitted for this fall. "People should understand it's harder for us," she says. "Once in a while, they should give us a little break so we can catch up to them." One reason these students, and not Mr. Park, Ms. Jae or Mr. Shin, made the cut may be that they took part in University of California outreach programs. Most campuses give extra credit toward admission for this. But the university offers such programs only at low-ranked high schools, not high-ranked schools such as University High. After Proposition 209 passed, the university more than quadrupled spending on outreach to $85 million. Robert Laird, a former Berkeley admissions director, says the University of California is under "tremendous pressure" from Hispanic legislators to show that the big investment in outreach is paying off in higher Latino enrollment. Outreach workers coach students on how to write college application essays. At another mainly Hispanic high school near Los Angeles, Belmont, UCLA student and outreach worker Alex Paredes helped Rosaura Novelo edit her application essay. UCLA admitted her despite an SAT score of 980. UCLA took 24 seniors from Belmont, triple last year's number. The advice outreach workers give isn't guesswork: Some of them do double duty as evaluators of applicants to attend UCLA. They don't rule on particular candidates they have recruited. The Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento is expected to file public records requests this month on behalf of two students rejected by the Berkeley, Los Angeles and San Diego campuses. It wants to determine whether they were casualties of raced-based preferences
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2093574) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2005 11:28 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> Trash? So basically a quiet, nerdy Asian with a 1600 SAT will always make a better doctor than say, a warm, friendly Hispanic or black, who might have gotten a decent SAT, yet not a 1600? Not all Hispanics and blacks score 1000, did you know that? Or you're like hero, who thinks every minority got an 800 and is at Harvard? <<
I never said the above.
You know nothing of what you are saying.
You have to pass the USMLE in order to practice medicne. Blacks pass this exam at a rate of 50% or less compared to Asians and whites passing at 90%.
What's your point?
It is all relative.
Trick, you are FULL OF SHIT.
Don't ever spin and twist my posts, Don't ever put words in my mouth. Don't ever paraphrase.
You are really FULL OF SHIT. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2092517) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 10:44 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: BLACKS, LATINOS AND MOST OF ALL WHITES "MERIT" ADMISSION SIMPLY Tricks said, >> (2) Persons should be selected for positions based on merit alone...The question is: HOW "MERIT" ITSELF IS MEASURED? <<
Tricks (aka sly, slimey, and disingenuous) answers his own question.
ACCORDING YOUR RACIST VIEWS, BY THE COLOR OF ONE'S SKIN. YELLOW OR ASIAN AMERICAN GET A DEMERIT BECAUSE THEY ARE NON-PREPERRED, BUT BLACKS, LATINOS AND MOST OF ALL WHITES "MERIT" ADMISSION SIMPLY FROM THE COLOR OF THEIR SKINS, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE LABELED, "PREFERERED".
You have said absolutely NOTHING to support your argument for RACE PREFERENCES, and MOST OF ALL, to your racist support of ant-Asian American quotsa,. Tricks, you are a RACIST HYPOCRITE, tripping over your own arguments and bursting your litle bubble.
Please the following and read the whole article:
The Economist special report: Meritocracy in America
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560
>> “affirmative action”—programmes designed to help members of racial minorities. These are increasingly used by elite universities, in the belief that race is a reasonable proxy for social disadvantage, which it may not be. <<
>> In most Ivy League institutions, the eight supposedly most select universities of the north-east, “legacies” make up between 10% and 15% of every class. At Harvard they are over three times more likely to be admitted than others. The students in America's places of higher education are increasingly becoming an oligarchy tempered by racial preferences. This is sad in itself, but even sadder when you consider the extraordinary role that the same universities—particularly Conant's Harvard—played in promoting meritocracy in the first half of the 20th century. << (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2094484) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2005 7:33 PM Author: Pink motley spot Subject: BTW, your first post has some GOOD points: (Taken from hero's first post..)
Readers of Asian descent were as divided on the issue as everyone else. The clash of race and class, of fairness and equity in this particular debate is so complex that nobody seems to have a predictable reaction, which is fine with me.
Excerpts from ASIAN AMERICAN readers:
(a) Virginia Y. Kim, for instance, is a lawyer in Chicago who grew up in an affluent, suburban Cleveland Korean-American family with what she called "the traditional Asian education ethos." She said she has heard complaints like Chin's all her life and her response has always been, "WHO SAID LIFE WAS FAIR?"
(EXACTLY: Life hasn't been fair for Hispanics and blacks FOR CENTURIES. Why should we push them further down to make life "fair" for Asians, who are much better off? )
(b) Huy N. Tran, a San Jose State University student of Vietnamese descent, said he thought it was WRONG for Chin to suggest that other cultures do not value education as much as Asian American cultures do.
"I have met students of all different cultures who take a full load of classes and work several jobs to pay for their education," he said.
(QUITE TRUE: THERE ARE "qualified, talented, overcoming hardships, diverse" in ALL cultures!! Claiming that Asians are the ONES who "have it all", just like hero has been doing, is RACIST at best.)
(c) Anne Soh, a Korean-American Wellesley graduate, said she agreed with Chin that "it is THEORETICALLY unfair that there is a quota at the top schools that works against Asians."
BUT: she said she WOULD NOT WANT TO ATTEND A COLLEGE THAT DISPENSED WITH THE AA RACE-BALANCING POLICIES that Chin and others find so distasteful because SHE WANTS A CHANCE TO GET TO KNOW MANY PEOPLE DIFFERENT FROM HER!!! (Like we all do, except for only hero and Chin.)
Continued, by Anne Soh, an ASIAN-AMERICAN:
"To grossly generalize for a minute, Korean Americans in the U.S., and I can be blunt BECAUSE I AM ONE OF THEM, are ENTIRELY TWO-DIMENSIONAL AND RIGID," she said. "ALL THEY KNOW IS STUDYING AND TEST TAKING AND LESSONS AND IVY LEAGUES!!"... While they deserve to be evaluated and admitted based upon the same criteria as everyone else, I also WOULD NOT CHOOSE A SCHOOL THAT WAS MADE UP 100 PERCENT OF THEM---EVEN IF IT WAS HARVARD."
(GREAT POINT, coming from an Asian American!! Obviously she's one of the very SMART, MATURE ones. Not a whiny-LOSER-reject like hero.)
Works Cited: hero's first post. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2090229) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 1:27 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> BUT: she said she WOULD NOT WANT TO ATTEND A COLLEGE THAT DISPENSED WITH THE AA RACE-BALANCING POLICIES that Chin and others find so distasteful because SHE WANTS A CHANCE TO GET TO KNOW MANY PEOPLE DIFFERENT FROM HER!!! (Like we all do, except for only hero and Chin.)...Continued, by Anne Soh, an ASIAN-AMERICAN: <<
So what?
I don't care if she is Jewish, or black or white.
Jews are the biggest ethnic, religious, or racial group at Harvard, outnumbering the Episcopalians.
This debate transcends race.
Jews are 33% of Harvard for 2% of the population and Asian Americans are 16% of Harvard for 4% of the population.
The Asian American are never going to be 100% of Harvard. They are never going to be 33% of Harvard, simply because of the racist quota. Asian Ams will never be 20% of Harvard because of the racist quota.
Jews don't have a quota anymore, and they are not 100% of Harvard, yet Asian Ams are only 16% of Harvard.
By your reasoning, you should limit Jews at Harvard with your definition of "diversity", a group that is OVERREPRESENTED by a factor 15.
I have no problem with the Jewish numbers and I assume you don't because you have not uttered a peep against the Jewish numbers at 33%, yet you continue to rant and rave with your racist stereotypes against Asian Ams for being more than 16%, if the quota is abolished. THERE IS NO QUOTA AGAINST JEWS!!!
TRICKMASTER, YOU ARE A FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRITE.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2093381) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2005 9:35 PM Author: Pink motley spot Subject: Hero: SAT = Worthless (from your beloved UC-Berkeley.) Calif. College President: Drop SAT!
By MICHELLE LOCKE, Associated Press Writer
Saturday February 17 7:00 AM ET
BERKELEY, Calif. (AP) - The president of the University of California has recommended dropping the main SAT as an admission requirement at its eight campuses, saying the test is an unfair measurement of students' abilities. The development could affect the way high school students in California and across the nation prepare for college.
The University of California system is one of the nation's largest, with 170,000 students. Richard C. Atkinson was to announce his recommendation in a speech to the American Council on Education in Washington, D.C. on Sunday. ``Anyone involved in education should be concerned about how overemphasis on the SAT is distorting educational priorities and practices, how the test is perceived by many as unfair, and how it can have a devastating impact on the self esteem and aspirations of young students,'' Atkinson says in a draft copy of the speech. Atkinson has asked UC's Academic Senate, which sets admission standards, to consider dropping the SAT I - which includes a verbal and math test - and take a more comprehensive look at applicants.
The university would continue to use the SAT II, a three-part test more closely tied to subjects studied in high school. The Educational Testing Service says 2.4 million students took the SAT I in 1998-99, while 442,000 took the SAT II. The proposal would require approval by the UC Board of Regents and could not take effect before fall 2003. Atkinson's proposal to drop the SAT, taken by more than a million graduating seniors last year, drew strong reaction.
``To drop the SAT would be like deciding you're going to drop grades,'' said Gaston Caperton, president of the nonprofit College Board, which owns the SAT. Critics say high school grades are a better indicator of a student's ability than an SAT score. Others say the SAT is crucial to provide a national yardstick - all A's, for instance, are not created equal. A Massachusetts group that argues a high SAT score may have more to do with money spent on pre-testing coaching than ability said the proposal is a step in the right direction.
``There will be strong pressure on other state college systems to follow California's lead,'' said Robert Schaeffer of FairTest, which advocates less emphasis on standardized test. One of the criticisms leveled against the SAT is that it is culturally biased and unfair to disadvantaged students. Admissions diversity has been an issue at UC since 1995, when regents voted to drop affirmative action. Numbers of black and Hispanic students have fallen at top campuses since then.
Caperton defended the SAT as ``extremely fair. What is not fair is the education system in America which gives children unequal opportunities.'' But Atkinson said an overemphasis on SAT I scores has created the ``educational equivalent of a nuclear arms race,'' that hurts all involved but poses a risk to any institution that opts out. Jeff Rubenstein, assistant vice president of the Princeton Review and author of several books about test preparation, said Atkinson's announcement may prove a rallying point. ``People are finally beginning to realize the incredibly narrow scope of what this test measures which is completely out of proportion with the importance given to it by most people,'' he said.
http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/satlocke.html
Hero:
**** If this happens, what would happen to the Asian population? All they do is score high on their SAT's, I wonder if they would be 45% at Berkeley if this happens? Maybe we've all been cheated into thinking the SAT is a goodsend for admission. The truth is: the beneficiaries of this are Asians. Their culture is based on test scores. Even though test scores aren't everything. So what will happen to Asians when the truth comes to light? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2091470) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 12:35 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> Hero: **** If this happens, what would happen to the Asian population? All they do is score high on their SAT's, I wonder if they would be 45% at Berkeley if this happens? Maybe we've all been cheated into thinking the SAT is a goodsend for admission. The truth is: the beneficiaries of this are Asians. Their culture is based on test scores. Even though test scores aren't everything. So what will happen to Asians when the truth comes to light? <<
You are really stupid, because nothing will happen. You are too presumptuous. Asian Americans will continue to be admiited at the same rates, no matter what standards UC uses, especially the SAT II. ELIMINATE THE SAT I.
In fact, UC Berkeley uses the "Comprehensive Review" in which an applicant's life experiences and overcoming of obstacles are taken into consideration, and the SAT I is devalued, but with the SAT IIs given more value. Asian Americans are still being admitted in the same numbers, That's because RACE is not a factor in admissions.
Also, the U.of Texas use the "top 10% of the high school class" as a basis for admissions, discounting the value of the SAT I tests and eliminating race in RACE BLIND ADMISSIONS. The numbers for whites droppped slightly, but the Asian American numbers increased significantly, while the numbers of blacks dropped significantly, across the board and economic strata. The hispanic numbers also increased slightly. There you are, no SAT I test, but only the "top 10%" used as an admission standard, WITHOUT RACE PREFERENCES. The Asian Americans' numbers INCREASED, even in the poorest schools, while living in poverty sitting alongside their black classmates, living in the same impoverished neighborhoods.
Asian Americans are 20% of U.of Texas-Austin, while being 3% of Texas' population. The U.of Texas is DIVERSE!!
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2093040) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2005 9:41 PM Author: Pink motley spot Subject: Hero: Testing the RIGHT way for Talent (SAT is NOT everything) Testing the Right Way for Talent
Wednesday April 18 03:00 AM EDT
By Hugh B. Price
High-stakes standardized tests, like the Scholastic Aptitude Test, the SAT, fail to capture the qualities most essential for success in the corporate world, such as creativity, drive and leadership, according to a new survey of 200 corporate executives of Fortune 1000 companies the National Urban League released last week. In addition, 15 senior executives of some of America's largest companies signed a general letter to college and university presidents urging them to resist disproportionately relying on the SAT to determine which applicants to college they will and will not admit.
"We are concerned," the latter stated, "that these tests are being asked to do far more than they should, and that young people are paying the consequences." The executives went on to urge higher-education leaders not to ignore the value of more qualitative attributes - such as character, integrity, the ability to overcome obstacles, determination, drive, ambition and the ability to motivate others - which applicants may have that contribute to leadership and success both at these colleges and in the world beyond them.
The world where those qualities are always needed, of course, include such other arenas as public service and the nonprofit world. Our survey and letter come on the heels of the bold recommendation Richard Atkinson, president of the University of California, made two months ago that the SAT should be scrapped as an admissions requirement for any of that university's colleges.
Expectedly, his proposal triggered the latest round of the long-standing heated debate over what role entrance exams should play in choosing freshman classes at the nation's selective colleges and universities. I couldn't have asked for a more dramatic backdrop, if you will, to the findings of the Urban League survey and letter. Significantly, these documents mark the first time corporate executives have weighed in on the use of standardized tests in college admissions.
They've done so for the same reason that the Urban League's Institute for Opportunity & Equality last year asked the survey research firm DYG, Inc. to undertake the study: Because the corporate world, like American society as a whole, now more than ever needs to insure that all the talent in society has access to opportunity. These business leaders understand the importance of a balanced admissions policy because they draw from the same talent pool as educators.
When that pool shrinks, as it has now because of an excessive reliance on standardized tests, the business world will suffer, too. They, like we at the National Urban League and many others, have grown alarmed in recent years at the excessive reliance on these exam scores in admissions decisions. The damage done by this trend is compounded by the relentless legal assault on affirmative action, whose opponents use test scores as a weapon to bar eminently qualified black and Latino students from admission to selective public colleges and universities. But we have three decades worth of evidence that these are the very kind of students who in prior years did gain admission, did graduate, and did go on to successful careers and often to leadership positions in their professions and communities.
This has been proven by several longitudinal studies done on the graduate activities and the post-graduates careers of alumni from such schools as the University of California at Davis Medical School, and the University of Michigan Law School, and by the even longer-term study in the book "The Shape of The River" by William G. Bowen and Derek Bok, the former presidents of Princeton University and Harvard University, respectively. No, the National Urban League isn't calling for the abolition of the SAT and other entrance exams.
Properly used and appropriately weighed, the SAT can, in the words of Dr. Nancy Cole, the former president of the Educational Testing Service, which designs the exam, provide "objective and fair information about certain skills and abilities that help students succeed in college." Nor are we ignoring the responsibility of educators at the K-12 level to improve the quality of schooling there. Nor that of parents and local communities to get their children ready to learn and hold the quest for academic success as their most important goal.
That's why the Urban League in the late 1990s launched its Campaign for African-American Achievement in order to mobilize local black communities across the country around the pursuit of educational success. Make no mistake. We want our youngsters to excel on the SAT, too. But all of these responsibilities and goals shouldn't be used to obscure the need for colleges and universities to better align their admissions procedures with their missions and society's needs - especially when there's abundant proof that there's more than one way to tell who's deserving of opportunity
http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/hprice.html
Hero: What's gonna happen when the REAL talent begins to be measured? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2091523) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 2:21 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> TrickMaster Subject: Hero: Testing the RIGHT way for Talent (SAT is NOT everything) <<
Again, you are a disingenuous and a dishonest liar. I NEVER SAID THIS!!
You are avoiding the issue and my points. I NEVER SAID the SAT was "everything". You are either stupid or you can't read. I think both.
BTW, why don't you speak to the posters on xoxohth, NYCFan (the ultimate Harvard troll), repapa, formerly--scottie, and JoeCaltech about the SAT I tests.
You can't accept the fact that Asian Ams have real talent. They have to meet a higher standard of achievement than that of any other group, including whites, and meet a higher criteria in order to be admitted, which includes TALENT, MOTIVATIONS, PERSEVERANCE, HARD WORK ETHIC, LEADERSHIP, SPECIAL AWARDS ON THE INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL LEVELS BOTH IN MATH/SCIENCE AND IN THE ARTS, IN ADDITION TO OVERCOMING OBSTACLES SUCH AS LANGUAGE AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCES, AS WELL AS RACIAL PREJUDICE, STEREOTYPING AND BIGOTRY FROM SOME IN AMERICA (INCLUDING YOU) FROM BEING ONE OF THE SMALLEST MINORITIES IN AMERICA. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2093743) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2005 9:51 PM Author: Pink motley spot Subject: Hero: Standard. Test Scores reliance discouraged by Ed. Dept !! Education Department Issues Final Guide on Use of Test Scores in Admissions
By SARA HEBEL
December 18, 2000
Academe Today
Washington--The U.S. Education Department's Office for Civil Rights on Friday released its fourth and final version of a guidebook on the use of standardized tests in admissions and other student-placement decisions. The 92-page document is largely the same as the previous draft, released in July, which was significantly altered and toned down from the highly contentious original guidelines, released in April 1999. Department officials said Friday that their final product aimed to give colleges and schools, as well as other state and education agencies, technical assistance and practical guidance on how to use high-stakes tests in educationally sound and legally appropriate ways.
The guidebook makes no changes to federal laws. Norma V. Cantœ, the department's assistant secretary for civil rights, said Friday that officials planned to use and promote the document as a "valuable educational tool to prevent misuse or abuse" of standardized tests. "All students deserve high standards and excellent preparation, and testing should help make it possible," Ms. Cantœ said. "We support the fair use of tests." The document urges colleges, schools, and states to weigh whether the standardized tests they use, or plan to use, accurately and reliably measure the skills, knowledge, or abilities they want to evaluate.
The guidelines also say education and state officials should determine whether high-stakes tests have a disparate impact on any particular group of students. The officials then should judge whether those examinations are educationally justifiable and whether there might be equally effective alternatives to using them. "This is not about `don't use tests or do use tests' -- it's about using tests in the right way," said Scott Palmer, the department's deputy assistant secretary for civil rights. Many college officials had viewed the first version of the guidelines as an attempt to discourage them from using standardized tests at all. But the second draft, published last December, was significantly toned down.
Some opponents of affirmative action still criticized that document as an attack on efforts to increase academic standards and to rely more on merit-based admissions criteria, but many higher-education officials backed off from their initial criticisms. On Friday, Education Department officials made a point of arguing that their efforts to promote fair testing did not contradict, and would enhance, movements toward higher standards and better education. "The use of tests is one element toward raising standards and accountability," said Frank S. Holleman III, deputy secretary for education. "This report shows that the goals of promoting higher education standards and ensuring nondiscrimination are complementary goals."
The final guidebook includes mostly minor changes to the previous version. Ms. Cantœ said some sections had been expanded or clarified in response to comments the department received on the most-recent draft. Discussions that were expanded, she said, include those on the use of tests for students for whom English is a second language and for students with disabilities. Department officials also provided more information about legal principles and standards that underlie decisions about how to appropriately use high-stakes tests, she said. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2091628) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2005 9:55 PM Author: Pink motley spot Subject: Hero: Expert Witness testifies: Apt. Tests BIASED vs minorities! Expert: Aptitude Tests Are Biased
He Says U-M's Policy Can Correct Imbalance
February 7, 2001
BY ERIK LORDS
DETROIT FREE PRESS EDUCATION WRITER
Standardized tests for college and law school admission are inherently biased against women and minority applicants, an expert witness said Tuesday during the federal trial to decide whether the University of Michigan's Law School admissions policy is constitutional. Martin Shapiro, a testing specialist and psychology professor at Emory University in Atlanta, testified that using race as one of many factors in admissions is the only way colleges can offset biases in standardized tests.
Shapiro's testimony came as the trial resumed before U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman in Detroit after a week's hiatus. At issue is whether the law school discriminated against Barbara Grutter, 47, of Plymouth Township, a white applicant who claims the university failed to admit her while accepting minority students with lower test scores and grade-point averages.
Shapiro said biases were built into standardized tests from the start. The Scholastic Aptitude Test, or SAT, which has been used for about 75 years, was designed to benefit certain groups and hurt others, he said. According to Shapiro, college officials decided during the mid-1920s that there were too many Jewish students in undergraduate Ivy League classes, including at Columbia University in New York, where 40 percent of all students were Jewish.
Test makers developed an exam with questions modeled after curricula at elite prep schools, where few if any Jewish students attended at the time, Shapiro said. "The number of Jewish students was reduced to 20 percent" at Columbia, Shapiro said. "There's no denying it. That is the beginning of the SAT." Shapiro said the bias that existed then is prevalent today, even as test makers devise new versions of the SAT. To determine what questions will be on future tests, test makers pretest groups of students, he said.
To maintain consistency with past questions, if the group that historically scores well performs well on a pretest, the question is kept. If a group that historically scores poorly does well on a pretest question, that item is tossed out, Shapiro said. Data show that women and minorities traditionally have scored lower than white men on the pretests, Shapiro said.
"The test is designed to preserve the status quo," he said. "Whoever did better on the test before will now be carried along" and likely do well on future tests. In his cross examination, Larry Purdy, a lawyer for Grutter, pounced on Shapiro's historical reference. Purdy asked now that Jewish students are so well-represented at Ivy League colleges, wouldn't that indicate that biases have been removed? Not exactly, Shapiro answered. "Maybe it's that more Jewish students started going to prep school."
Purdy also asked whether it would make sense for colleges to stop asking an applicant's race. "That's a fairy tale," Shapiro said. "You cannot remove race as a piece of information in the United States. It's too ascertainable." Purdy then asked about not using standardized tests in the admissions equation. Standardized tests "are not the devil," Shapiro said.
But "race and sex in our society are characteristics that affect how we perform. They are not irrelevant." In most reverse discrimination cases, the plaintiff focuses on test scores and grades. Shapiro said such attacks on affirmative-action policies are flawed because schools consider a wide range of factors, including letters of recommendation and what role race might have played in a person's life.
"The real issue is, do you want to be bound" by test scores, "when in fact you have all this other information if you just read the application?" Shapiro asked. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2091664) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2005 10:07 PM Author: chartreuse gunner mad cow disease what about the cross examination, and wasn't the immediate result of that an increase in jewish students (by the way i'm not sure about that in C. case) (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2091799) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2005 10:19 PM Author: Pink motley spot Provide links with your rebuttals, please. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2091918) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2005 10:25 PM Author: chartreuse gunner mad cow disease you mean search google? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2091973) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2005 11:40 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Hey, standardized testing is certainly biased against Asian Americans, but they overcome it. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2092637) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2005 10:44 PM Author: Pink motley spot Subject: Hero: The TRUTH about the SAT The SAT: Questions and Answers By FairTest.org
What is the SAT? The SAT is this nation's oldest, most widely used -- and misused -- college entrance exam. The SAT I is composed of two sections, Verbal and Math, each scored on a 200-800 point scale. The 138 questions are nearly exclusively multiple-choice; ten math questions require students to "grid in" the answer. By design, the test is "speeded" which means that many test takers are unable to finish all the questions. The SAT II, formerly "achievement tests", are one hour subject oriented exams, entirely in a multiple choice format (except for the SAT II "writing" test, which includes one 20-minute essay). The Educational Testing Service (ETS), under contract to the College Board, produces and administers all SAT tests.
What Does SAT Stand For? Nothing. Initially titled the Scholastic Aptitude Test and then the Scholastic Assessment Test, it is now officially named just SAT because of uneasiness at ETS and the College Board about defining just what the test measures. "SAT is not an initialism; it does not stand for anything," say the testmakers.
What is on the SAT? A direct descendant of the racist anti-immigrant Army Mental Tests of the 1920s, the SAT was first administered in 1926 but did not become a fully multiple-choice exam until after World War II. The test is designed to be independent of high school curricula (unlike the SAT's main competitor, the ACT). It now consists of analogies, sentence completion, reading comprehension, standard math and quantitative comparison items. The SAT I does not include advanced mathematics topics nor does it attempt to assess higher-order thinking or reasoning skills. Though a "Verbal" score is provided, test takers do not write a single word.
What is the SAT used for? The SAT I is validated for just one purpose: predicting first-year college grades. It does not do even this very well. Testmakers acknowledge that high school grade-point average (GPA) or class rank are the best predictors of first-year grades, despite the huge variation among high schools and courses. The SAT I predicts other outcomes, such as graduation rates, even more poorly. As more colleges move away from using the SAT I for making admissions decisions, the testmakers are promoting its use for course placement purposes. However, studies show that the individual colleges' own exams are much more accurate tools for placing students.
What is the SAT worth? A lot. The College Board, which administers the SAT series, earns more than $125 million each year in revenue from the exams. Estimates on the amount of money students spend on SAT prep materials each year reach well over $100 million. This money keeps the College Board and ETS very invested in the continued use of the test.
SAT Myths
"The Test Is a Common Yardstick" After years of describing the SAT as a "common yardstick," the testmakers have now flip-flopped, claiming "it is a myth that a test will provide a unitary, unequivocal yardstick for ranking on merit." The SAT has always favored students who can afford coaching over those who cannot, students from wealthy suburban schools over those from poor urban school systems, and men over women.
"Coaching Does Not Work" The testmakers have backed away from their original claims that performance on the SAT could not be improved through coaching. The College Board now even sells its own test prep materials. A number of published studies conclude that good coaching courses can raise a student's scores by 100 points or more. These courses, which can cost $800 or more, further skew scores in favor of higher-income test takers. Because college admissions officials do not know who has been coached and who has not, they cannot fairly compare two applicants' scores.
"Colleges Need the SAT to Compare Students From Different Schools" One careful academic study compared two admissions strategies, one using just the high school record and the other using high school record and SAT I scores. More than 90% of the admissions decisions were the same under both strategies. However, for the 10% of the applicant pool in which the two strategies led to different decisions, the SAT-based strategy led to a far greater number of rejections of otherwise academically qualified minority and low-income applicants. Most 4-year colleges accept more than 75% of their applicants and have limited or no real need for the SAT as an admissions tool. Even the 130 or so "selective" schools that reject more than half their applicants could drop the SAT without paying an academic price.
"Admissions Cannot Operate Without the SAT or ACT" Concerned about problems with these tests, nearly 400 4-year colleges and universities do not use the SAT I or ACT to make admissions decisions about a substantial number of their applicants. These range from small, selective liberal arts colleges such as Bates, Bowdoin and Muhlenberg (which report increased diversity but no drop-off in the academic quality of their applicants) to public universities in Oregon and California. Since 1998, applicants to public universities in Texas have not had to submit SAT or ACT scores if they finish in the top 10 percent of their high school classes. That policy change came after state researchers concluded that "the use of standardized tests unduly limits admissions" and that, "except at the extremes, SAT/ACT scores do not adequately predict grades in core freshman courses or the probability of college graduation."
SAT Misuse
How is the SAT Misused? According to the testing profession's own standards, no exam should be used as the sole factor in making any decision. Nor should any test be used for a purpose for which it has not been "validated." Cutoff scores should not be used, especially for high-stakes decisions. Test use guidelines like these are frequently ignored, with no sanctions from ETS or the College Board. Any uses of the SAT that treat scores as precise measures are seriously flawed: the testmakers admit two students' scores must differ by at least 125 points before they can reliably be said to be different due to measurement error in the test.
Examples of Misuse: Scholarships: Several states impose SAT minimum score requirements on students hoping to qualify for taxpayer-funded scholarships. Using cut-off scores for such high-stakes decisions is a clear violation of the testmakers' guidelines. This practice disproportionately impacts minority students who as a group tend to score lower than white students on the SAT. The result is these students lose out on millions of dollars in financial assistance.
National Merit Scholarships use Preliminary SAT (nearly identical to the SAT I) scores as the sole criterion to select semifinalists. The resultant pool has historically been predominantly male because boys score higher on the PSAT even though girls earn higher grades in high school (and college). In 1993, FairTest filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) charging the testmakers with illegally assisting gender bias. As part of a settlement with OCR, ETS and the College Board agreed to add a new multiple-choice "writing" component to the PSAT. This simple change in test format significantly increased the percentage of National Merit semifinalists who are female, but girls are still cheated out of a fair share of awards by bias in the unreformed portions of the exam.
NCAA Proposition 16: The National Collegiate Athletic Association denies athletic scholarships and interscholastic competition to first-year students whose SAT I or ACT scores fall short of a fixed score cutoff. Prop. 16, as the requirement is known, disqualifies a disproportionate number of otherwise academically qualified African Americans. A race discrimination lawsuit against the NCAA, filed by excluded student athletes, is now pending in federal court.
Gifted and Talented Programs: Many special programs for the "gifted and talented," such as the Johns Hopkins Center for the Advancement of Academically Talented Youth, use the SAT I or similar tests to select participants. Not surprisingly, girls and minorities are often underrepresented in these accelerated programs.
SAT Bias
The Gender Gap The SAT consistently underpredicts the performance of females in college and overpredicts the performance of males. Although females earn higher grades in high school and college, their SAT I scores were 39 points lower in 20002 (34 on the SAT-Math and 5 on SAT-Verbal). College Board research has shown that both the Verbal and Math portions of the test underpredict girls' college performance. A 1994 ETS study found that, on average, males scored 33 points higher on the SAT-Math than females who earn the same grades in the same college math courses. Analyses of SAT gender bias cite several causes including the test's emphasis on speed over sustained reasoning and its multiple-choice format. Mathematics tests in other countries that require solutions to long problems appeared unbiased with respect to gender.
Bilingual Students The speeded nature of the SAT imposes an unfair burden on students for whom English is not the first language. Research suggests that the SAT I does not predict Hispanic students' first-year college grades as accurately as it does white students' grades. One study found that even for bilingual students whose best language was English the SAT I underpredicted college performance.
Impact of SAT Use on Minorities African American, Latino, new Asian immigrant and many other minority test-takers score significantly lower than white students. Rigid use of SATs for admissions will produce freshman classes with very few minorities and with no appreciable gain in academic quality. The SAT is very effective at eliminating academically promising minority (and low-income) students who apply with strong academic records but relatively low SAT scores. Colleges that have made the SAT I optional report that their applicant pools are more diverse and that there has been no drop off in academic quality.
What's the Alternative? Several studies show that female and minority students who are aware of racial and gender stereotypes score lower on tests such as the SAT that purport to measure academic aptitude. One study defined this extra burden borne by some test-takers as "stereotype vulnerability," and warned that these findings "underscore the danger of relying too heavily on standardized test results in college admissions or otherwise."
The nearly 400 colleges and universities that already admit substantial numbers of freshman applicants without using any test scores have shown that class rank, high school grades, and rigor of classes taken are better tools for predicting college success than any standardized test. The ACT and SAT II are often viewed as alternatives to the SAT I. While they are more closely aligned with high school curricula, they are not necessarily better tests.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2092121) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2005 11:35 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig The SAT I IMPACTED on ALL Asian Americans, yet they achieve, despite obstacles.
Forget about the SAT I. How about the SAT II, LSAT, MCAT, Bar Exam or the USMLE for licensure to practice medicine?
Again,
I think you are in a state of denial of the facts.
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm
Need a Lawyer?
In 1988, New York State's Chief Judge established a committee, The New York State Judicial Commission on Minorities. Its purpose was to study the presence and effects of racism in the state's courts. Buried in its final 2000-page report was the finding that minorities passed the New York bar exam at significantly lower rates than whites. The commission found that for the period spanning 1985 through 1988, first-attempt pass rates were 31.1 percent for blacks and 73.1 percent for whites. Applying the methods of Appendix A, we translated these pass rates to a corresponding black-white mean difference of 1.11 SD.
Several years later, commenting on the Commission's findings, Edna Wells Handy wrote in The New York Law Journal of April 1996, "Determining whether those pass rates have remained constant since the Commission's report must await the completion and dissemination of the national bar exam study presently being conducted by the Law School Admission Council." Ms. Handy was referring to the most ambitious study of law students ever attempted. The Law School Admission Council is the organization that administers the Law School Admission Test (LSAT). At the time Handy's article appeared, it was tracking 27,000 students who enrolled in U.S. law schools in the fall of 1991. The students were followed from law school entry to the bar exam. The Council issued its report in 1998, finding that 92 percent of white law-school graduates passed the bar exam on the first attempt, as did 61 percent of black graduates. This implies a black-white mean difference of 1.13 SD.
The Council also reported the results of repeated attempts at the bar exam. It found that eventually 97 percent of white and 78 percent of black law graduates passed, corresponding to a black-white mean difference of 1.11 SD.
The one-plus SD gap between black and white lawyers stubbornly refused to go away. Others, however, viewed the Council's findings differently. "This study strongly refutes the myth that affirmative action policies tend to set students up for failure on the bar exam," hallucinated Henry Ramsey Jr., a retired California state judge and member of the committee that oversaw the study.
Tamar Lewin, covering the Council's report for the New York Times, characterized the Commission's findings as "likely to provide important support for advocates of affirmative action." Her column appeared under the headline: "Minorities Achieve High Success Rate in Bar Exams, Study Says."
The fact is that affirmative action has stratified the bar by race and ability. Black lawyers lag behind their white colleagues in measured ability by about 1.1 SD. Affirmative action creates a racial gap at law-school entry that never goes away. When entrance credentials are controlled, racial differences mostly vanish. More than 20,000 adult blacks in the U.S. have an IQ of 130 or more, but because of affirmative action, the chance that your black lawyer will be one of them is vanishingly small.
Need a Doctor?
Medical school admission is uncommonly competitive, there being many more applicants than slots. The competition is so intense that if black applicants were held to the same admission standards as whites and Asians, we would turn out almost no black physicians.
We now have a double standard for admission to medical school brought about by affirmative action. As a result, two tiers of American physicians have emerged separated by race and ability.
We have seen that law students admitted under affirmative action do not measure up to their white and Asian peers as law-school graduates. Can we say the same for doctors? We will quantify the performance gap for physicians.
A benchmark for medical competence is the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) Exam Part I. Every medical student in the US must pass it to become a physician. Students take the exam two years before graduation. It is one of several ways the profession keeps itself honest. The most comprehensive study of NBME pass rates was published in 1994 by Beth Dawson et al (JAMA 1994 272:9 674-9). The authors examined the performance of every medical student in the US taking the June exam for the first time over the years 1986, 1987 and 1988. Dawson and her colleagues found that white medical students passed the NBME test at a rate of 87.7 percent and blacks at 48.9 percent. Again, using methods described in Appendix A, we found these pass rates equivalent to a black-white mean difference of 1.19 SD. Mean differences for the bar and NBME exams are conspicuously similar. The one-plus SD gap does not yield easily.
Notably, when Dawson's study looked at entering students with similar academic credentials, the pass rates on the NBME exam were independent of race, pointing an accusing finger directly at affirmative action. For all its good intentions, affirmative action has created two levels of competence in American medicine, separated by a bit more than one standard deviation. When you are wheeled into the ER at 2:00 a.m., if you pray, pray that the black doctor who greets you entered medical school through the front door.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2092579) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 12:23 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Hey, trickmaster, you should give up with you twisting, spinning and misrepresenting my points, which is quite disingenuous of you.
I don't really care what standards for admission the adcoms use. Eliminate the SAT I totally. Use any criteria or standards the adcoms deem necessary for admissions, but leave RACE out as a factor for admission.
Race is NOT A STANDARD FOR ADMISSION.
You ar full of shit!
Eliminate the race box on the application form.
Stop the bullshit.
It's simple, you have not addressed any of my points, eXcept with BULLSHIT.
ELIMINATE THE SAT I TEST.
Use the SAT II tests then or any other standardized test.
But remember one thing, you cannot practice medicine, or law or enter any of the professions that requires a HIGH STAKES exam which requires a PASSING SCORE, no matter how you bullshit.
There is no such thing as a "passing score" on the SAT I.
If you cannot pass the Bar Exam for the practice of law or the USMLE in order to practice medicine, you are up shit's creek with your BULLSHIT. BTW, there is a direct correlation between the MCAT score and college GPA with performance in medical school and the passage of the USMLE, WHERE THE BUCK STOPS, BECAUSE THIS IS A HIGH STAKES EXAM.
IF YOU DON'T PASS, FORGET ABOUT PRACTICING MEDICINE.
YOUR BULLSHIT WON'T HELP. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2092956) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 2:31 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Trickmaster said, "Diversity in the United States is having the best of each race, because the country is formed by many races."
The best of the blacks are outperformed by the worse of the whites and asian Ams.
The rich black multi- millionaire college educated families have children who cannot compete on an equal basis with the POOREST Asian Americans and Whites from parents with less than a high school diploma. Forget about the lower middle and lower class blacks, because, as a group, they are EVEN MORE ACADEMICALLY DEFICIENT AND UNDERPREPARED. Race based AA does absolutely nothing for these poorer blacks, comprising the vast majority of of blacks in America.
Just think about this!! That's a fact that the flaming pro-race based AA liberals can't admit to or even acknowledge. They support this AA policy in denial of this to make them "feelgood", even though it may even do irreparable harm to underprepared blacks, while not attacking the main problem of poor k-12 education. Therefore, rich blacks from upper class families who are immigrants from the Carribean and Africa are the blacks that benefit from this demented and unjust policy, not the descendants of the African American slaves for whom AA was intended initially. The vast majority of blacks, about 70%, at Harvard are from middle and upper class recent immigrant families, who were not the object of the racist Jim Crow Laws in America. These economically privileged blacks were admitted with race preferences and lower academic standards ( lower SAT scores and GPAs, academic awards, etc..) than the rest of the class.
THE MAIN POINTS (POLITICALLY INCORRECT POINTS)
Re: Standardized Testing resuts
!. This would show that blacks from the highest income levels of $100k/year or more score lower than Asian Americans and Whites from the lowest income levels of $40k/year or less. The real question is simply, "How do you explain this? What are the reasons for this?
2. This would also show that blacks from parents with a college degree or more score lower on the SAT I that Asian Americans and Whites from parents will a high school diploma or less. Again, the real question is simply, "How do you explain this? What are the reasons for this?
3. The College Board had released these figures up to 1995 (I had given you the source for these figures from the CB), and they stopped afterwards because these facts were politically incorrect and damning for the pro-race based AA people, because they could not explain the disparity of scoring based on income alone or with parental education. There are many other factors involved, including cultural, sociological, psychological, and possibly "innate differences", to use Pres. Summers' own words in this instance, that may explain the differences between the races in scoring. Obviously, more research needs to be done, but just the mere mention of this to highlight the aformentioned facts from these SAT I testing results, previously released from the College Board, would bring forth charges of racism, which will do nothing to close the racial gap in testing and academic achievement.
Here's a link to verify the facts above:
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2093784) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 2:38 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Trick said, >> As for the "statistics", just refer to the post from NYCFan, a few weeks ago, where Collegeboard desperately tried to hide from the public its results. The results clearly show that SATs ACCURATELY correlate to income and class, NOT to INTELLIGENCE. <<
Yes, scoring does vary with income, but not at the same level of income and parental educational levels when disaggregated with race.
Click on:
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm
The Usual Suspects Writing about test scores in the November 1993 issue of The Atlantic Monthly, Duke University professor, Stanley Fish, renowned for scholarship in both law and literature, asserted: "Statistical studies have suggested that test scores reflect income and socioeconomic status. It has been demonstrated again and again that scores vary in relation to cultural background; the test's questions assume a certain uniformity in educational experience and lifestyle and penalize those who, for whatever reason, have had a different experience and lived different kinds of lives. In short, what is being measured by the SAT is not absolutes like native ability and merit but accidents like birth, social position, access to libraries, and the opportunity to take vacations or to take SAT prep courses."
Lani Guinier, Professor of Law at Harvard University, writing in the New York Times of June 24, 1997, argues, "But within every racial and ethnic group, test scores go up with family income. One explanation for this may be that students who come from better-off families can afford coaching for the test. Students from wealthier families also have other advantages. They are more likely to have been exposed to books and travel." We know that test scores go up with family income. They also improve with socioeconomic status. Both trends are observed within all ethnic and racial groups. But before you blame income and socioeconomic status for the test score gaps, consider this:
Black children from the wealthiest families have mean SAT scores lower than white children from families below the poverty line.
Figure 3 shows how math SAT scores increase with family income for both whites and blacks, confirming Professor Guinier. However, black students from families earning more than $70,000 (1995 dollars) score lower than white students whose families earned less than $10,000. Figure 4 shows more of the same for the verbal SAT. Here too, the wealthiest blacks score below the poorest whites. (Complete data can be found in Appendix B.)
As for "social position, access to libraries, and the opportunity to take vacations or to take SAT prep courses," consider this: Black children of parents with graduate degrees have lower SAT scores than white children of parents with a high-school diploma or less.
Figures 5 and 6 show, respectively, how math and verbal SAT scores for blacks and whites vary with parental levels of education. In both cases, black children of parents with graduate degrees score lower than white children whose parents have a high-school diploma or less.
When Professor Fish asserts that test scores reflect income and socioeconomic status, he is, of course, correct. We cannot conclude, however, as he does, that either is to blame for the black-white SAT gap. Figures 5 and 6, show that at every level of income and social advantage the gap exists. In fact, it remains remarkably constant when economic and cultural levels are controlled. Professor Guinier observes that within every racial and ethnic group, test scores go up with family income. Guinier leaves no doubt she is aware in detail of the SAT data. Her syllogism begins, ". . . students who come from better-off families can afford coaching for the test . . . They are more likely to have been exposed to books and travel." We are to complete it with: Minorities have less income and cultural exposure; therefore, minorities have lower scores.
More SAT data may be found in Appendix B. There, you will discover that Asians mostly sit on top of the heap; that whites, Mexican Americans and blacks follow in that order. Some details prove interesting. For example, whites enjoy a verbal advantage over Asians that disappears at high levels of income and social advantage. Regrettably, the College Board no longer discloses these data. In 1996, they stopped publishing performance by income and parental education disaggregated by race and ethnicity. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2093839) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 2:47 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Hey, Trick, CollegeBoard Stop Reporting by Race and Income Hey, Trick, the CollegeBoard stopped reporting by Race and Income because of the following facts which were POLITICALLY INCORRECT. READ THIS AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND WHY THE CB STOPPED!!
1. Black children from the wealthiest families have mean SAT scores lower than white children from families below the poverty line.
2. Black children of parents with graduate degrees have lower SAT scores than white children of parents with a high-school diploma or less.
High SAT scoring is NOT all about economic levels, family income, and parental educational.
The richest blacks from parents with graduate degrees can't outperform the poorest whites and Asians from parents with less than a high school degree.
Fact:
Race preferences in elite colleges DOES NOTHING to correct this inequity. It worsens it.
=====================================================
Again, Trick, get this through your thick skull:
THE MAIN POINTS (POLITICALLY INCORRECT POINTS)
Re: Standardized Testing resuts
1. This would show that blacks from the highest income levels of $100k/year or more score lower than Asian Americans and Whites from the lowest income levels of $40k/year or less. The real question is simply, "How do you explain this? What are the reasons for this?
2. This would also show that blacks from parents with a college degree or more score lower on the SAT I that Asian Americans and Whites from parents will a high school diploma or less. Again, the real question is simply, "How do you explain this? What are the reasons for this?
3. The College Board had released these figures up to 1995 (I had given you the source for these figures from the CB), and they stopped afterwards because these facts were politically incorrect and damning for the pro-race based AA people, because they could not explain the disparity of scoring based on income alone or with parental education. There are many other factors involved, including cultural, sociological, psychological, and possibly "innate differences", to use Pres. Summers' own words in this instance, that may explain the differences between the races in scoring. Obviously, more research needs to be done, but just the mere mention of this to highlight the aformentioned facts from these SAT I testing results, previously released from the College Board, would bring forth charges of racism, which will do nothing to close the racial gap in testing and academic achievement.
Here's a link to verify the facts above:
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm
Again:
1. Black children from the wealthiest families have mean SAT scores lower than white children from families below the poverty line.
2. Black children of parents with graduate degrees have lower SAT scores than white children of parents with a high-school diploma or less.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2093876) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 3:11 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Black Like Me: Winks and nods as admissions policy. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-kirsanow072803.asp
July 28, 2003, 8:45 a.m. Black Like Me Winks and nods as admissions policy.
By Peter Kirsanow
Who gets a preference?
Yes, we know that the Supreme Court permits selective colleges to award a "plus" to black, Hispanic, and Native-American applicants. But just who, exactly, qualifies as black, Hispanic, or Native American?
Absurd Supreme Court decisions can produce seemingly absurd questions. But as silly as the above query sounds, it's one courts have wrestled with for much of our history, particularly during the Jim Crow era. Fortunately, those days are gone. But now the Grutter case has once again revived the distasteful relevance of racial identification.
Colleges that award a plus to applicants from preferred minority groups confer a significant benefit — admission to an institution that can ease the pathways to success. Indeed, we're told by preference supporters that graduation from an elite school can add hundreds of thousands of dollars to one's income over the course of a lifetime.
The competition for admission to these schools is ferocious. Students struggle for years to compile the kind of GPAs, extracurriculars, and board scores that will increase the probability of admission. Yet each year, thousands of high-school seniors with stratospheric grades and scores are rejected by their schools of choice. Getting the "plus," a preference on the basis of an applicant's race, allows one to vault to the front of the admissions line. As a Center for Equal Opportunity study demonstrates, a black applicant to the University of Michigan is 174 times more likely to be admitted than his white counterpart. A Hispanic applicant is 133 times more likely to be admitted. Indeed, beyond an average level of qualifications, the plus/preference nearly guarantees admission to many select schools.
When the state dispenses a benefit on the basis of an individual's status, it requires validation of such status. Some of these benefits are arguably as valuable as the "plus"; others are not — but proof of eligibility is invariably required. For example, a person applying for Social Security disability must supply an array of information: names of treating physicians, types of treatments used to diagnose the disability, medications, etc. Applicants for driver's licenses must establish proof of age. And in New Hampshire, where the legally blind are entitled to free fishing licenses, an applicant must furnish the results of an eye exam approved by the state ophthalmologist.
The University of Michigan, however, requires no objective proof that an applicant is, in fact, eligible for the "plus" by virtue of being a member of a preferred minority group. Paragraph 11 of the Michigan Law School application states, in pertinent part:
[I]f one race or ethnicity that you think best applies to you. Your decision to answer or not answer this question will not influence law school's decision on admission.
American Indian/Alaskan Native — tribal affiliation American Indian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino Asian American/Pacific Islander White, not of Hispanic origin [emphasis added]
So the only "proof" of membership in the preferred class is mere self-identification. But self-identification presents at least two problems. The first is fraud. The Michigan Law application also contains the following certification:
I hereby certify that all statements and representations on this application and all accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I understand that false statements may result in revocation of an offer of admission or expulsion or rescission of my degree. [emphasis added]
So, if a white applicant is caught trying to improve his chances of admission by a multiple of 133 by claiming to be Hispanic, he could be expelled, or — if he isn't caught until he's already practicing law — his degree could be revoked.
Skepticism that either of the above scenarios would ever come about is understandable. After all, how many hypersensitive, politically correct college administrators would dare question a student's race?
But racial fraud is far more pervasive than some might suspect. Minority set-aside programs throughout the country have been marred by scandals involving fraudulent racial identification. And applicants for civil-service positions that accord racial preferences pursuant to consent decrees have also been known to fudge race.
One of the earliest and most publicized examples of the affirmative action era is the case of the Malone brothers. As Christopher Ford notes in his 1992 California Law Review article, "Administering Identities; The Determination of 'Race' and Race-Conscious Law," the Malone twins, white-skinned and fair-haired, took the 1975 civil-service test to become Boston firefighters. They self-identified as white and were not accepted because of low scores. Shortly thereafter, the Boston fire department became subject to a consent decree requiring preferences for black firefighter candidates. The Malones retook the test, this time identifying themselves as black. Although their scores weren't high enough for acceptance as white candidates, they did qualify under the standards for blacks — and were hired. They worked as Boston firefighters for the next ten years. Only when they came up for promotion did higher-ups notice that the Malones had identified themselves as black; they were duly fired for falsification. This prompted the Boston fire department to investigate nearly a dozen other cases of suspected fraudulent racial identification.
The second and more important problem concerns the colleges' critical-mass formulation. As I noted in an earlier article (see "Michigan Impossible"), the Supreme Court permits a selective college to award a plus to preferred minorities so that the college can reach a "critical mass" of such minorities. Critical mass is the fabled point at which the number of preferred minorities on campus causes the four purported benefits from diversity to flow: (i) breaking down racial stereotypes; (ii) promoting cross-cultural understanding; (iii) providing the exposure needed to prepare for the global marketplace; and (iv) promoting spirited classroom discussions.
The Court accords colleges a presumption of good faith in their use of racial classifications. In other words, the Court gives admissions officers the benefit of the doubt that their "critical mass" produces the educational benefits noted above.
Moreover, the Court allows the preference only because these educational benefits constitute a compelling state interest. Now, keep in mind that before Grutter, the only things that qualified as compelling state interests justifying the use of racial classifications were the remediation of actual instances of past discrimination and national security, i.e., pretty important stuff.
So reaching a college's critical mass can't be a matter a college treats cavalierly — otherwise it forfeits the presumption of good faith and its preference program is rendered unconstitutional.
And there's the rub. The presumption of good faith that entitles colleges to use racial preferences is revoked where the critical-mass calculation is a sham. And critical mass is necessarily a sham if college gatekeepers take no credible steps to ensure that they're actually admitting the "right" minorities to reach the critical-mass threshold.
The post-Grutter Internet is already bristling with calls for racial-identity rebellions designed to confound admissions offices. A few rogue applicants employing Malone-like tactics could easily scramble a college's critical-mass numbers. (And, presumably, the educational "benefits" of diversity would then be lost — racial stereotypes would abound, cultural ignorance would prevail, graduates would be unable to function outside the Ann Arbor market, and minority students would be suddenly struck mute).
But again, the more pressing issue is not about rampant racial fraud, but about numbers. For if we are to take seriously the diversity argument — that the mere presence of preferred minorities in certain numbers is intrinsically beneficial to the educational experience — then the question necessarily arises: Who does a college consider to be black, Hispanic, or Native American?
Is an applicant of Moroccan descent an African American entitled to a plus — or is he an Arab American, who gets none? Does an ethnic German applicant recently emigrated from Peru get a Hispanic plus? Does a white applicant with a black great-grandfather get an African-American plus? And why doesn't a native Hawaiian get a Native-American plus, as do Alaskan natives?
Admissions officers will be pleased to know that plenty of guidance is available to answer some of these questions. (The 1910 Louisiana case of State v. Treadaway, 126 La. 300, 52 So. 500, is a handy guide.)
There are scores of court decisions interpreting state laws regarding racial identity and school admissions. Prior to the 1950s, most states had statutes defining "blacks," "Negroes," "mulattos," and "coloreds." Those designated as such were excluded from white schools.
Some states employed the "one drop" rule — any black ancestor, however remote, rendered one black. Alabama held that anyone at least 1/32 black — i.e., who had at least one black great-great-great-grandparent — was to be excluded from white schools. North Carolina, on the other hand, only went back four generations.
The most common racial-identity statute considered anyone with at least one black great grandparent to be black. (Unfortunately for admissions officers, the law provides scant guidance as to who is a Native American or Hispanic, although a recent case in Seattle suggests that anyone with at least one Native-American great-great-grandparent qualifies as Native American.)
But what about Michigan? An old Michigan constitutional provision pertaining to "colored" school admissions provides little guidance. However, an 1880s Michigan marriage statute defines a "colored" person as anyone who is "wholly or in part of African descent." (Some anthropologists would point out that we're all, in part, of African descent. Arguably, then, everyone's entitled to a plus.)
How would the University of Michigan determine whether someone is "wholly or in part of African descent"? The court that heard the Malone brothers' wrongful discharge claim helpfully instructs that racial identity must be determined by one of three criteria: (i) visual observation of the claimant's features (they all, you know, pretty much look alike); (ii) documentary evidence (shades of antebellum race passbooks); or (iii) reputation in the community (according to Critical Race theorists, "inauthentic" blacks — you know who they are — don't count).
All of which raises the delightful prospect of an earnest college-admissions officer in the next racial-preferences court case explaining to the jury how he determined that Tiger Woods is not entitled to a plus because Tiger's black ancestry is cancelled out by his Asian genes.
Everyone knows we'll never see this vignette play out. But if student-body diversity is indeed a compelling state interest — on the level of national security — then colleges can't play fast and loose with the plus factor. They can't simply rely on the serendipity of racial self-identification to meet the all-important critical-mass threshold. Racial identity must be confirmed; otherwise, a college can never be certain it's reached its critical mass, and the diversity rationale would be revealed as just a transparent, albeit elaborate, hoax — a cynical mechanism to get some preferred minorities on campus.
The sad fact is that this is precisely what's going on, and everyone knows it. Even Justice Ginsberg suggests that colleges are simply arriving at predetermined numbers through "winks, nods, and disguises."
So, as long as colleges don't require proof of eligibility for the plus, we may one day see Prince William, pleased that his admission has helped the University of Michigan reach its critical mass, strolling across campus and wistfully reciting the old Langston Hughes poem:
Rest at pale evening... A tall slim tree... Night coming tenderly Black like me.
— Peter Kirsanow is a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2093951) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 9:23 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Hey, trick, Is Tiger Woods black? "All of which raises the delightful prospect of an earnest college-admissions officer in the next racial-preferences court case explaining to the jury how he determined that Tiger Woods is not entitled to a plus because Tiger's black ancestry is cancelled out by his Asian genes."
Tiger Woods is less than 1/8 black from his "black" father who is part Native-American and white German. Tiger is fully 1/2 Asian or "yellow". His mother is from Thailand, of ethnic Chinese origin. If anything, he is more Asian American than black, or anything else.
Now, here's another question for you, Trick. Is Michelle Wie, the world's greatest womem golfer prospect and child prodigy from Hawaii, Asian American or "yellow"?. Yes, she is full blooded Asian American with Korean born parents. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2094317) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 3:17 AM Author: coiffed base round eye OF COURSE TYOOU FUCKING CHINK GOOK YELLOW CHINK!!1 (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2093964) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 3:17 AM Author: coiffed base round eye Subject: ps im not drunk. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2093965) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 8:57 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig 1. Black children from the wealthiest families have mean SAT scores lower than Asian American and white children from families below the poverty line.
2. Black children of parents with graduate degrees have lower SAT scores than Asian American and white children of parents with a high-school diploma or less.
The College Board had released these figures up to 1995 (I had given you the source for these figures from the CB), and they stopped afterwards because these facts were politically incorrect and damning for the pro-race based AA people, because they could not explain the disparity of scoring based on income alone or with parental education disaggregated by race. There are many other factors involved, including cultural, sociological, psychological, and possibly "innate differences", to use Pres. Summers' own words in this instance, that may explain the differences between the races in scoring. Obviously, more research needs to be done, but just the mere mention of this to highlight the aformentioned facts from these SAT I testing results, previously released from the College Board, would bring forth charges of racism, which will do nothing to close the racial gap in testing and academic achievement.
Here's a link to verify the facts above:
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2094271) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 11:00 AM Author: Aphrodisiac toaster hero, just exactly what are you trying to prove?
That these kids should not be in college?
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2094564) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 11:45 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig ltorivia485 said,
>> That these kids should not be in college? <<
What kind of a question is this?? Where have you been for the last 800 posts?
Are you really that stupid or dumb?? I don't believe you even ask this.
We are talking about anti-Asian Am quotas in the ELITE COLLEGES, not preventing blacks from attending college. Blacks, even the underprepared and academically deficient, of which the majority of blacks are, have today, in the year 2005, more than ample opportunity to "be in college".
You are really DUMB and DUMBER. I feel sorry for you and Northwestern.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2094801) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 12:42 PM Author: Aphrodisiac toaster If you lift these so-called "anti-Asian quotas" don't you think that will affect the distributions of the class? If one section of a population increases, the OTHER section will have to decrease. It's called math. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2095107) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 2:08 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Racial Quotas are evil and never worked in history. The answer is that blacks or anyone else have ample opportunity to go to COLLEGE, especially the underprepared and academically deficient. They have this opportunity and anyone one else of any race have to the same opportunity to attend a college commensurate with their preparedness. There are lower tier colleges just for this purpose, which 98% of Americans, who received college degrees, attended, regardless of their race. The majority of them are white.
Admissions to the elite colleges is not about racial proportional representation of the general population with quotas. The study of rocket science is also not about proportional representation of the population.
You don't need rocket science to understand this.
What about the proportion of Jews in the Ivies at 25% and at 33% for Harvard? You have avoided my questions and skip and slide throught this with bullshit!! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2095528) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 11:58 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: ltorivia485- Think about this, if you are even capable of it . The rich black multi- millionaire college educated families have children who cannot compete on an equal basis, on the average, with the POOREST Asian Americans and Whites, on the average, from parents with less than a high school diploma. Forget about the lower middle and lower class blacks, because, as a group, on the average, they are EVEN MORE ACADEMICALLY DEFICIENT AND UNDERPREPARED.
Race based AA does absolutely nothing for these poorer blacks, comprising the vast majority of of blacks in America.
Just think about this!! That's a fact that the flaming pro-race based AA liberals can't admit to or even acknowledge. They support this AA policy in denial of this to make them "feelgood", even though it may even do irreparable harm to underprepared blacks, while not attacking the main problem of poor k-12 education. Therefore, rich blacks from upper class families who are immigrants from the Carribean and Africa are the blacks that benefit from this demented and unjust policy, not the descendants of the African American slaves for whom AA was intended initially. The vast majority of blacks, about 70%, at Harvard are from middle and upper class recent immigrant families, who were not the object of the racist Jim Crow Laws in America. These economically privileged blacks were admitted with race preferences and lower academic standards, on the average, ( lower SAT scores and GPAs, academic awards, etc..) than the rest of the class.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2094871) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 11:46 AM Author: coiffed base round eye ummmm.... ok. freak. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2094809) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 12:14 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Culov, Happy Chinese New Year to you!!
If you don't celebrate it, you will in the near future, because it will come to you soon. You will be celebrating, if you don't now. The "chinks or gooks" are a juggernaut in the global picture, with the fastest growing economy on earth, especially China, and you won't know the difference when they roll over you. Pity you.
I would advise you to learn how to speak Chinese or another Asian language, because you may never know when your livelihood may depend on it. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2094991) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 11:39 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Trickmaster is a LIAR!! >> That is not diversity, that is just screening out applicants based on their stats. How is that "diversity"? <<
Hero never said this, Tricks (aka sly, slimey, disingenuous, bullshitter, and LIAR!!). Your namesake is more than full of "tricks", trickmaster. You are full of shit!!
DON'T YOU EVER PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH, PARAPHRASE, MISREPRESENT, MISQUOTE OR LIE ABOUT WHAT I HAD SAID AGAIN, BULLSHITTER. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2094768) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 2:47 PM Author: geriatric histrionic parlour Subject: Should I email this thread to the Ivy adcom of yr choice? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2095749) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 4:38 PM Author: Aphrodisiac toaster Please do. So that they reject him outright for lack of character. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2096595) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 4:50 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig I received my degrees, undergraduate and graduate from an illustrious Ivy decades ago. I am not applying for admission to any Ivy or elite colleges.
Feel free to send this thread anywhere. This thread was meant for public consumption.
ltorivia485, you should talk about character, something which you lack. You know nothing about fairness, and being political correct in your admission to Northwestern, while identifying yourself as a URM, admitted with lowered standards relative to the rest of the class, from the upper middle economic class with college educated parents, shows absolutely, a lack of character. You displaced a much more derserving dirt poor white or Asian Am, who outperformed you and who overcame many more obstacles than you ever did, showing MORE CHARACTER than you would ever know.
Don't talk about character. You have none.
You should show this thread to the grad, law , med or other professional school adcoms, you intend to apply to, again with race preferences, but remember the buck stops at the high stakes exams, such as the Bar Exam and the USMLE for licensure in the practice of law and medicine. You can't enter the professions without passing the high stakes exams, if you are admitted to law or medical school with race preferences and lowered standards. YOU HAVE TO PASS WITH A PASSING GRADE. Political correct BULLSHIT won't help you here. The buck stops here. Less than 50% of blacks pass the USMLE and only about 40% pass the State Bar Exams compared to the Asian/white pass rates of 90%. This is a direct result of race-based AA. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2096657) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 4:54 PM Author: geriatric histrionic parlour Subject: Decades ago? Were you admitted as a fetus? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2096677) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 5:17 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Also, keep flaming this thread. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2096884) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 5:19 PM Author: geriatric histrionic parlour Subject: Yr not doing yr cause any good - (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2096903) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 5:31 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Happy Chinese New Year to you!! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2097001) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 5:45 PM Author: geriatric histrionic parlour Subject: Thank you What does one do to celebrate? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2097104) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 8:22 PM Author: Aphrodisiac toaster It's called 'hero' - one who has no life even though he's too old to know that. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2098271) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2005 10:27 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Keep the flame going! Happy Chinese New Year to you also!! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2099262) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2005 9:28 PM Author: Pink motley spot Subject: Sure, anything else? Are you able to keep it simple, for the sake of getting through at least ONE of the points of this debate?
I mean, lets pretend we were having this debate live, in person, sitting & discussing these matters formally at a conference table.
All I see coming from you is 300 boxes full of papers with unidentified sources and claims, and an excessive amount of personal attacks to each person who happens to have a point that disagrees with your beliefs.
Never EVER a straight or clear answer addressing a specific point, a tedious repetition of the same flawed, unfounded statistics putting Asians on a high pedestal, and a total unwillingness to clarify anything of what you've stated in your arguments (i.e. You claim you never said "diversity is the screening of applicants based on their stats") which true, you never said it with quite those words, but it was CLEARLY implied when you stated that Asians stats are way higher than anyone's, and therefore, Asians should occupy the spots of minorities, creating "true diversity". Is that not saying that diversity equals screening applicants based on their stats? By "Replacing minorities with high-scoring Asians and creating true diversity?"
And your second point justifying the "Asian-based diversity" where you state that Asians possess far more diversity than any other race and have overcome a lot more hardships and obstacles than ANY other race--making Asians win "hands down" in admissions--is the worst rubbish I've EVER heard. Where's the proof for that? Just by common knowledge, blacks are far better athletes than Asians, and most races have far more outgoing personalities/leadership qualities than Asians. In addition, blacks and Hispanics have much higher poverty and lower education levels than Asians, so your theory that Asians have overcome more hardships and obstacles is complete BS.
When you replied to my post addressing those issues, all you did is call me a 'liar' a 'bullshitter', and you NEVER EVER corrected or specified what you meant by TRUE diversity or by your implied statements asserting that Asians high scores and their dubious & unfounded superiority in "overcoming hardships", "personal qualities", "all-around achievements" made them the sole source of TRUE diversity. NOWHERE.
How can someone with your manners, inability to discuss with others, spitefulness and rudeness, could have been admitted at an Ivy League? (Short answer: High Stats.) Yeah, although I am not certain, all that seems worthy in you as a person appear be 2 numbers.
Yet, your goal of making those two numbers EVERYTHING that matters in university admissions is not going to materialize EVER, at least in this country. Nobody will listen to someone who writes like you, or who treats others like you. Good luck with your pursuit of Asian monopoly in US universities, I'm sure it will get nowhere. Not even Asians themselves share your thoughts, so you and Chin can dream about this ridiculous joke forever.
PS. If you're a successful Ivy grad, why are you writing your ideas in a college forum, instead of publishing them in other forms of media where they can reach the public? What, your writing doesn't make the cut anywhere? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2105609) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2005 11:58 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Trickster, you are simply a RACIST HYPOCRITE Trash, trickster. You spew trash.
Address the diversity of Harvard with 33% of its students being Jewish for just about 2% of the American population., or the diversity of UC Berkeley being 45% Asian American for just about 11% of California's population. They are both DIVERSE. Yet, you refuse to admit that the UC is diverse. Instead, you use RACIST epithets and the usual stereotypes against Asian American applicants. I have given the names of the studies at Brown and Stanford showing how their adcoms had used these biased and racist stereotypes against Asian Ams in admissions, which were exactly the same stereotypes formerly used against Jews when they were excluded or capped in the Ivies. The former director of admissions, Jean H. Fetter, admitted to the same and could not explain the Asian Am admit rates being 60% of the white admit rates and Stanford being stuck at less than 14% Asian Am for many years, despite increasing numbers of applicants. Stanford, however, eased its quota on Asian Americans from 14% in the early 1990s to 25% because of charges of discrimination against Asian Americans. Read the book, "Questions and Admissions:Reflections on 100,000 Admission Decisions ar Stanford" by Jean H. Fetter, Stanford U. Press, 1995.
All I see is you claiming that racial diversity is the justification for the anti-Asian American quota and not a Jewish quota. There is no longer a Jewish quota and there should not be an anti-Asian Amerkcan quota. I subcribe to NO RACIAL, RELIGIOUS OR ETHNIC QUOTAS. Racial diversity is synomynous with racial quota.
You are full of it (shit).
You insist on using your politically correct racist dogma against Asian Americans, you racist hyocrite. You have proven nothing!!
Asian Americans are the only non-preferred group in elite college admisions today, because of racist attitudes such as yours.
True diversity is not RACIAL, ETHNIC OR RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY ALONE OR PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION OF THE POPULATION!! This is your definition.
If that were the case, the 8 Ivies would NEVER BE 25% Jewish or Harvard 33% Jewish or UPenn 35% Jewish, or Columbia over 50% to 70% Jewish before WW II, when it became the first Ivy to abolish the Jewish quota. Columbia today is about 33% Jewish also. All these schools became DIVERSE and most excellent without the Jewish quota, yet the anti-Asian American replaces it. The Ivies would be MORE DIVERSE, AND MORE EXCELLENT, if the anti-Asian American quota were abolished!!
TRASH, YOU FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRITE!!!
Trickster, you are really a RACIST HYPOCRITE to the core!! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2106819) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2005 12:42 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Trickster, You are a LIARRRRR!! >> And your second point justifying the "Asian-based diversity" where you state that Asians possess far more diversity than any other race and have overcome a lot more hardships and obstacles than ANY other race--making Asians win "hands down" in admissions--is the worst rubbish I've EVER heard. Where's the proof for that? Just by common knowledge, blacks are far better athletes than Asians, and most races have far more outgoing personalities/leadership qualities than Asians. In addition, blacks and Hispanics have much higher poverty and lower education levels than Asians, so your theory that Asians have overcome more hardships and obstacles is complete BS. <<
More obstacles for Asian Americans? I did not say this and I didn't say "Asians possess far more diversity than any other race and have overcome a lot more hardships and obstacles than ANY other race--making Asians win "hands down" in admissions" Where the fuck did I say this, YOU FUCKING LIAR!!! C'mon, you are twisting, spinning and PARAPHRASING INCORECTLY AGAIN, because you are a liar too.
Trickster, I SAID THIS MANY TIMES BEFORE, YET YOU INSIST ON CONTINUING TO DO IT.
DON'T YOU EVER PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH, PARAPHRASE, MISREPRESENT, MISSTATE, AND MISQUOTE MY POSTS EVER AGAIN, YOU FUCKING LIAR. THAT'S YOUR MODUS OPERANDI, YOU FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRITE.
You have yet to deny that YOU ARE FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRITE!!
You have been exposed for your true self.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2107072) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2005 10:15 PM Author: Pink motley spot Subject: PATHETIC definition of Diversity By hero:
"Asian Americans are 20% of U.of Texas-Austin, while being 3% of Texas' population. The U.of Texas is DIVERSE!!"
This is the most outrageous, racist, ignorant and all-around STUPID statement I have ever heard from anyone in the history of affirmative action.
You are a CLEAR example that Asians with high stats can be absolutely WORTHLESS as human beings, and that their high stats will NEVER compensate for the character or integrity of a lower-scoring applicant, disregarding his race.
Even if you are a 1600, 4.0, with a well-padded resume, you are worth half a penny, and the only profession that might benefit from you would be math or something where human relations is not a must.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2106054) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2005 12:31 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Asian Ams are being admitted at HIGHER #s without the SAT I . >> You are a CLEAR example that Asians with high stats can be absolutely WORTHLESS as human beings, and that their high stats will NEVER compensate for the character or integrity of a lower-scoring applicant, disregarding his race.....Even if you are a 1600, 4.0, with a well-padded resume, you are worth half a penny, and the only profession that might benefit from you would be math or something where human relations is not a must. <<
ELIMINATE the SAT I test for admissions. Use whatever tests the adcoms deem necessary for admissions. Use the SAT II. The UC has already devalued the SAT I's usefulness and Asian Americans are being admitted at HIGHER numbers than before, from 40% to 45%. UC uses the "Comprehensive Review" with the use of holistic criteria such as CHARACTER, INTEGRITY, and the OVERCOMING OF OBSTACLES for admission.
Asian Americans are being admitted at HIGHER numbers, from 40% to 45%, with the "Comprehensive Review" at Berkeley, which includes admitting applicants for CHARACTER, INTEGRITY, and the OVERCOMING OF OBSTACLES. Do you know why?? Racial preferences are not used in admissions at Berkeley to cap Asian Am numbers..
Jews are still being admitted at factor of 15 times their 2% of the population (Jews are 33% of Harvard). Do you know why? Yes, because there is no more Jewish quota.
Who the FUCK are you to claim that the most stellar Asian American applicants don't have "character" and "integrity"?? Who made you holier than thou to even make a statement like this. You think you are God? Who the fuck are you???? Who gave you the power to proclaim that Asian Americans don't have "character" and "integrity". These same claims were formerly made against the Jews by the anti-Semites in the adcoms of the Ivies. You are actually using these racist groundless claims against Asian Americans in justifying your quota against Asian Americans.
JUST LISTEN TO YOUR FUCKING HYPOCRITICAL RACIST SELF.
You have yet to answer any of my points and you continue to spew your racist epithets and stereotypes against Asian Americans, USING YOUR BULLSHIT of RACIAL DIVERSITY (skin color, tone or hue) to justify anti-Asian American quotas.
You have not denied the existence of the anti-Asian Am quotas, the only limiting quotas against a racial group to exist in the Ivies and you proceed to attempt to justify them with "racial diversity". Asian Americans are "non-preferred", while blacks, Latinos, and whites are considered "preferred", simply because Asian Ams are overrepresented, with this racial engineering in admissions.
You are FULL OF SHIT.
Try imposing your cap or quota against Jews. Yes, by your racist reasoning, try imposing your cap against Jews. You won't, because you are a fucking racist HYPOCRITE. You conviently use your racism against one of the smallest and most talented applicant groups, filled with character and integrity, the Asian Americans. Your racist political correctness will come back and BITE YOU IN THE ASS soon. Sooner than later, you FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRITE!!
YOU ARE A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF RACIST.
You are so blinded by your racism against Asian Americans, that you cannot see the the light and how racist your comments are. I pity you.
BTW, racial quotas are unconstitional, immoral, and illegal, yet you condone caps and limiting quotas for Asian Americans, simply because you are a RACIST.
Racial preferences or quotas never worked in Nazi Germany, and Bosnia and they will never work in elite college admissions. They are evil and go against the basic tenets of our Constitution. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2107020) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2005 1:41 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> Even if you are a 1600, 4.0, with a well-padded resume, you are worth half a penny, and the only profession that might benefit from you would be math or something where human relations is not a must. <<
Math or something? Another racist stereotype from the racist, IGNORANT Trickster.
Asian Americans are over 10% of America's top law schools, including Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, U.of Chicago, etc.. They would be more than 10% of these law schools, were it not for quotas. Asian Ams are over 30% of Uc Berkeley Law and UCLA Law School, because there are no Asian Am quota. The Dean of America's most selective and most highly regarded and ranked law school, the Yale Law School, is an Asian American named Harold Koh, a Yale Law Professor and Harvard College and Harvard Law School graduate, of Korean ancestry, whose father also taught at Yale Law. Dean Harold Koh was a unaminous choice for Yale School and is an expert on International Law.
Asian Americans are over 10% of America's top business schools which give the MBA (Masters in Business Administration), which include Harvard, Wharton, Columbia, Stanford, UCLA, Northwestern (Kellog), MIT (Sloane) NYU (Stern), etc..
I remind you that Asian Americans are only 4% of the American population.
I could continue to DEBUNK Trickster's racist stereotypes, but not all Asian Americans are in math/science. They are more than well represented in other fields of endeavors including architecture, fashion, the literary and performing arts, divinity, the liberal arts, humanities, music and theatre, in addition to medicine (25% of American medical students are Asian American), dentistry, the pure sciences of phyics and chemistry, math and engineering.
They are even more than well reprented at West Point, where Asian Ams are 6% of the class, training to become America's military officers and America's leaders. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2107312) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2005 1:19 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Trickster, Happy Chinese New Year to you also. I advise you to learn to speak and read the Chinese language soon, because China is a juggernaut in the big global picture, with the fastest growing economy on earth and your livelihood may depend on it sooner than you think. If you don't learn, you will be run over by it. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2107245) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2005 1:37 AM Author: Curious Primrose Pisswyrm Don't get so cocky. Right now the only thing China is genuinely good at is making things cheaper. A lot cheaper. Despite its hefty growth, China has yet to create global companies. Japan has Sony and Toyota, among many others, South Korea has Samsung and Hyundai, but China...? There's an interesting Economist survey on this subject. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2107289) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2005 1:52 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Hey, Japan's development is but a microsm of China's impending development. The next war will be an economic war, between the two biggest economic giants of the world, America and China. Japan was in history an extension of China. Japan started by just "making things" even cheaper, but no more. They make it better, but more expensive.
Global companies are already in existence in joint ventures, such as the one with IBM, where the Chinese direct and develop their own company in joint venture holding the majority control. China is set to begin automobile production for global consumption in the very near future and they are already setup for this. I think they will release their new car to the world market witin a year, if I am not mistaken.
Global companies will come in due time. Remember, China's entry into the global picture is only recent, breaking out of its isolation. What they have accomplished in a very short period, took the West over a couple of centries to achieve.
But, we are getting off topic, the topic of anti-Asian American quotas in elite college admissions. The racist hypocrite, Trickster, supports this racist quota, while not saying a peep about the former anti-Jewish quota, because he/she is a FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRITE. He has yet to deny the existence of the Asian quota, but he continues to spew his racist garbage.
Keep flaming!! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2107361) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2005 2:26 AM Author: Curious Primrose Pisswyrm The fundamental difference between other Asian success stories and China is that China represents a fifth of the world's population. The world cannot support a China that consumes as much resources as Japan, America and other 1st world countries unless there is a revolution (in what, I cannot say). Sure, in absolute terms, China's economy will be dominant, but split per capita, it probably will never achieve America's level any time soon.
Remember that a healthy economy is one that can create new industries and innovate. America has been doing it for quite some time, keeping a nose ahead of everyone, and maybe China will achieve a information production econony sometime soon, which would be beneficial to the world. But this transformation takes more than heady growth, which, right now, is partially fuelled by overinvestment.
P.S. Of course there's an Asian quota, or more accurately, willful policies and screening procedures to limit Asian overrepresentation in our elite schools. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2107485) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2005 3:04 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >. P.S. Of course there's an Asian quota, or more accurately, willful policies and screening procedures to limit Asian overrepresentation in our elite schools. <<
Good, you admit this.
2/22/01 and 4/3/01 Brown Daily Herald Brown University Class of '05
16,500 applicants
Asian Americans: 20.3% of the applicants, 16% of the acceptances African Americans: 6% of the applicants, 9% of the acceptances Latino Americans: 7.1% of the applicants, 9% of the acceptances Whites and others: 66.6% of the applicants, 66% of the acceptances
2/12/01 The Daily Pennsylvanian (www.dailypennsylvanian.com): Asian American applicants represent 31% of the 19,086 applicants for the University of Pennsylvania’s Class of 2005 but only about 23% of the acceptances. UPenn accepts Asian Americans at a lower rate than any other group.
There is someting EVIL about this.
According to Lee Stetson, Dean of Admissions at UPenn, Asian Americans are "today's Jews". With all due respect to Jews, Asian Americans do not want to be "today's Jews", that to be limit by quotas.
Overrepresentation?
Jews are overepresented by a factor of FIFTHTEEN (15) at Harvard. Jews are the most overrepresented group at Harvard and the Ivies, yet you say that Asian Ams are overrepresented. The Asian overrepresentation pales next to JEWISH OVERRREPRESENTATION, yet there is no quota or willfull policy to suppress Jewish numbers.
I am against all quotas.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2107691) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2005 6:24 PM Author: Curious Primrose Pisswyrm I admit it? I never denied it in the first place. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2111332) |
|
Date: February 12th, 2005 12:57 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Right, but the anti-Asian Am quota is OK with you. It is not OK, nor is it moral, just, constitutional or legal.
That's unacceptable, and the anti-Asian American quota should be abolished. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2113899) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2005 3:17 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> The fundamental difference between other Asian success stories and China is that China represents a fifth of the world's population. The world cannot support a China that consumes as much resources as Japan, America and other 1st world countries unless there is a revolution (in what, I cannot say). Sure, in absolute terms, China's economy will be dominant, but split per capita, it probably will never achieve America's level any time soon. <<
Time will tell, but you can't assume anything. China, in its 5 thousand years of history, had been in a leadership role in its ancient past in innovation, inventiveness and ingenuity, and in the arts, philosophy, medicine, literature, and sciences, and culture in its highest form as recognized by all historians.
This modern period of a few decades is but as speck of sand in the hour glass of time in China's long history. Don't underestimate China, even with its problems with human rights and overpopulation. Its leaders are pragmatic, no matter what methods they use to achieve their goals and ends. Don't be too preumptuous.
But again, we digress from the OP's topic.
Address the OVERRPRESENTATION of Jews in the Ivies. I don't think the Ivies are less DIVERSE because of this, and I don't think Harvard will be less diverse if it were only 25% or 30% Asian Ams, with the removal of the anti-Asian quota. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2107753) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2005 2:06 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: This applies to you also, it's reality >> Trickster, Happy Chinese New Year to you also. I advise you to learn to speak and read the Chinese language soon, because China is a juggernaut in the big global picture, with the fastest growing economy on earth and your livelihood may depend on it sooner than you think. If you don't learn, you will be run over by it. << (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2107401) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2005 2:49 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Learning It from American Jews and Those in Power READ THIS AGAIN.
Learning It from American Jews and Those in Power
Learning It from American Jews and Those in Power
(From Arthur Hu and The American Cause)
Jews were 21 percent of the Ivy League vs. 1.5 percent of the college-age population (14 times overrepresentation) and the figure is higher at the graduate level (at Yale, for example, 60 percent of graduate students are Jewish - an astonishing figure). Asians are about 16 percent (4 times overrepresentation) and let's double that for Chinese and maybe Indians as well. (1999 Princeton Review Best 331 Colleges and the Hillel Guide to Jewish Life on Campus.)
More than a tenth of college professors are Jewish, and that figure rises to about 30 percent at elite schools. According to Alan Dershowitz in his book, The Vanishing American Jew, 76 percent of the 200 most influential intellectuals are of Jewish background.
About 40 percent of the lawyers at the most prestigious New York and Washington law firms are Jewish. In addition, 23 percent of the 500 wealthiest Americans are Jewish and about 85 percent of college-age Jews are in college (this is from Seymour Martin Lipset, a highly respected, but ridiculously centrist and un-innovative, sociologist).
George W. Bush opposes "quotas," even though it was fine for him to get into Yale with a C average, so that "rich quota" was fine and it works for his daughter. Bill Clinton, from an Arkansas single-parent family married Hillary Rodham, who attended Yale law School with Bill. Hillary was from a wealthy Illinois family and graduated from Wellesley College. Not to take any credit from President Clinton of his achievements, but Mrs. Clinton’s family and his roots at Yale and Georgetown contributed significantly to his success throughout his career. Jack Welsh, the retired CEO and Chairman of one of world's largest and most respected companies - General Electric, earned his PhD in chemical engineering from Illinois. He handpicked successor, Mr. Jeff Immelt, who holds a B.S. degree in Liberal Arts with a major in Applied Mathematics from Dartmouth College and an MBA from Harvard University.
“Harvard and the Ivy League have become the major access roads to power in America, and these roads are being closed off to ethnic Catholics and white Christians,” cried Pat Buchanan.
A few years back, Pat Buchanan’s view was echoed by a Harvard graduate, Ron Unz, who wrote in the Wall Street Journal about the admissions policies at his alma mater and the student body it produced: “With affirmative action for preferred minorities and set-asides for children of alumni and faculty, foreign students, and athletes, Harvard's student body, said Unz, had begun to look like the Greenwich Village Democratic Club. According to Unz, 15 percent of Harvard's student body is Hispanic or black, 20 percent is Asian, 25 to 33 percent is Jewish, but only 25 percent comes from that 75 percent of America that is white and Christian. Christians are being frozen out of the elite schools that control the access to power in a nation that Christians, primarily, built.
However, in challenging this Ivy League bigotry, Republicans have shown all the courage of Larry Summers. Nevertheless, Congress ought to demand that the Department of Education require all Ivy League schools to report annually on the religious and ethnic composition of their faculties and student bodies, and, if Unz's percentages hold, should be asked what they are doing to end this discrimination. After all, if it is illegal for Irish cops to get their kids preferences, why is it OK for Harvard professors?” Regardless the fact of 70% white American presence at Ivy schools, Ron Unz’s number on Asian American’s Ivy school presence typified today’s bashing on Asian Americans. And what really matters here is that he is advocating that Ivy schools to admit student based on % of population and not by merit. There is definitely a confused issue of affirmative action on ivy school admissions.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2107606) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2005 3:33 AM Author: Chestnut Effete Resort "Virginia Y. Kim, for instance, is a lawyer in Chicago who grew up in an affluent, suburban Cleveland Korean-American family with what she called "the traditional Asian education ethos." She said she has heard complaints like Chin's all her life and her response has always been, "Who said life was fair?" "
I hate you.
and to the other girl who said she wanted to explore other cultures and groups. Be fucking realistic. I bet you she hangs with the same group of kids every freaking day and doesn't get any culture. Seriously I see it everywhere. Everyone sticks to the same damn people all the time. There is no way of getting around the cliques. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2107796) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2005 3:39 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig "Who said life was fair?" "
The Constitution said life has to be "Fair" under the 14th Amendment with equal access without regard to race, creed, color or religion.
If it is fair for the Jews, and the whites, then it should be fair to the Asian Americans also. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2107817) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2005 4:04 AM Author: Chestnut Effete Resort it doesn't have to be fair just equal opportunies. We all don't start in the same point in life (in relating to wealth). (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2107857) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2005 4:14 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Some of the poorest in America are Asian Americans. It is all relatve.
Racial preferences does nothing for the opportunities of poor blacka, only rich academically deficient and underprepared blacks.
There are almost 4000 colleges in America, and there is AMPLE opportuniy for for blacks, or anyone of any race to attend college. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2107869) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2005 4:20 AM Author: Chestnut Effete Resort Yes there are poor Asian Americans however, they still tend to do better than poor blacks and even middle class blacks.
Racial preferences allows blacks to move up in life (so-called) and to become better citizens as a whole. Sure we screw over a few Asians and whites but several years down the road income and education inequality should level its way so that there is more equality for all races. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2107878) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2005 4:33 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> Racial preferences allows blacks to move up in life (so-called) and to become better citizens as a whole. Sure we screw over a few Asians and whites but several years down the road income and education inequality should level its way so that there is more equality for all races <<
You really don't know what you are talking about.
BTW, discriminating or "being unfair" against Asian Americans, or blacks, or whites, or latinos, because of their race is UNCONSTITUTIONAL , IMMORAL, UNJUST, EVIL, DEMENTED AND MOST OF ALL, ILLEGAL
You sound as if you are FUCKING STUPID in your statements. You simply do not know what you are talking about, by saying that it is OK to discriminate and to be "UNFAIR" to Asian Ams.
You are too fucking stupid to say this. Goodnight. You are a waste of time.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2107899) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2005 4:36 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig From the OP and Jay Mathews article in the Washington Post:
On Chin's side, however, was Arun Mantri, who was born in India and has children at a very selective public school, the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Fairfax County. He said it was wrong that high-quality Asian students at that school were being rejected by top colleges. "Their chances would improve dramatically if race was not used as a factor in admissions, perhaps at the cost of the white applicants, something that only a few selective schools have dared to do," he said.
Also supporting Chin's argument was a member of one of the minority groups that tends to get more of a break in college admissions than Asian Americans do. Paul Grandpierre described himself as "a first generation Haitian American from a really poor family who managed to graduate law school." He said he thought affirmative action was better than doing nothing about the "inclination of the human heart to rationalize superficial differences into fundamental differences." But, he said, "I agree with Mr. Chin that today, affirmative action should focus on the poor and not merely on blacks. . . . I can tell you that from my experience that being poor presented more powerful obstacles to my unlikely ascent than being black."
Chin also had support from non-Hispanic white readers. Jeff Werthan said it was paternalistic and patronizing for me to suggest that "a hard-working and brilliant Asian student and his or her family . . . should be satisfied with the other admittedly good schools out there if they are otherwise deserving of admission to Harvard or Yale."
A white reader, who declined to let me use his name because he does not want to offend the university that employs him, said his experience as an admissions officer confirms Chin's sense of unfairness. "What scares the top colleges is what their campuses might look like, racially speaking" if they followed Chin's suggestion and rejected middle-class African American and Hispanic students in favor of higher-scoring, low-income Asians. They fear, he said, "the sort of intense heat they'd take for the presumed drop in 'diversity.'"
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2107903) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2005 3:35 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Trick said, "So, saying that all those Asians are being unfairly denied a spot at HYP because they all have "higher stats" means nothing. The stats is only one portion of the deal. "
Asian Americans have more than just high stats. They have much more. I have given studies from Stanford and Brown stating otherwise.
I HAVE GIVEN YOU THE STUDIES. FIND THEM AND READ THEM. STOP WITH YOUR BULLSHIT!
I posted the following before to rebut your racist stereotypes:
Studies (done internally when charges of bias were presented) at Brown and Stanford have clearly disputed the stereotyped image of an Asian American applicant as being "one dimensional" with no extracurricular activities except for music. This image only existed in the biased views of the some of the admission officers. These studies have shown that there was an unexplained bias in admissions and in fact, the Asian American group appeared better prepared by any standards used, yet had only a 60% to 70% admission rate compared to the white applicant group at Stanford. The Admissions Dean of Stanford could not explain the disparity, but at least she admitted that there was one. Many of the heads and admission officers of the elite schools don't even acknowledge that the problem even exists.
The Asian applicants were better prepared than the white group, yet have a lower admission rate. Stanford's Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid
discovered, after an inquiry, that between 1982 and 1985 Asian Americans were one-third less likely than whites to be offered admission, even though they were on average better prepared than white applicants. Annual Report f CUAFA, Stanford University, 1986, reprinted in "Campus Report", November 12, 1986.
Some admissions officials have complained that Asian Americans tend to be lacking in extracurricular and personal qualities, which universities consider along with grades to ensure that they get well-rounded individuals. But there is no systematic evidence to this; indeed a report by the Corporation Committee on Minority Affairs (CCMI) at Brown, established to investigate charges of anti-Asian discrimination, found such assumptions to be the result of "cultural bias and stereotypes which prevail in the admissions office." In the early 1980s, these attitudes contributed to a 14% acceptance rate for Asians, who are on the average the best qualified applicants to Brown, compared to the other students who averaged an acceptance rate of 20%. See Report of CCMI, Brown University, February 1984. Between 1978 and 1986, there was a 430% increase of Asian Americans applying to Brown, but the number of these students remained fairly constant. Grace Tsang, "Equal Access of Asian-Americans", "Yale Law Journal", January 1989, pp. 659-78.
YOU ARE SO FULL OF SHIT BY MISREPRESENTING MY POSTS.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2107804) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2005 4:13 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Regarding "racial diversity" = racial quota. This violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
1/23/04 Seattle Post Intelliger: “Bill would allow universities to consider race in admissions,”
Olympia -- Legislative proposals to incorporate race as a factor in admissions to Washington's public universities is necessary to help diversify the state's student body and its work force, a Senate panel was told yesterday.
[translation without liberal bias: There are too many Asian-Americans and not enough blacks and Hispanics. Therefore, let's engage in reverse discrimination against Asian-Americans]
All 15 individuals who testified before the Higher Education Committee gave resounding support to the measures.
With Senate Bill 6268 and its companion, House Bill 2700, legislators and Gov. Gary Locke hope to incorporate the language of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling into Washington state law. The nation's high court ruled that race could be considered in admissions.
"This bill is about providing flexibility to our public universities and colleges in evaluating their applicants for admission individually, taking into consideration all of the factors, attributes and experiences of an applicant," said Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle.
[translation without liberal bias: There are too many Asian-Americans and not enough blacks and Hispanics. Therefore, let's engage in reverse discrimination against Asian-Americans]
The bills would amend Initiative 200, which state voters approved in 1998.
I-200 expressly prohibited the government from discriminating against or giving preference to individuals based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.
If lawmakers approve the plan, public universities would be able to take into account race, color, ethnicity and national origin when admitting students. However, colleges and universities would be prohibited from using quotas or set-aside slots specifically for students of color.
"There is nothing wrong with examining all the background characteristics of a student," said Sen. Don Carlson, R-Vancouver, chairman of the panel. "It absolutely does not violate the citizens' decision in the passage of Initiative 200."
At the hearing, Sen. Cheryl Pflug, R-Maple Valley , raised several concerns about the language of the bill. She questioned why the bill left out admissions policies allowing sex as a factor as well.
Pflug also questioned the bill's vague definition of "diversity."
"They are allowed to use race to create some kind of diverse atmosphere but what does that mean?" asked Pflug. "More of a particular race, less of a particular race, what constitutes diverse?"
[translation without liberal bias: There are too many Asian-Americans and not enough blacks and Hispanics. Therefore, let's engage in reverse discrimination against Asian-Americans]
The Washington Policy Center, a non-profit research organization for limiting government involvement, opposes the new proposals saying they go against the voters' decision for I-200 blocking unequal treatment of applicants because of their race.
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, numbers of minority Washingtonians are rising. The Hispanic population is the largest minority population with 441,509 members followed by 322,335 Asians, 190,267 blacks, 93,301 American Indians and Alaska natives and 23,953 native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders.
Of the approximately 5.9 million residents of Washington , the Hispanic population composed about 7.5 percent in the 2000 Census. But 2003 Hispanic enrollment in the University of Washington 's graduate and professional programs was only 2.9 percent. Overall, enrollment in the graduate and professional programs was 14 percent minority students, according to Julia Harrison, president of UW's Graduate and Professional Student Senate.
[translation without liberal bias: There are too many Asian-Americans and not enough blacks and Hispanics. Therefore, let's engage in reverse discrimination against Asian-Americans]
Representatives from major higher learning institutions across the state testified in support of the senate bill.
Representatives from the University of Washington, Washington State University, The Evergreen State College and Centralia College stated their need to factor race in their admissions policies to attain a more diversified student body. Delegates said new policies would enhance learning and educate a varied future work force.
[translation without liberal bias: There are too many Asian-Americans and not enough blacks and Hispanics. Therefore, let's engage in reverse discrimination against Asian-Americans]
Since 1999, the University of Washington admissions policy promoted the diversity of students without looking at race.
The UW's total student enrollment increased by about 4,000 students since 1998, but numbers of underrepresented students declined in most cases, according to Tim Washburn, UW assistant vice president for enrollment services.
[translation without liberal bias: When selection was color blind, the number of Asian-Americans increased. Therefore bigots for the left have been engaging in reverse discrimination against Asian-Americans for 20 years. There are too many Asian-Americans and not enough blacks and Hispanics. Therefore, let's engage in reverse discrimination against Asian-Americans]
"Although we've maintained numbers in some areas, the proportion of students in almost all of the underrepresented areas has declined," said Washburn.
[translation without liberal bias: When selection was color blind, the number of Asian-Americans increased. Therefore bigots for the left have been engaging in reverse discrimination against Asian-Americans for 20 years. There are too many Asian-Americans and not enough blacks and Hispanics. Therefore, let's engage in reverse discrimination against Asian-Americans]
Minority admissions declined after the passage of I-200. Numbers have since gradually increased.
[translation without liberal bias: When selection was color blind, the number of Asian-Americans increased. Therefore bigots for the left have been engaging in reverse discrimination against Asian-Americans for 20 years. There are too many Asian-Americans and not enough blacks and Hispanics. Therefore, let's engage in reverse discrimination against Asian-Americans]
Representatives from the State Board of Health and the Washington State Hispanic Bar Association of the King County Bar Association testified to the rising need for diverse employees.
The percentage of Hispanics working in the legal profession does not match those using the legal system, according to Joaquin Hernandez of the Washington Hispanic Bar Association of the King County Bar Association.
[translation without liberal bias: When selection was color blind, the number of Asian-Americans increased. Therefore bigots for the left have been engaging in reverse discrimination against Asian-Americans for 20 years. There are too many Asian-Americans and not enough blacks and Hispanics. Therefore, let's engage in reverse discrimination against Asian-Americans]
Last June the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two related decisions affecting the way public universities admit students, particularly students of color.
The court decided 5-4 to uphold the University of Michigan 's law school's affirmative action policy. This policy took race into account but did not include quotas or point systems in which minority applicants were given a set number of additional points.
But the justices struck down the university's freshman admissions policy 6-3 regarding the handling of applicants' race. At that time, the freshman minority applicants were given additional points on the admission rating scale. The court said this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2110368) |
|
Date: February 12th, 2005 9:31 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Trickster is at a lost for words. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2114849) |
|
Date: February 12th, 2005 2:43 PM Author: Pink motley spot Sure, at a loss. But not for words, rather for your point. It seems like you can't explain anything without citing 300 pages of Asian accomplishments and restating that they create diversity. No matter how many times you repeat it, you don't have a point. Asians cannot create true diversity all by themselves. They contribute to it, but the other races are required to create a balanced class, so Asian predominance will never be a positive trait of any college or university. Get over it for once. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2115565) |
|
Date: February 12th, 2005 7:07 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> No matter how many times you repeat it, you don't have a point. Asians cannot create true diversity all by themselves. They contribute to it, but the other races are required to create a balanced class, so Asian predominance will never be a positive trait of any college or university. Get over it for once. <<
The same racist reasoning you use against Asian Americans, which spans the whole spectrum of "Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders" as defined as a demograghic group by the US Census Bureau and these colleges, was used against Jews in justifying their quotas in the Ivies.
Trickster, you are a fucking racist hypocrite. Thes are the words that best decribe you.
Why don't you spew your racist justification for limiting quotas to the Jews?? You would not. Why?? Because you a FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRITE, SPEWING RACIST EOITHETS AGAINST ALL ASIAN AMERICAN, INCLUDING SOUTH ASIANS FROM INDIA, WHO HAVE DARK SKINS ALSO.
This will be your downfall!!
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2116922) |
|
Date: February 12th, 2005 7:08 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Trickster, you are a fucking racist hypocrite. Thes are the words that best decribe you.
Trickster, you are a fucking racist hypocrite. These are the words that best decribe you.
Trickster, you are a fucking racist hypocrite. These are the words that best decribe you.
Trickster, you are a fucking racist hypocrite. These are the words that best decribe you.
Trickster, you are a fucking racist hypocrite. These are the words that best decribe you.
Trickster, you are a fucking racist hypocrite. These are the words that best decribe you.
Trickster, you are a fucking racist hypocrite. Thes are the words that best decribe you. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2116935) |
|
Date: February 12th, 2005 7:08 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Trickster, you are a fucking racist hypocrite. Thes are the words that best decribe you.
Trickster, you are a fucking racist hypocrite. These are the words that best decribe you.
Trickster, you are a fucking racist hypocrite. These are the words that best decribe you.
Trickster, you are a fucking racist hypocrite. These are the words that best decribe you.
Trickster, you are a fucking racist hypocrite. These are the words that best decribe you.
Trickster, you are a fucking racist hypocrite. These are the words that best decribe you.
Trickster, you are a fucking racist hypocrite. Thes are the words that best decribe you. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2116936) |
|
Date: February 12th, 2005 9:39 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig But again, we digress from the OP's topic.
Address the OVERRPRESENTATION of Jews in the Ivies. I don't think the Ivies are less DIVERSE because of this, and I don't think Harvard will be less diverse if it were only 25% or 30% Asian Ams, with the removal of the anti-Asian quota.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2118192) |
|
Date: February 12th, 2005 11:04 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Jay Mathews of the Washington Post, Oct. 12, 2004 said,
[But there is one part of his argument, a reference to a sad era in American history, that is hard to ignore. Many selective colleges before World War II had quotas on Jews. They turned down many brilliant applicants in favor of non-Jewish prep school students with lesser records. They didn't call this striving for diversity, but it was a perverse form of affirmative action, and it left a bitter taste for decades.]
[Chin calculates that with those quotas gone, about a third of Harvard undergraduates are Jews, who make up about 3 percent of the U.S. population. About 17 percent of Harvard undergraduates are Asians, who make up about 4 percent of the population. Since the percentage of Asian Americans at schools of comparable quality that do not practice affirmative action are much higher -- 40 percent at Berkeley, 50 percent at selective New York high schools such as Stuyvesant -- Chin says the Asian American percentage at Harvard and other Ivies would go up significantly if the rules were changed.]
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2114929) |
|
Date: February 12th, 2005 2:03 PM Author: exciting circlehead Hero you're a fucking idiot.
XOXO HTH.
Colleges want diverse classes based on academics, values, interests, goals, etc.
The experience of being black in America is -An experience most elite colleges want in their classes -An experience only black students bring to the table -An attribute that applies to black students of all socioeconomic classes
The same can be said of a variety of other favored peoples (legacies, Iowans, etc.)
As long as Harvard/Yale/Princeton want these non-academic attributes, race will and should be a factor in admissions.
Given Harvard is the strongest advocate of affirmative action in the country (The Harvard College admissions policy is the basis of most affirmative action jurisprudence), why do you want access to Harvard? If you are that principled, boycott Harvard by not concerning yourself with it.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2115389) |
|
Date: February 12th, 2005 6:53 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> As long as Harvard/Yale/Princeton want these non-academic attributes, race will and should be a factor in admissions....Given Harvard is the strongest advocate of affirmative action in the country (The Harvard College admissions policy is the basis of most affirmative action jurisprudence), why do you want access to Harvard? If you are that principled, boycott Harvard by not concerning yourself with it. <<
It is not only Harvard, but the 8 Ivies and the 100 or so elite colleges in America. There is a "cascade" effect.
The jury is still out on this one, and there certainly will be more US Supreme Court cases, striking down the 5 to 4 decision of the U.of Michigan Law School case allowing the use of race as a factor. However, it did not allow the use of race as the main factor in admission, as it so often occurs, making all other factors including objective factors almost irrelevant for blacks admitted with the race preference , just in order to get warm black bodies in elite schools, no matter what.
Political correctness stifling dissenting opinion will be your downfall. BTW, read the DISSENTING opinions on the recent US Supreme case.
Back to the PO's topic, the court decided 5-4 to uphold the University of Michigan 's law school's affirmative action policy. This policy took race into account but did not include quotas or point systems in which minority applicants were given a set number of additional points.
Abolish the limiting quotas against Asian Americans. If these schools do not, they schould also cap the whites or the Jews. They won't because you and these schools are FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRITES.
I am against all racial quotas. They are against the basic tenets of our constitution.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2116812) |
|
Date: February 12th, 2005 7:19 PM Author: Aphrodisiac toaster And what about the concurring opinions?
What about the opinions from Bakke v. University of California Regents? "Race" can still be a factor.
Cringe all you want. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2117005) |
|
Date: February 12th, 2005 8:32 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Right, concurring opinions with the swing vote, Justice Sandra O'Connor, stating that race should only be used for 25 more years. Well, it has been over 40 years, and race preferences have done nothing to close the racial gaps, but only to benefit academically underprepared and academically deficient affluent blacks with race based AA, by lowering the bar for them in admissions, leaving the poor blacks who are even MORE academically underprepared and deficient out in the cold. Race based AA is a "feelgood" measure for the flaming guilt-ridden white liberals and the professional black victimologists, who make a living on this. It solves absoulutely nothing and it fact widens the racial gaps in academic achievement by not addressing the real underlying problems of poor k-12 school performance. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2117585) |
|
Date: February 12th, 2005 9:08 PM Author: exciting circlehead The court decided 7-2 in Grutter that diversity is a compelling state interest and that race can be used in admissions.
The majority lost two votes (Kennedy and Rhenquist) because they thought the Michigan LS program wasn't narrowly tailored enough. However, there still are 7 votes for diversity, and it is now official law that diversity is a state interest.
AA is on strong footing, hero. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2117959) |
|
Date: February 12th, 2005 9:19 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig The Court decided against racial quotas in Grutter.
The Court decided that the use of race was permissible in the U.of Michigan Law School case in a 5 to 4 decision, with Justice O'Connor as the swing vote, voting in favor by stating that this should not last for more than 25 years. I seriously doubt it will go another 25 years. Until the next case, AA is politically correct, but the nature and mood of the US Supreme Court will change with the mood of the American people. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2118047) |
|
Date: February 12th, 2005 9:19 PM Author: Aphrodisiac toaster You want to know how to fix urban education?
Take economics, sociology, psychology and history.
That should help you. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2118043) |
|
Date: February 12th, 2005 9:33 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Yeah, fix URBAN EDUCATION, from k-12 first. Dirt poor Asian Americans and whites are also students in these urban schools, mainly in the black and latino ghettos. You want to see "urban schools". Come to NYC and get your education. Here you will see Asian Americans sitting in the same classrooms, being taught by the same teachers, with the same obstacles of poverty and low parental education, while living in the same buildings and poor housing as blacks and latinos, yet Asian Americans outperform their black and latino classmates and neighbors. They even outperform blacks and whites in the most affluent neighboorhoods. This performance and achievement is ALL RELATIVE.
Check the NYC School Report Cards for each school in very district in NYC, and you will find that the poorest Asian Americanss outperform their black and latino classmates in testing, attendance, and graduation rates in THE SAME SCHOOL. This data is disaggregated by race and ethnic group in EVERY SINGLE SCHOOL IN NYC. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2118157) |
|
Date: February 12th, 2005 9:39 PM Author: Aphrodisiac toaster It does not mean that non-Asians are stupid.
Asian-American culture has always placed an extremely high value on prestige and education.
Now where are those Asians on the basketball court and other sports? If Asians are so "smart" they should be excelling in sports too eh? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2118194) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 8:26 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Another racist and stereotypical comment ltorivia485 said, >> Now where are those Asians on the basketball court and other sports? If Asians are so "smart" they should be excelling in sports too eh? <<
This is simply another racist comment.
Did you see the last Summer International Olympics?
You should also go the the next Summer International Olympics in Peijing, China to see who is excelling in sports on the world stage.
You are so fucking IGNORANNNNNT!!
Dumb and Dumber.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2120843) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 10:26 AM Author: Aphrodisiac toaster America only please. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2120901) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 8:46 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig ltorivia485 said, >> It does not mean that non-Asians are stupid. <<
Nobody said anyone was "stupid".
But there is obviously something wrong. The root cause of black underperformance may very well have to do with "black culture" or blacks NOT taking responsibility for their own destiny, rather than their life-long dependency on others and their culture of victimology or playing the perpetual victim, which even includes the affluent blacks from parents with college degrees.
You have every excuse in the book for black underperform and underachievement. I personally do not accept the one excuse that blacks are "stupid". I do blame their culture, where they have a 90% out-of-wedlock birth rate in black communities such as Harlem, NYC. Check out the in obstetrics department's stats at Harlem Hospital. That is inexcusable, because this makes for dysfunctional families, absent fathers, or absent mothers and fathers with child abandonment. There is also black on black crime, drug and alcohol addiction, AIDS, the lack of the traditional family values of respect for education. You could go on and on.
Blacks will have to CHANGE THEIR CULTURE in order to succeed and no form of race preference in elite college admissions will do this for blacks. There must be a drastic CULTURE CHANGE FOR BLACKS. Race preferences for affluent blacks only worsens the problem and you are only fooling yourself.
Race preferences for academic defiecient and underprepared affluent blacks, by lowering the bar for admissions to elite colleges, does absolutely nothing to close the educational gaps for the poor blacks, because they are in shit's creek. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2120848) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 10:15 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: No, it does not mean that non-Asians are stupid. Read this again,
From
http://www.nationalreview.com/15sept97/hu091597.html
AMERICA'S SCHOOLS
EDUCATION AND RACE
The performance of minority students in affluent areas refutes the prevailing educational shibboleths.
[Economic and race-based interventions have never been shown to achieve the equality that was set as their justification in the first place. After all, the numbers that matter are not the percentage of blacks on the staff or in the classroom, but grade point average, reading and math test scores, and hours spent on homework and attendance. As Thomas Sowell and Lawrence Steinberg observe, if students of all races worked equally hard, their disparate rates of success and failure would plausibly lead to explanations based on, on the one hand, racism and poverty, or, on the other hand, innate superiority or inferiority. When they differ on every measure of effort, what else would you expect? ] (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2120898) |
|
Date: February 12th, 2005 2:38 PM Author: Pink motley spot Hero, your claim that Asian Americans have all what it takes to create "real diversity" is just rubbish. Sure, there might be Asians that have great credentials and a variety of talents in many different areas. But that doesn't mean they CREATE diversity to other applicants. Diversity of interests is NOT the diversity intended by the Ivies. True diversity is diversity of backgrounds, life experiences and CULTURE. Asians will NEVER be able to bring that type of diversity to a US university. They contribute to the mix, but they will never have such diversity by themselves. Are you that thick that you can't understand that?
I bet anyone given a choice to be in a class with a balanced mix of backgrounds and talents, including race, would choose it in a heartbeat, if the other choice were to be among an Asian predominance, regardless if the Asians have all different interests and aspirations.
While Asians have their own diverse contribution to the mix, they will never make up for the contribution of whites, Hispanics, blacks, or native Americans. That contribution matters, and I don't see why you keep wasting your time trying to convince people on this board.
If you wanted a REAL change, you'd do something about it. Insulting college students who disagree with you in a message board is just pathetic.
You will not accomplish anything. So just give up. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2115545) |
|
Date: February 12th, 2005 6:40 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: You are simply a racist hypocrite, Trickster Tricky said, >> Hero, your claim that Asian Americans have all what it takes to create "real diversity" is just rubbish. Sure, there might be Asians that have great credentials and a variety of talents in many different areas. But that doesn't mean they CREATE diversity to other applicants. Diversity of interests is NOT the diversity intended by the Ivies. True diversity is diversity of backgrounds, life experiences and CULTURE. Asians will NEVER be able to bring that type of diversity to a US university. They contribute to the mix, but they will never have such diversity by themselves. Are you that thick that you can't understand that? <<
You don't know WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. All you do is to make racist inferences and racist epithets against Asian Americans. Just listen to your bigoted racist self. What you are saying against Asian Americans, were said by bigots just like you not so long ago, when the Ivies imposed these very same quotas against Jews. Jews said, "Never Again" and I say to you, "Fuck you Trickster, because you are a racist HYPOCRITE".
You are a FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRITE. You have yet to answer my questions regarding the 33% Jews in Harvard or 125% Jews in all the Ivies, for their 2% of the population. Do you have a problem with the Jewish numbers? You oobviously don"t, and you have any no problems in abolishing the Jewish quota, making Jews OVERREPREPRESENTED by 15 times their % in the population.
Yet, you have problems with abolishing the Asian American quota, which is immoral, demented, evil, illegal and unconstutional according to 14th Amendment.
You are a racist hypocrite and none of your posts have any credibility.
Answer my questions. You can't with your fucking racist hypocrisy, because you are blinded by your racist stereotypes of Asian Americans.
Read my posts, there are points in them that just burst your little narrow-minded prejudiced and bigoted bubble against Asians.
All this will eventually come back and BITE YOU IN THE ASS!! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2116738) |
|
Date: February 12th, 2005 8:48 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> Asians will NEVER be able to bring that type of diversity to a US university. They contribute to the mix, but they will never have such diversity by themselves. Are you that thick that you can't understand that? <<
THIS IS THE MOST FUCKING IGNORANT RACIST STATEMENT FROM THIS TRICKSTER YET. HE IS A DUMB FUCKING MORAN AND RACIST TOO!
YOU USE YOUR RACIST ASSUMPTIONS BY GENERALIZING AND STEREOTYPING ASIAN AMERICANS AS ONE MONOLITHIC GROUP.
You are so FUCKING racist, that you can't see persons or people in general, regardless of their race, as individuals.
You know absolutely nothing. You are an ignoramus.
Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, a demographic group so destinated by the US Census Bureau, consists of many cultures and muliple life experiences. This demographic group consists of more than 10 subgroups, all known as Asian Americans. They include Americans of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, Singaporean, Cambodian, Laotian, Thai, Samoan, Hawaiian, Indian (South Asian), and Pakistanian descent.
Trickster, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
YOU ARE A FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRITE. YOU ARE A FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRITE. YOU ARE A FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRITE.
You are a loser and you are wasting my time and the time of any intelligent person, because, Trickster, you don't even have half of a fucking brain, you demented piece of shit!! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2117753) |
|
Date: February 12th, 2005 9:41 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig But again, we digress from the OP's topic.
Address the OVERRPRESENTATION of Jews in the Ivies. I don't think the Ivies are less DIVERSE because of this, and I don't think Harvard will be less diverse if it were only 25% or 30% Asian Ams, with the removal of the anti-Asian quota.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2118205) |
|
Date: February 12th, 2005 2:50 PM Author: Pink motley spot By hero:
** "Who said life was fair?"
The Constitution said life has to be "Fair" under the 14th Amendment with equal access without regard to race, creed, color or religion.
If it is fair for the Jews, and the whites, then it should be fair to the Asian Americans also." ***
Yeah, and it should be fair to African-Americans and Hispanics too. That is why their position in society is being restored to where it should have been before they were stripped of everything, denied an education and dehumanized by slavery.
If Asians had been enslaved for 3 centuries and their education levels had been lowered to the point of complete illiteracy, you'd be seeking justice for them. But it seems like you're an egocentric, so it's a waste to even argue with you.
It seems like you can't decide whether you want justice for Asians or diversity. Asians are admitted to the top schools, and their percentages aren't small. Just because there isn't any more room for them doesn't mean they're being capped. They are given the place they occupy in the US society at large, and you should get that in your head. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2115597) |
|
Date: February 12th, 2005 6:24 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Hey, Tricks,
Life should be fair to everyone, no quotas, you racist hypocrite.
Why don't you impose quotas on the Jews again? Better yet, limit the whites.
You are a fucking racist hypocrite.
Admissions should be race blind. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2116606) |
|
Date: February 12th, 2005 9:06 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> Yeah, and it should be fair to African-Americans and Hispanics too. That is why their position in society is being restored to where it should have been before they were stripped of everything, denied an education and dehumanized by slavery. <<
Hispanics were not enslaved as the blacks were. Enslavement was NEVER used as a justification for their preference.
The enslavement of blacks was never used as a justification for race preferences in elite college admission by any court in America, especially the US Supreme Court.
Certainly this wrong against Asian Americans today, via caps or quotas, is not justified by a previous wrong committed by whites against blacks more than 150 years ago. The Court in America never used this as justification for race preferences.
Race preferences and ethnic group preferences never worked against the Jews in Nazi Germany, and they won't work against Asian Americans in America today.
Race preferences dis not work in present day Bosnia, either.
Race preferences never worked in world history. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2117942) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 11:08 AM Author: Aphrodisiac toaster Don't forget that not only slavery but the New Deal policies of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s stripped African-Americans a right to property, education and integration.
Just think, America used to have restrictive racial covenants! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2144274) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 11:23 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig >> Just think, America used to have restrictive racial covenants! <<
So what?
America has racial convenants against the Chinese as late as the 1960s to the present. Asians also suffered under Jim Crow.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2144331) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 11:35 AM Author: Aphrodisiac toaster Were Asians landlocked in urban cities like African-Americans? I don't hardly think so. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2144384) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 9:42 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Hey Tricky, read this. 2/22/01 and 4/3/01 Brown Daily Herald
Brown University Class of '05
16,500 applicants
Asian Americans: 20.3% of the applicants, 16% of the acceptances
African Americans: 6% of the applicants, 9% of the acceptances
Latino Americans: 7.1% of the applicants, 9% of the acceptances
Whites and others: 66.6% of the applicants, 66% of the acceptances
2/12/01 The Daily Pennsylvanian (www.dailypennsylvanian.com): Asian American applicants represent 31% of the 19,086 applicants for the University of Pennsylvania’s Class of 2005 but only about 23% of the acceptances. UPenn accepts Asian Americans at a lower rate than any other group.
There is someting EVIL about this.
According to Lee Stetson, Dean of Admissions at UPenn, Asian Americans are "today's Jews". With all due respect to Jews, Asian Americans do not want to be "today's Jews", or to be limited by quotas.
Overrepresentation?
Jews are overepresented by a factor of FIFTHTEEN (15) at Harvard. Jews are the most overrepresented group at Harvard and the Ivies, yet you say that Asian Ams are overrepresented. The Asian overrepresentation pales next to JEWISH OVERRREPRESENTATION, yet there is no quota or willfull policy to suppress Jewish numbers.
I am against all quotas.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2120881) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 9:42 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: Hey Tricky, read this again. The Facts:
Here are the facts of admission for Brown from the Brown Daily Herald, which are similar in all the Ivies and many of the Elite Colleges:
The percent of African American and Hispanic students in selective college freshman classes is often higher than the percent of applicants from that group, while the opposite is true of Asian Americans. In 2001, 20.3 percent of applicants to Brown University's class of 2005 were Asian American, but only 16 percent of the acceptances were. The percent of white applicants and acceptances was about the same, 66 percent, while African Americans comprised 9 percent of the acceptances and only 6 percent of the applicants, and Hispanics had 9 percent of the acceptances and only 7.1 percent of the applicants.
Asian Americans are accepted at two-thirds the acceptance rate of whites and at much, much lower rates than blacks and Hispanics at Brown for the Class of 2005.
WHITES ARE 66% OF THE APPLICANTS AND 66% OF THE ACCEPTANCES, BUT ASIAN AMERICANS ARE 20.3% OF THE APPLICANTS AND 16% OF THE ACCEPTANCES.
IF BROWN IS GIVING SLOTS TO BLACKS AND LATINOS AND THESE SLOTS ARE A GIVEN, WHITES DON'T LOOSE, BUT ASIAN AMERICANS LOOSE. OF COURSE BLACKS AND LATINOS GAIN FROM AA.
IN OTHER WORDS, WHITES DON'T LOOSE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE ASIAN AMERICANS, IF THE BLACK AND LATINO GAINS ARE A GIVEN.
NOW, WHO IS THE THE "PRESTIGE WHORE' AND "SELFISH", BUT YOU, AND WHITES, TRICKMASTER, YOU HYPOCRITE?? LET ASIAN AMERICANS COMPETE AGAINST WHITES ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, SANS QUOTAS, TRICKMASTER, YOU FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRITE. WHITES DON'T LOOSE. BLACKS AND LATINOS GAIN. ASIAN AMERICANS ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO LOOSE!!
WHITES DON'T LOOSE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE ASIAN AMERICANS!! WHITES DON'T LOOSE. ASIAN AMERICANS ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO LOOSE BECAUSE THEY HAVE MUCH LOWER ADMIT RATES THAN WHITES DESPITE BEING MORE QUALIFIED ACCORDING TO ALL STANDARDS AND CRITERIA USED IN ADMISSIONS!!
WHITES DON'T LOOSE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE ASIAN AMERICANS!! WHITES DON'T LOOSE. ASIAN AMERICANS ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO LOOSE BECAUSE THEY HAVE MUCH LOWER ADMIT RATES THAN WHITES DESPITE BEING MORE QUALIFIED ACCORDING TO ALL STANDARDS AND CRITERIA USED IN ADMISSIONS!!
Race based AA in the elite colleges have worsen the state of blacks over the course of its use and have not solved anything.
From Jay Mathews:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26499-2004Oct12?language=printer
[He noted the recent estimate by Harvard humanities professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. that two thirds of blacks at Harvard were not descendants of American slaves, but the middle class children of relatively recent immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa. "Why should they deserve admission with lowered standards (relatively speaking) based solely on the color of their skin over a high achieving Asian American living in a Chinatown ghetto or a Black ghetto (many Asians live in Black and Latino ghettos) or a poor white from the slums of NYC?" Chin said.]
[The solution to the problem of lower average achievement among African Americans and Hispanics is not "the Band-Aid approach of race-based affirmative action," Chin said. "It is solved by improving the K-12 schools for the lower economic classes which are disproportionately Black and Latino."]
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2120882) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 11:25 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Subject: The Campus Diversity Fraud http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_1_the_campus.html
Winter 2002
The Campus Diversity Fraud John H. McWhorter
In September, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that the crude “black bonus” in the University of Georgia’s admissions policy wasn’t what the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1978 Bakke decision meant when it allowed colleges to take “diversity” into account in admissions decisions. Let’s hope that this decision spells the beginning of the end for the “diversity” argument in college admissions. It has been, from the start, an argument shot through with duplicity and bad faith. It is a craven, disingenuous, and destructive canard, antithetical to interracial harmony and black excellence—and racist besides.
The diversity imperative now so powerful on campus arose almost by chance, springing from a remark Justice Lewis Powell made in his concurrence in the Bakke decision. Allan Bakke had charged the medical school at the University of California at Davis with discrimination for twice turning him down, despite his high grades and admissions-test scores, while routinely admitting black students with C averages and poor admissions-test scores. The court found that quota systems like Davis’s were unconstitutional, but Powell’s opinion hedged slightly, asserting that it was appropriate for schools to base their admissions decisions upon a quest for a “diverse student body.” Powell’s statement provided a justification that universities, including the University of Georgia, quickly seized upon as a cover for admitting black students with significantly lower qualifications than those of white or Asian students. Instead of ending campus affirmative action, Bakke became its license.
White guilt is a dangerous and addictive drug, and for 20-plus years the Bakke decision has supported stricken higher-education administrators in their habit. Meanwhile, the diversity shibboleth has taught a generation of young Americans that black students are more important for their presence in promotional brochure photographs than for their scholastic qualifications—an essentialization now as rife among black as among white students. This message ultimately perpetuates the very underperformance that has made the fig-leaf diversity notion necessary.
The very term “diversity” craftily overshoots the actual goal in question. Mormons, paraplegics, people from Alaska, lesbians, Ayn Randians, and poor whites exert little pull on the heartstrings of admissions committees so committed to making college campuses “look like America.” The diversity that counts is brown-skinned minorities, especially African Americans.
Affirmative action at its inception in the late 1960s, when college administrators supposed that blacks’ low representation on campuses was simply a matter of discrimination, meant nothing more than opening the doors and providing some remedial help where needed. But these efforts to bring in qualified blacks ran up against the uncomfortably small number of such people in an America just past legalized segregation. Faced with those who were admitted, university professors, not surprisingly, proved unequal to the task of undoing the effects of 14 years of poor preparation in the basic skills necessary for college course work. Meanwhile, the triumph of the separatist belief in black America that scholastic achievement was a “white” endeavor rather than an American one further decreased the numbers of black students qualified for top schools, and it holds down their numbers to this day.
As a result, though Justice Powell doubtless had intended his diversity imperative to play out as a mere thumb on the scale, giving the edge to a brown-skinned candidate where his qualifications were equal to a white-skinned one’s, brute quota systems quickly came to reign on selective campuses. After my first year at Rutgers University, where I earned my bachelor’s degree in the mid-1980s, it was painfully clear to me that the black students were generally a rung below the general preparation and performance level of the white ones. Certainly there were excellent black students—but they were exceptions rather than the rule. Even as a teenager unconcerned with social policy or admissions procedures, I couldn’t but notice that black students had gotten in under some kind of quota system.
Rutgers top brass long maintained that race was used as just one of many factors, as the Bakke decision had directed. But a few years after I graduated, a student working in the admissions office blew the whistle, revealing that black students were put into a special pool and admitted according to significantly lower criteria than other students. Nor was Rutgers unique. Similar disclosures have emerged in school after school, including the University of California, the University of Texas, the University of Michigan, and, most recently, the University of Georgia. Even in their pro–affirmative action manifesto, The Shape of the River, William Bowen and Derek Bok admit—and painstakingly document—that this practice has been routine in selective universities across the nation for 30 years.
At the University of California at Berkeley, where I teach, the quota system was as obvious on the ground as it had been at Rutgers in the 1980s. One older white professor, an avowed leftist, confided in me that since the early 1970s black students had done badly in his classes so often that he had found himself viewing any black student who appeared on the first day of class as a potential problem. A white remedial-composition tutor observed that he had worked with so many minority students hopelessly underprepared for Berkeley-level work that he had found himself questioning the wisdom of racial preferences, despite his leftist persuasion. Professors across the country have expressed similar views to me.
Many would dismiss such observations as bias and stereotyping. The facts are otherwise. Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom note in America in Black and White that black Berkeley students who enrolled in 1988 had an average SAT score below 1,000, compared with white students’ average of over 1,300. The highest quartile of black SAT scores in this class clustered at the bottom quarter of the SAT scores of all students. The high school grade average among black students was B-plus, rather than the straight-A average required of white students. Nor was this a mere Berzerk-ley aberration: in 1992, the gap in average SAT scores between black and white entrants was 150 points at Princeton, 171 at Stanford, 218 at Dartmouth, and 271 at Rice.
Graduation rates reflect this gulf in preparation. The Thernstroms document that, of the black students who entered Berkeley in 1988, 41 percent did not graduate, while only 16 percent of their white classmates did not. Bowen and Bok report that, at 28 top universities, black students in the class of 1989 were about three times more likely to drop out than white students.
Many ascribe these higher dropout rates to financial pressures rather than to the sharp deficits in high school grades and SAT scores. But the burden of proof is upon such people to identify just why grades and scores would not correlate significantly with a student’s chances of finishing college. Few have any problem seeing a causal link here when it comes to white students.
The argument that grades and scores are irrelevant to assessing a candidate defies both logic and experience. Consider the SAT. No one would argue that a student with a perfect SAT score is only a possible good match for Harvard or that a student with an abysmal SAT score was prime Harvard material. Precisely what, then, leads to the conclusion that SAT scores in between have no predictive power? In fact, as the Thernstroms show, graduation rates for black students who started at Berkeley in 1988 closely tracked their SAT scores: students with lower SATs were correspondingly less likely to get their degrees. Bowen and Bok acknowledge that SAT scores actually overpredict black students’ college performance—that is, black students do less well than their scores would predict, not better.
Faced with such hard facts, diversity fans have asserted that leadership skills, helping to put together the high school yearbook, and spunk are as relevant to assessing a student’s scholastic potential as . . . well, how they did academically in high school or how they scored on standardized tests. But aren’t leadership skills and spunk equally prevalent among white students? Surely, blacks aren’t innately perkier than whites. College-admissions committees that cheerily emphasize such extra-academic factors in evaluating black applicants basically are saying that blacks can’t compete in the truly decisive arena: the classroom. In the name of diversity, black students find themselves patronizingly exempted from serious competition.
Can we justify this exemption from standards by saying that it leads to a larger good? Supporters of campus diversity have made three broad arguments to this effect. The first is that bending the admissions rules to ensure diversity helps foster an interracial fellowship that all students will carry with them into society after they graduate. I tried to hold on to this idea for years, but in the end it just doesn’t wash.
In truth, “diverse” college campuses are among the most racially balkanized places in America. Separate black fraternities and sororities thrive. They first emerged in the early twentieth century, when white fraternities and sororities didn’t welcome black applicants. Today, black Greek organizations are thoroughly unenthusiastic toward whites. Reinforcing this separatism, some universities host all-black graduation ceremonies—the idea, apparently, being that one’s achievement is less a human or American one than a black one. In addition, black students typically cluster in their own section of the dining hall, throw their own parties, have their own theme houses, and leave college with a separatist ideology that they often didn’t hold when they first arrived. Interracial fellowship this is not.
Nor is one likely to find much interracial camaraderie in African-American studies classes. Supporters of such classes say that they help blacks learn about their rich heritage, but in practice, they often double as exercises in stoking hatred of the White Man. At Stanford, I was a teaching assistant in a predominantly black class on Black English. In itself, the subject encompasses much more than mere street slang—extending to grammatical structure, literature, and educational issues. Yet, class discussion devolved into visceral dismissal of whites so often that one white student complained to the professor that he felt any opinions he ventured beyond genuflections to black victimhood were unwelcome—and he was right. When, in a course I taught at Berkeley on the history of black musical theater, a female white student observed that rap lyrics were misogynistic, several black students dressed her down so vehemently that they left her in tears.
Confronted with such racial enmity, white students understandably start shunning blacks. John H. Bunzel documents in Race Relations on Campus: Stanford Students Speak Out that white Stanford students who endured constant vague accusations of racism from black students often became less interested in interracial outreach than they had been as freshmen—a trend I’ve noticed on other campuses where I’ve taught or visited.
For the black student who doesn’t toe the separatist line but really seeks interracial fellowship, university life can be uncomfortable. Blacks quickly discover that black authenticity means hunkering down behind a racial barricade, glaring angrily at the symbols of white “hegemony” that supposedly surround them, and believing that they are eternal victims in their own land. Edgy conversations with other black students who question the authenticity of one’s own “blackness” become a regular feature of life. Bunzel reports that black Stanford students told him they were expected to “talk black, dress black, think black, and certainly date black.” A black student who joins a traditionally white frat or sorority will face accusations that he or she is a self-hating sellout. A black acquaintance once told me that the overwhelming hostility she met with during her college years from black students scornful of her white friendships was far worse than any white racism she experienced at the time.
Scratch the surface, it seems, and diversity really means maintaining one’s separatist missiles at the ready. After black University of California regent Ward Connerly helped launch an ultimately successful campaign to outlaw racial preferences in U-Cal admissions a few years back, some black locals formed a committee called “Citizens Against Ward Connerly.” At one event, a committee representative joked, “Ward Connerly wants the University of California to be all vanilla—and I don’t like vanilla.” She sought audience approval, but given that at least half of her listeners were white, all she got was some nervous laughter. She quickly backtracked, adding, “I like to have some mix-ins—chips, nuts.” Her initial remark, though, revealed the truth: the people so furiously committed to campus diversity aren’t interested in a color-blind America. Their real goal is to ensure that the privileges of a college education don’t distract black students from the urgent task of keeping the fires of black alienation burning.
Since the notion that diversity encourages interracial bonding is so patently false, its defenders frequently make a second, somewhat different, argument. Racial preferences in admissions, they maintain, are crucial in order to ensure, if not fellowship, then at least exposure to different ethnic and racial groups, teaching a valuable lesson about the many equally valid viewpoints in a multicultural society. This view received official imprimatur in Powell’s Bakke concurrence, where the justice asserted that universities would benefit from selecting “those students [i.e., dark-skinned minorities] who will contribute most to the robust exchange of ideas.”
Given that Bakke concerned a medical school, just how being black qualifies one to make especially vigorous observations about surgical incisions and metabolic pathways is unclear, but never mind. The real, if implicit, assumption behind the exposure idea is that whites will learn about—and learn to respect—blacks from the other side of the tracks, whom they supposedly find so alien, despicable, and threatening. But in practice, what white students often learn at a university that lets in blacks under the bar is that blacks may not be as sharp as whites. It’s difficult to imagine how even the most well-intentioned white students could have avoided such a conclusion at Rutgers when I studied there in the 1980s.
More fundamentally, the “exposure” argument rests on a falsehood: that black students typically come from disadvantaged circumstances, unfamiliar to their white classmates. In fact, at selective schools, inner-city blacks have been vanishingly rare since the late 1960s, when a handful of top schools briefly—and unsuccessfully—experimented with admitting unqualified urban blacks to see if they could cope. But among black students in the last class admitted to Berkeley under the old racial preferences regime, more than 65 percent came from households earning at least $40,000 a year; the parents of 40 percent earned at least $60,000 yearly. Of blacks admitted in 1989 to the 28 selective universities that Bowen and Bok survey, just 14 percent came from homes earning $22,000 or less.
Precisely what traits do middle-class black kids display that a white student must learn about so that he won’t wash out in the management job he starts after graduation? I’ve found that middle-class black students asked to list a few such traits usually draw a blank. Even if many blacks from the ‘hood did show up at selective schools, however, why would learning about their cultural traits be vital to white students’ education? In African-American studies courses on the same campuses, blacks regularly—and rightly—decry the stereotype that all African Americans are poor. Surely a firsthand, four-year tutorial in the vibrancy of ghetto life would simply reinforce that stereotype. Poverty is a tragedy, not a life-style.
If neither the hope for greater interracial harmony nor the idea of whites learning from blacks justifies diversity policies, there is, finally, the moral argument that blacks deserve compensation for their tragic history. Centuries of disenfranchisement and segregation bar most blacks from really qualifying for top schools, affirmative action’s defenders charge, so it’s the right thing to do to let them in through the back door. “How, without racial preferences, can we make up for the fact that whites benefited from socially ingrained preferences for centuries?” furiously asked one black man at a talk I gave recently. Harvard sociologist Nathan Glazer, reversing his longtime opposition to race-based admissions, claims that whites “owe” blacks due to past injustices. For all their sincerity, however, people like Glazer don’t understand that this tit-for-tat defense of racial preferences bars the only path that can lead us beyond our racial dilemmas.
It’s indisputable that historical disenfranchisement has left many blacks ill equipped to compete even when ladders to success beckon, as they do today—partly because of the economic and social obstacles to achievement that disadvantaged status entails and, even more, because long-term oppression helped create a black cultural identity opposed to mainstream success. For blacks to rise to the top, they must learn new skills and cultivate new attitudes. Those who’ve grown up under conditions that don’t offer direct paths to accomplishment have the task—unfair, but hardly limited to blacks—of discovering the knack of turning lemons into lemonade, as oppressed groups in America have done for centuries. A group that believes that mainstream achievement is inauthentic will have to refashion its self-conception if it is ever to get ahead in the only society it will ever call home.
Lowered standards are antithetical to both of these vital goals. A fundamental tenet of economics and psychology is that most people will do their best only if they have the incentive to do so. Lowered standards have robbed blacks of that incentive. One can only learn to ride a bicycle by mastering the subtle muscular poise of the endeavor oneself; as long as the training wheels remain on, one isn’t really riding the bike.
The point here isn’t moral but logical: black students will only reach their full potential if the affirmative-action safety net is withdrawn and they’re required to strive for excellence. Perhaps the most sobering reality black Americans face today is that even our tragic history cannot exempt us from this hard truth of the human condition. Asian students have never had the illusion that there was any path up other than showing their best stuff, come hell or high water, which is why so many of them excel. Students, though, who daily hear the message, “You only have to do pretty well to get into a top school” will—a few naturally gifted stars excepted—only do pretty well. To elevate diversity over true excellence condemns black students to mediocrity and is, quite simply, racist.
To call today’s university administrations racist may seem a bit strong. Yet what else should we make of university officials’ apparent belief that blacks are the only group in American history incapable of overcoming social and historical obstacles? So troubled is University of California president Richard Atkinson by the fall in black and Hispanic admissions to his flagship Berkeley and UCLA campuses since the end of racial preferences in the system that he has proposed eliminating the SAT from admissions requirements altogether.
Never mind that, after the overturning of preferences, black admissions fell only on these two top campuses, rising at several other UC schools; and that the University of California is now trying diligently to prepare minority students in middle and high schools throughout the state to submit competitive dossiers to UC. Atkinson is so skeptical that the new race-blind regime will ever bear fruit that he doesn’t consider it worth waiting to see what might happen over time. Instead, all he sees is the “re-segregation” that black and Latino faculty and administrators and their white fellow travelers warned about when the battle over preferences was raging. Implicitly, he seems to think that Berkeley and UCLA are the only California colleges worth attending, so that black students who don’t get into them have no choice but to fail.
This is offensive nonsense. Sure, over the past few years, many black kids who would have gone to Berkeley under the old system now attend UC Santa Cruz, UC Davis, or other solid second-rank schools. But so what? They’re much more likely to thrive on these campuses than if they found themselves, unprepared, at legendarily demanding Berkeley and UCLA. And isn’t Atkinson’s conviction that the new system re-creates the era of Orville Faubus strangely dismissive of California’s non-elite state schools for the man entrusted with their stewardship?
Equally important, under the new race-blind system, black students know that they are as qualified academically as other students on campus. Armed with a confidence based on reality, black students will be more comfortable in white company and less likely to compensate for feelings of inferiority by retreating to their own section of the dining hall.
Affirmative-action supporters retort that under-qualified black students must be admitted to top schools, because the prestige of such institutions and the connections one makes attending them are essential to success in later life. This claim doesn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Journalist James Fallows notes in a recent piece in The Atlantic that “the four richest people in America, all of whom made rather than inherited their wealth, are a dropout from Harvard, a dropout from the University of Illinois, a dropout from Washington State University, and a graduate of the University of Nebraska.” Top universities, he adds, rarely show up on the résumés of congressmen, Nobel laureates, industry leaders, and even U.S. presidents. As for blacks, Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom show that, of today’s African-American congressmen, army officers, recent Ph.D.s, MacArthur Foundation genius-award winners, and top business officials, only a tiny sliver attended elite colleges.
None of this is rocket science. Every college administrator knows that diversity is really a code word for “at least 5 percent black faces with a good sprinkling of Latinos,” and that this outcome is attainable only through quotas. Racial preferences continue to receive protection from the diversity fig leaf. It’s a powerful rhetorical weapon. The question, “Aren’t you in favor of diversity?” today means, “Don’t you like black people?”—and nothing chills most thinking white Americans more than the fear of being deemed racist. At the same time, many blacks cheer preferences under the misguided impression that racism is the only possible cause of unequal performance, and thus they remain blind to the importance of the perseverance and individual initiative that will truly succeed in fostering black excellence.
A university culture truly committed to erasing the sins of the past would champion diversity in its true sense, infusing its discourse on race with a range of views wider than variations on victimhood. Since 1978, diversity has served as a flimsy and evasive perversion of justice. It has helped no one, least of all black students. It’s high time we swept it into the dustbin of history.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2136250) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 12:03 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig According to the Hillel database,
http://www.hillel.org/hillel/Hillel_Schools_New.nsf/Schools?openform
Jews are 2.5% of the American population. They represent 30% of the undergraduates at Harvard College , 23% at Yale College and over 30% of all students at the University of Pennsylvania . The Ivy League and other elite schools have no quotas limiting Jewish students.
These same schools impose quotas limiting the number of Asian American students. Asian Americans are about 4% of the American population. Asian Americans are about 15% of the students at the Ivy League and other elite schools. At the University of California at Berkeley , Asian Americans represent 41% of undergraduates, and at Stanford, they are 25%.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2136436) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 12:24 PM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig "Asian excellence, American mediocrity" by Walter E. Williams, 6/16/99.
WorldNetDaily contributor Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA. © 1999 WorldNetDaily.com.
The May 14 Chronicle of Higher Education ran a story by Robin Wilson titled "Ph.D. Programs Face a Paucity of Americans." Wilson says that if you visited just about any physics laboratory at U.S. research universities, you'd find as many foreigners as Americans.
The American Institute of Physics estimates that this year, for the first time, the majority of first-year doctoral students in physics at our universities is foreign. In the academic year 1997 to 1998, China alone supplied 20% of all international physics students. At Penn State University, as is typical at other universities, half the students in its graduate physics program are foreigners.
In 1997, foreign students earned 37% of all science and engineering doctorates at American universities. By contrast, at most American universities, there are few to no foreigners getting Ph.D.s in education, cultural studies and history. The evidence clearly demonstrates that the more intellectually challenging a field of study is, the fewer American students.
How do university administrators cope with the multitudes of highly prepared foreign students, particularly Asians? They set admittance quotas against them and create double standards. For example, the University of Tennessee at Knoxville's policy is not to exceed 20% foreign students in any of its graduate programs. Like other universities, it turns away applications from foreign students whose grades and test scores are higher than their American counterparts. Enrollment is kept up, and professors employed, by admitting mediocre American students.
Is discrimination against Asian students, foreign-born or not, acceptable? Probably not among those on the conservative end of the political spectrum but among liberals, it's an OK thing.
You say, "OK, Williams, what do you mean?" In a 1995 Sacramento Bee interview, President Clinton pointed out that excessive reliance on academic qualifications in the admissions process could have dire consequences, warning "there are universities in California that could fill their entire freshman classes with nothing but Asians." That sounds a bit racist to me, harkening back to the days of California's fears of the "Yellow Peril."
"Williams," you say, "that's just one liberal; the rest are OK." Try this. On a 1997 "Crossfire" show, Bob Beckel -- the liberal co-host of the show -- badgered guest Dr. Abigail Thernstrom as to the effects of California's Proposition 209 outlawing racial quotas in college admissions. Beckel asked, "Would you like to see the UCLA law school 80% Asian? Because at the rate it's going, by the year 2007 UCLA will be 80 percent Asian. Will that make you happy?" Neither Clinton's nor Beckel's comments drew fire from America's leftists.
In terms of our future, what foreign students are doing and the achievements they're making is not nearly as important as what American students are not doing. What American students are not doing represents a triumph of the leftist education agenda over the last four decades, where feel-good, touchy-feely has been substituted for academic excellence.
Even our brightest students aren't challenged, as evidenced by the fact that far fewer high school students score 1400 to 1600 on the SAT today than during the 1960s. Today's educational emphasis is on sex indoctrination in the name of sex education, environmentalism and solving society's problems. Even at colleges, students can learn nonsense like standard English is "essentially an instrument of domination." They can take courses for academic credit like "Queer Theory" and the works of PeeWee Herman.
While American students trail their counterparts in other industrialized countries in just about every academic area, they have the highest levels of self-esteem and feel good about their educational achievements. That's sad. They're fools and don't know it.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2136562) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 8:10 AM Author: Aromatic sapphire chapel pozpig Tricky, read the recent posts above. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=128282&forum_id=1#2143832) |