| By Dumbgirl (Dumbgirl) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 01:14 pm: Edit |
Hey! I was wondering if an asian had a better chance at a school that had a population of, say 5% of asians vs 20% of asians, assuming that both schools were of equal caliber.
the school with 5% asians would want to diversify, while the school with 20% asians would want to keep their percentages the same, so it does not look like they are discriminating.
is this correct?
| By Firebird12637 (Firebird12637) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 03:07 pm: Edit |
uh, no...if a school has a pop. of like 30% asians, u have a better chance THERE than another school with 5% asians...think about it...why would the schools have so many azns in the first place if they couldn't get in??
take Berkeley, sumone told me like 20~30% of ppl there are asians...why?? cuz they its easier for them to get into berkeley...
| By Ctrain890 (Ctrain890) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 03:50 pm: Edit |
"take Berkeley, sumone told me like 20~30% of ppl there are asians...why?? cuz they its easier for them to get into berkeley... "
No. It's because there is a much denser population of Asians in California than in other areas, so tons more highly qualified Asians apply to berkeley than other places.
| By Firebird12637 (Firebird12637) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 10:07 pm: Edit |
tru tru, but still, just because of the fact that there ARE a lot of asians there doesnt mean it becomes "harder" for other asians to get in.
| By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 10:29 pm: Edit |
Don't assume that the school with 5% asians would "want to diversify".
If 5% of the student population is Asian, this percentage is still well above the percentage of Asians in the American popuation.
| By Dumbgirl (Dumbgirl) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 10:41 pm: Edit |
bump... still very confused...which is better for an asian to apply to? (assuming external factors are the same and just concentrating on race)
| By Dumbgirl (Dumbgirl) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 10:42 pm: Edit |
bump
| By Dumbgirl (Dumbgirl) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 10:42 pm: Edit |
would someone please elaborate?
| By Dumbgirl (Dumbgirl) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 10:43 pm: Edit |
ok, change the 5% to like 1% (although this is not very realistic)
| By Covalentbond007 (Covalentbond007) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 01:10 am: Edit |
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 her mother had breast cancer. Her SAT score, though, was 390 points below Mr. Park's. Both Berkeley and UCLA admitted her.
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 admissions records for signs of bias.
http://www.collegejournal.com/aidadmissions/newstrends/20020724-golden.html
| By Giraffe (Giraffe) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 03:25 am: Edit |
Hi I had the same question as you had.
Let's get some schools at about the same level:
Oregon State University vs. University of California-Riverside
U.C. Riverside has a Asian population of 41%, where as Oregon State's is a mere 8%.
However, the reason for this is probably convenience. If you lived in Los Angeles, and you got into both OSU and UCR, one would probably pick UCR since it's more economically sound, and a heck of a lot closer. Los Angeles as well as a lot of California has a large Asian population as opposed to Corvallis and the rest of Oregon.
Using this theory, I say that your chances are equal, it's just by choice that people would go to a "more asian" school.
-Paul Chun
| By Andrew (Andrew) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 07:08 pm: Edit |
UC Berkeley - 42%! Oh my! I think higher that Caucasian, perhaps.
| By Undiluted (Undiluted) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 10:48 pm: Edit |
Does the same thing apply to Jews? Jews and Asians are both so over-represented at Ivy Leagues that I really would like to know where my best chances are. Without even posting stats, just from the fact that I'm Jewish, would U Penn which is around 50% Jewish and the most Jewish of the Ivies, or Princeton, around 8% and the least Jewish, be a better bet? (I got those stats from other posts on this board, and a Yale teacher told me Yale is about 25%, which is still disproportionate, so I think all Ivies would have this same problem) Jews are 2% of the country and now with AA in such full throttle they might be trying to cut down, just as they are doing with Asians...
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Sunday, September 07, 2003 - 02:38 pm: Edit |
"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.
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Sunday, September 07, 2003 - 02:39 pm: Edit |
June 19, 2003, 11:15 a.m.
The Non-Preferred Minority
Michigan, Asians, and Arbitrariness.
By Peter Kirsanow
Many college administrators do not hold this truth to be self-evident: that all men are created equal. In the Wonderland that is the campus-diversity industry, individuals from some racial/ethnic groups are more equal than others. And any rational attempt to discern how colleges separate the favored from the disfavored is a lesson in caprice, bias, and subjectivity the supreme triumvirate of unequal treatment.
The racial-preference regime favors some but not all minority groups: Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans, yes; Asian Americans, no. Indeed, 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. As Peter Schmidt noted in the June 6, 2003, Chronicle of Higher Education, 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. The New York Times reported (February 2, 2003) that after California's Proposition 209 ended race-based admissions, the percentage of Asian-American freshmen at Berkeley rose a full 6 percent.
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.
This "over-representation" has produced much consternation among elites who view racial preferences as the best mechanism for ensuring the "proper" racial mix on college campuses. President Clinton worried that, without preferences, "there are universities in California that could fill their entire freshman classes with nothing but Asian-Americans."
Of course, Asians are not the first racial or ethnic group whose admissions rates were intentionally suppressed because of their comparative academic achievement: During much of the 20th century, several Ivy League schools employed clever devices to curtail the influx of Jewish students. But the exclusion of Asian Americans from the list of the preferred is incongruent with today's campus-diversity rationale: that a mix of races and ethnicities, both in the classroom and in social settings, has a compelling pedagogical value; and that where the percentage of minorities falls below a certain "critical mass," that pedagogical value is diminished, not only because there are fewer opportunities for interaction between the races/ethnicities, but also because minorities will necessarily feel inhibited from expressing themselves, thereby depriving the campus of alternative opinions.
All of which begs the question: Why is this pedagogical value upset if Asian-American students are admitted at rates consistent with their qualifications?
It remains unclear how college administrators determine that optimum educational benefits are derived from a student population that is, for example, 65 percent white, 14 percent black, 12 percent Hispanic, 3 percent Native American, and 6 percent Asian American. Has some anthropological chemist concluded that a certain racial/ethnic mix makes student neurons fire best? Or will the neurons misfire if the percentage of Asians crests above, say, 8 percent? And why do neurons seem to fire just as well at Berkeley, where the freshman class is nearly half Asian, as at Yale, where the Asian-student population is only slightly more than one-tenth of the overall total?
When confronted with the absurdities inherent in the diversity rationale, preference proponents sometimes resort to the "historically disadvantaged or discriminated against" sub-rationale for preferring certain groups. The argument is that the presence of individuals from groups that have been discriminated against in the past (and are therefore disadvantaged in the present) brings distinctive insights and perspectives to the educational experience.
But while the median income and degree-attainment rates of Asian Americans exceed those of any other racial group in the country, there can be no dispute that Asian Americans have been discriminated against historically. From the Chinese Exclusion Act, to laws banning Japanese land ownership, to prohibitions against the public employment of Chinese, Asians have regularly been singled out for discriminatory treatment. Indeed, the Supreme Court has occasionally had to offer reminders that Chinese-Americans are indeed "persons" entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Moreover, not all "Asians" are socio-economically advantaged or "overrepresented," a fact that highlights the clumsy tendency of preference policies to arbitrarily lump individuals of varying cultures, religions, and pigments into one category. Chinese, Japanese, and Korean Americans tend to do relatively well both in terms of college attendance and economic status, but Cambodians, Vietnamese, and Laotians much less so, and many of Southeast Asian descent are at the very bottom of the socioeconomic and educational ladders. (The status of Asian-Indians so confounds college-admissions alchemists that Indians are typically identified as "White" rather than "Asian.")
In the end, it is clear that there are no objective standards justifying the exclusion of Asians (however defined) from the list of preferred minorities. The determination of what constitutes an under-represented minority and who gets a preference is entirely within a given college's discretion. That is nothing less than a license to discriminate. As the district court that initially struck down the Michigan preference program in Grutter v. Bollinger stated, if a college singles out "African-Americans and Hispanics for special commitment today, there is nothing to prevent it from enlarging, reducing or shifting its list of preferred groups tomorrow without any reasoned basis or logical stopping point."
Preferences giveth and preferences taketh away.
Peter Kirsanow is a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Sunday, September 07, 2003 - 02:40 pm: Edit |
July 16, 2003, 10:10 a.m.
The Vanishing Black Undergrad
College demographics, post-Michigan.
By Peter Kirsanow
An analysis prepared by Drs. Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai for the Center for Equal Opportunity shows that at many schools across the country, both blacks and Hispanics have a vastly greater probability of being admitted than their white counterparts. However, blacks have an even better shot than Hispanics. Three random examples:
At North Carolina State, 89 percent of black applicants with SAT scores of 420 math, 380 verbal, and a 2.94 GMA are admitted but only 4 percent of Hispanics. At the University of Michigan Dearborn, 94 percent of black applicants with an ACT score of 17 and a 2.9 GPA are admitted, compared to 61 percent of Hispanics. And at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, 71 percent of black applicants with SAT scores of 530 math, 480 verbal, and a 3.6 GPA are admitted, versus 25 percent of Hispanics.
If colleges follow Grutter, the apparently greater "plus" previously afforded black applicants must now be leveled. Since Hispanic applicants nationwide generally have higher scores than black applicants, this means more Hispanics should be admitted. Given that there are a finite number of seats at each school, Hispanics will displace blacks. And if the rejection rates noted above are any guide, that displacement could be sizable.
And Hispanics may not be the only group that displaces blacks. A limited displacement could also be produced by Asian-American applicants, even though they don't get the "plus."
The second-class status of Asian Americans in the preference scheme continues to perplex (see "The Non-Preferred Minority"). The Court sanctions their exclusion from the critical-mass calculation because the Court defers to colleges in their assessment that diversity leads to educational benefits. The educational benefits cited by UM are: (1) breaking down racial stereotypes, (2) promoting cross-cultural understanding, (3) exposure needed to prepare for the global marketplace, and (4) promoting spirited classroom discussions.
The Court permits colleges to achieve diversity by awarding a plus to "underrepresented" groups the preferred minorities. So, in order to get a "plus," one's group must bring to the campus the educational benefits of an underrepresented minority.
Asian-American students plainly satisfy each of the four educational benefits the Court cites as flowing from diversity:
Breaking down racial stereotypes. A brief scan of popular media shows that Asians are stereotyped no less frequently than the preferred minorities, and probably more so. Promoting cross-cultural understanding. An argument can be made that American college students are less familiar with the variety of cultures that may be defined as "Asian" than they are with the cultures of the preferred minorities, which arguably drive much of overall American culture. Exposure needed to prepare for the global marketplace. The Asian market is the largest and fastest-growing in the world. If colleges are to prepare students for any marketplace, the Asian one would be a good place to start. Promoting spirited classroom discussions. Asian-American students have the highest GPAs and board scores of any group which suggests that they may have learned something in high school that they can contribute to classroom discussion. Okay, maybe well-educated students don't promote more spirited classroom discussions a group of second-graders could do that but certainly the discussions would be more enlightened, and shouldn't that be a college's objective?
Furthermore, Asian Americans are underrepresented in many aspects of American life, including on many college campuses. And they've experienced a history of discrimination. Therefore, Asian-American students satisfy all of the criteria for being a "preferred" minority entitled to a plus factor.
The failure to accord Asian minorities a plus thus reveals preference policies to be nothing more than overt racial engineering. It's clear that what schools really mean by an "underrepresented" minority group is one that's preferred by racial bean counters. And that apparently doesn't include Asian Americans. For if Asian-American applicants were accorded a plus, it would blow the colleges' critical mass sky-high and there would be, uh, well, you know, too gosh darn many of 'em.
Nonetheless, while the Court permits colleges to withhold the "plus" from Asian applicants, it also prohibits colleges from massaging admissions to achieve predetermined percentages of any particular group. So, while Asian applicants may not get a plus, neither may their numbers be suppressed. This could also have an effect on college demographics, by displacing not only black students, but Hispanics, Native Americans, and a few whites as well. The post-Proposition 209 experience shows that where the admission of Asians is not suppressed, their comparatively superior qualifications will cause them to leapfrog over many applicants from the preferred groups.
The overall displacement is difficult to forecast, but there is a good probability that black admissions would have suffered less had the Court struck down preferences altogether, compelling the use of race-neutral alternatives. Unfortunately, colleges that now employ such alternatives have already declared their intention to return to racially discriminatory policies.
As stated before, the foregoing depends on college compliance with the language of Grutter. The prospect of litigation may keep colleges honest, but given that the Court has signaled with "a wink and a nod" toleration of racial engineering, colleges may well ignore Grutter's dictates in pursuit of the paramount objective of diversity. And with the Supreme Court as a guide, lower courts will desperately try to find back doors in the Grutter opinion to escape the unintended consequences of the Court's ruling.
Grutter is a bad joke for all Americans who believe in equal opportunity. But the brunt of the joke could turn out to fall, once again, on the black guy.
Peter Kirsanow is a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Sunday, September 07, 2003 - 02:41 pm: Edit |
Exclusive Boarding Prep Schools Engage in Reverse Discrimination Against Asian-American Students
Bronx High School of Science in New York City is one of the most prestigious and best secondary schools in the nation, either public or private. More than 50% of the students come from Queens, N.Y.. 45% are Asian, 36% white, 10% black, and 9% Hispanic. Admission is granted based on standardized testing. New York City's ethnic population is over 50% black and Hispanic and less than 6% Asian. Bronx H.S. of Science is second only to Stuyvesant High School in N.Y.C., which is the "best" high school in the nation in terms of academic achievement.
At Stuyvesant, 51% of the students are Asian, 5% black and 5% Hispanic. Admission is also granted based on the same standardized test. These percentages represent admissions numbers which are unfettered and not distorted by racial and ethnic quotas. They represent the highest percentages of Asian-American students in any of the top schools in the nation both at the secondary and college levels.
Only students who reside in N.Y.C. are eligible for admission testing for Stuyvesant or Bronx Science. There are no upper limit quotas imposed on Asians for admissions to either school. The SAT 1 mean for Stuyvesant seniors is 1400, the highest mean in the nation for a class of over 700 seniors. The SAT 1 mean for Bronx H.S. of Science of 1350, also tops in the nation.
Since opening in the early 1900s, these schools' student bodies consisted mostly of an all white male Jewish population, mainly immigrants and sons of recent immigrants admitted after having passed a similar test. Unfortunately few of these Jews were admitted to Yale or other colleges because of quotas placed on Jews at that time. Admissions were based on "entitlement", mainly of WASP's and specifically, Episcopalians.
In the late 1960s, Yale adopted a meritocracy and subsequently Jews and Asians became the most populous minority groups on campus, each outnumbering Episcopalians. Sources: Yale Alumni Magazine, "Birth of a New Institution" by G. Kabaservice, Dec. 1999 and The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy, by Nicholas Lehmann, Publisher Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 1999.
In contrast, the elite and private Phillips Exeter Academy, considered one of the top secondary schools in the nation, has an admissions policy today based on "goals" and/or "quotas" disguised as a mission of recruiting "youth from every quarter". Exeter's entering class in 2000 is 21% Asian, 8% Black, and 4% Hispanic. The Asian percentage of 21% is a decrease from 25% from previous years. The Black percentage of 8% is an increase from 5% of last year's entering students. Source: The Exonian, "Unprecedented Exeter Diversity for 2000-2001", June 11, 2000. The decrease in the number of Asians was caused by Exeter's admissions policies, not by any decrease in the number or quality of Asian applicants, which have both increased year after year.
Of the "top ten" boarding schools, both Exeter and Andover have the highest SAT 1 scores with the exception of Groton School's average SAT 1 of 1400 which graduated only about 80 seniors in 2000. Among boarding schools, Exeter and Andover also have the highest percentage of Asians in their student bodies. Exeter's seniors had an average SAT 1 score of about 1370, the highest of any elite boarding school with over 300 graduates in 2000. The seniors at Phillips Academy, Andover, Exeter's chief rival, had an average SAT 1 score of about 1350. 18% of Andover's students are Asian. The other top boarding schools' senior average SAT 1 scores include Choate's 1300, Hotchkiss' 1285, Taft's 1285, Milton's 1310 and Lawrenceville's 1310. All students admitted to these schools had to take the SSAT, a standardized test similar to the SAT 1. Other admission criteria include grades, talents, sports, alumni parents, and ethnic and racial backgrounds.
There is a direct correlation between the average SAT 1 scores, exclusive of all other college admission criteria used, of these boarding schools and the percentage of its seniors admitted to the Ivy League and to the U.S. News Top Ten Lists of colleges. Groton, with average SATs of 1400, has 34% of its seniors going to the Ivies, whereas Exeter and Andover (average SATs of 1370 and 1350 respectively) have 30% of its seniors going to the Ivies in 2000. Choate, with average SATs of 1300, has 20% of its seniors going to the Ivies. Hotchkiss with average SATs of 1285 has 19% of its seniors going to the Ivies.
To the extent these exclusive prep schools are limiting the number of Asians they accept, they are limiting the number of Asians who attend Ivy League colleges and other top colleges.
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Sunday, September 07, 2003 - 02:44 pm: Edit |
4/25/03 Wall Street Journal: "For Groton Grads, Academics Aren't Only Keys to Ivy Schools. A Look at Who Got in Where Shows Preferences
Go Beyond Racial Ones,"
by Daniel Golden
Groton, MA -- Of the 79 members of the class of 1998 at the Groton
School, 34 were admitted to Ivy League universities.
Not Henry Park. He was ranked 14th in his class at Groton, one of the
nation's premier boarding schools, and scored a stellar 1560 out of 1600
on his SAT college-admission test. But he was spurned by four Ivies --
Harvard, Yale, Brown and Columbia universities -- as well as Stanford
University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Most of the students in Mr. Park's class who were accepted by those universities had less impressive academic credentials than his. What
they had instead were certain characteristics such as money, connections,
or minority status that helped them vault over him to the universities of
their choice.
"I was naive," says Mr. Park's mother, Suki Park. "I thought college
admissions had something to do with academics." She and her husband, middle-class Korean immigrants from New Jersey, scrimped to send
their son to Groton because of its notable college-placement record.
In the coming months, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on
a landmark challenge to affirmative action by white applicants who had
been rejected from the University of Michigan. The decision will likely
have sweeping ramifications for the role of race in admissions to public
and private schools. But a look at the fate of Groton's class of '98 shows
that minority status is just one of several factors that can trump academic
merit in college admissions. Indeed, students who are white and
privileged regularly benefit from affirmative action of another kind.
Some of Mr. Park's lower-performing classmates who were picked by
top universities were minorities. But several were affluent white children
of alumni, known as "legacy" students. The parents of others were either
current or prospective financial donors or celebrities. A few were strong
rowers, a sport offered predominantly at uppercrust schools and elite
colleges.
Unlike these students, Mr. Park couldn't rely on any "hook," as college admissions officers call the criteria for preferential treatment. He did not
qualify for affirmative action, which colleges generally limit to
underrepresented minorities such as blacks, Hispanics and Native
Americans. His parents, who attended college in Korea, say they
couldn't afford to donate to a university. Without a hook, applicants to
elite universities must, at a minimum, have exemplary scores and grades.
These universities also take into account more subjective factors, such
as artistic talent and leadership ability. Every year, they reject many
valedictorians and students with perfect SAT scores.
"When the decisions came out, and all these other people started
getting in, I was a little upset," Mr. Park says. "I feel I have to hold myself
to a higher standard."
Lakia Washington, an African-American who grew up in the Bronx
and attended Groton on a scholarship, was admitted to Columbia
despite ranking 60th in her class and scoring only 1110 on the SAT.
She says affirmative action gave her "a great opportunity." But, she
says, preferential treatment for children of alumni and donors "amounts
to exactly the same thing. That's what upsets me the most about
criticism of affirmative action."
Groton doesn't reveal class rankings, even to students. But a
document from Groton's college-counseling department that was
reviewed by The Wall Street Journal provides details of class ranks
(for sophomore year through the first semester of senior year), test
scores and college-application results for all of the school's 1998
graduates.
William M. Polk, Groton's headmaster, says the document, titled
"Groton School Class of 1998: College Acceptances/Rejections/
Wait-Listings by Class Rank," is not an "official school record." But
20 Groton graduates whose names appeared on the list said their test
scores and college-admission outcomes listed on the document were
accurate.
One striking anomaly: Of nine Groton students listed as applicants
to Stanford that year, Margaret Bass was the only one admitted. Ms.
Bass's grades placed her 40th in her Groton class, according to the
Groton document. She had an SAT score of 1220, lower than those
of seven of the eight other Stanford applicants. By contrast, almost
90% of Stanford freshmen rank in the top 10% of their high school
class, while 75% have SAT scores of 1360 or better.
But Ms. Bass had an edge: Her father, Texas tycoon Robert Bass,
was chairman of Stanford's board and had given $25 million to the
university in 1992. Mr. Bass has a degree from the Stanford Graduate
School of Business. He and his wife, Anne, are both Groton trustees.
Stanford officials and Martin London, a lawyer for the Bass family,
said Ms. Bass's record on the Groton document was inaccurate, but
declined to be specific. Another person familiar with Ms. Bass's
record at Groton said her data, as listed on the document, were
correct. Mr. London added that Ms. Bass compiled a "stellar record"
at Stanford and graduated with honors last year. Ms. Bass didn't
respond to several requests for comment. Her roommate at Groton,
Claire Abernathy, said Ms. Bass is "a great writer," and "I'm sure her
admissions essay was fantastic."
Selective universities justify favoring children of alumni and
prospective donors on the grounds that tuition doesn't cover the
entire cost of education. These schools say private gifts subsidize
scholarships, faculty salaries and other needs. Children of celebrities,
they add, enhance an institution's visibility. "I will certainly factor in
a history of very significant giving to Stanford," said Robin Mamlet,
admissions dean. She added that the university's development office
each year provides her with names of applicants whose parents have
been major donors.
Ms. Bass was far from the only child of prominent parents in the
Groton class of '98. It included children of diplomats, international
lawyers and famous writers, as well as other wealthy businesspeople.
Harvard admitted a dozen members of the class -- more than any other
Ivy League university. At least five of those accepted by Harvard were
alumni children, including Matthew Burr. His father, Boston venture
capitalist Craig L. Burr, gave his alma mater between $1 million and
$5 million in the mid-1990s, according to Harvard records.
Matthew Burr ranked fourth in his Groton class but had an SAT score
of 1240. Three-fourths of Harvard students have SAT scores of 1380 or
higher. Mr. Burr applied to one other college, Williams, which rejected
him. Now a Harvard senior, Matthew Burr says he took the SAT four
times. "I just don't test well," he says. He acknowledges his father's
Harvard ties aided his admission chances. "I don't think legacy is a
fair criterion for people to get into college," he adds. "But for me, that
was the way it was."
Craig Burr says his donation to Harvard had "absolutely nothing to
do" with his son's acceptance. "Matthew did not need any help
because he had phenomenal grades," he says. Harvard declines to
comment on individual applicants.
Bastion of Elite
Groton charges $33,000 a year in tuition, room and board. Its
students have a median SAT score of 1360, 340 points above the
national average. In the class of '98, at least 60 of the 79 graduates
were white.
One Groton student had a record strikingly similar to Henry Park's,
but he fared much better in the college-admissions process. John
Roberts was 10th in his class -- four spots ahead of Mr. Park -- but had
a slightly lower SAT score, 1530. Messrs. Roberts and Park were two
of three Groton seniors enrolled in the school's most advanced math
course. Their research for an article titled "Mapping the Hypercube"
was subsequently published in a math journal for high-school teachers
and students. In addition, both students were on the Groton cross-
country team.
But Mr. Roberts, unlike Mr. Park, had a significant Harvard hook.
His grandfather and uncle, both alumni, gave Harvard an indoor track
and tennis center and a professorship, among other donations.
Mr. Roberts says that when he was applying to Harvard, his family
arranged for him to meet with Mr. Fitzsimmons, the admissions dean,
and Jeremy Knowles, then dean of arts and sciences. Mr. Roberts's
relatives also linked him up with Harvard's track coach and team
members in the hope that he would be given preferential treatment
as an athletic recruit. Harvard accepted him.
Mr. Fitzsimmons, Harvard's admissions dean, says he chats briefly
with at least 100 applicants a year of all backgrounds. These
interviews are not "official," he says, although he notes them in the file.
Prof. Knowles says he occasionally saw alumni or friends "with their
offspring in tow" but never contacted the admissions office afterward.
Mr. Roberts says his Groton classmate Mr. Park was a "tremendous"
math student. "If Henry had some kind of legacy connection, that would
have helped him" get into Harvard, he adds. "In my case, I had the
scores. The family connection took out the added doubt." He majored
in psychology at Harvard and now writes fiction.
Henry Park says he made few close friends among Groton faculty
or students. Despite his prowess in math -- he received the maximum
score of 800 on both the math SAT and SAT II achievement test --
and in languages, he says he felt isolated as one of only two male
Asian students in his class. Few classmates, he says, shared his
interests in martial arts and Korean music.
Nor did he share the affluence that characterized many of his
classmates. His father used to own a string of small clothing stores
in the New York area, but several failed in the mid-1990s, prompting
Mrs. Park to find work teaching Korean. To pay Henry's Groton tuition,
she sold her only investment property, an apartment building in
Hoboken, N.J.
Henry and his mother say Groton guidance counselors discouraged
him from setting his sights on top colleges. Mrs. Park says a counselor
told her that her son was a long shot at Harvard because he didn't stand
out from the crowd. "I have thought many, many times why Henry failed,"
Mrs. Park says. "It was just devastating."
Mr. Polk, the Groton headmaster, declines to discuss individual
students. In a written statement, he said: "It is always disappointing
when a student doesn't get into her/his college of choice, but we
understand that a student's academic record is only one of many
different factors that colleges consider."
Two leading universities did accept Mr. Park: Carnegie Mellon and
Johns Hopkins. He attended Carnegie Mellon for a year before
transferring to Johns Hopkins, where he is a senior majoring in
neuroscience. He cooks three days a week at a campus restaurant on
a work-study job, and is on the dean's list with a grade-point average
above 3.5. He plans to go to medical school.
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Sunday, September 07, 2003 - 02:52 pm: Edit |
"I was naive," says Mr. Park's mother, Suki Park. "I thought college
admissions had something to do with academics."
No, poor Suki, you were just blind and deaf. Nobody ever said or wrote that the ONLY thing that mattered was ACADEMICS.
Uni-dimensional candidates are indeed rejected in masses every year, and rightly so!
By the way, that is soooooo old news.
| By Covalentbond007 (Covalentbond007) on Sunday, September 07, 2003 - 07:43 pm: Edit |
Great articles, Blazer1.
The ones written by Peter Kirsanow were especially good.
Here's a good snippet.
"It remains unclear how college administrators determine that optimum educational benefits are derived from a student population that is, for example, 65 percent white, 14 percent black, 12 percent Hispanic, 3 percent Native American, and 6 percent Asian American. Has some anthropological chemist concluded that a certain racial/ethnic mix makes student neurons fire best? Or will the neurons misfire if the percentage of Asians crests above, say, 8 percent? And why do neurons seem to fire just as well at Berkeley, where the freshman class is nearly half Asian, as at Yale, where the Asian-student population is only slightly more than one-tenth of the overall total?"
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Sunday, September 07, 2003 - 08:46 pm: Edit |
I agree with Blazer and his new found endorser, the V.I.
Asians are so under represented and discriminated. The only acceptable number of Asian population attending the top 25 schools in the US should be at around 65%. This would be in line with the census numbers- give or take a few zeroes.
ROFLMAO!
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Sunday, September 07, 2003 - 09:11 pm: Edit |
To Xiggi:
Peter Kirsanow is a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. He said:
[Of course, Asians are not the first racial or ethnic group whose admissions rates were intentionally suppressed because of their comparative academic achievement: During much of the 20th century, several Ivy League schools employed clever devices to curtail the influx of Jewish students. But the exclusion of Asian Americans from the list of the preferred is incongruent with today's campus-diversity rationale: that a mix of races and ethnicities, both in the classroom and in social settings, has a compelling pedagogical value; and that where the percentage of minorities falls below a certain "critical mass," that pedagogical value is diminished, not only because there are fewer opportunities for interaction between the races/ethnicities, but also because minorities will necessarily feel inhibited from expressing themselves, thereby depriving the campus of alternative opinions...... All of which begs the question: Why is this pedagogical value upset if Asian-American students are admitted at rates consistent with their qualifications?]
--------------------------------------------------
Prof Walter Williams said,
[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."]
-----------------------------
It does not matter what the percentage of each racial and ethnic group is in each of the elite colleges, public or private, or in each of the elite boarding schools. This does not matter. I don't care if each of these schools is 50% white or 85% black or 35% Asian or 70% latino, as long as RACE and ETHNIC GROUP preferences are not given on admissions. Admissions should be race blind and ethnic group blind.
Preferential treatment of ANY FORM for one group is discrimination against another group. Even you can understand this. Think about this. One form of preferential treatment for one group is not justified by another form based on race. All preferential treatment should be condemned, but the RACE PREFERENCE is illegal. The legacy and rich VIP preferences TRANSCEND race because all racial groups can benefit from them, but these preferences are also unjust and discriminatory. The classification of race in admissions is immutable. THIS IS UNJUST AND WRONG. There's no way you can condone this. Race being used for blacks in the guise of "diversity", a code word for racial preferential treatment for blacks in admissions to the Ivies and elite public schools, by admitting them with lower academic standards on the average.
Racial preferential treatment for blacks in admissions to the Ivies and elite colleges solves nothing of the problem of black underrepresntation in all of higher education. The problem is due to black underachievement at the k-12 level and race-based AA ignores the root causes of this calamity and shameful fact. AA represents the denial and the masking of the root causes of black underrepresentation, which is BLACK ACADEMIC UNDERACHIEVEMENT AT THE K-12 level.
Race-based AA, with the lowering of academic standards in admissions, is a failure and causes more problems than it solves by causing dissension among the races.
AA is the Band-Aid treatment for the festering wound of black underachievement at the k-12 level which could result in a sepsis, a further worsening and spreading of this wound.
THE WAY TO ELIMINATE THE PROBLEM OF BLACK UNDERREPRESENTATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IS TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF BLACK UNDERACHIEVEMENT AT THE K-12 LEVEL OF EDUCATION.
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Sunday, September 07, 2003 - 09:28 pm: Edit |
To Xiggi:
Prof Williams said, "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."
So discrimination is an OK thing with you in your sarcasm. You should only be discriminated against. You said, [I agree with Blazer and his new found endorser, the V.I....Asians are so under represented and discriminated. The only acceptable number of Asian population attending the top 25 schools in the US should be at around 65%. This would be in line with the census numbers- give or take a few zeroes....ROFLMAO!]
This used to happen to the Jews who are 2% of the American population, with the exclusion of Jews in the Ivies and the elite colleges via quotas, caps, limits, and outright banning of Jews. Now Jews represent 35% of Penn, 30% of Harvard, Columbia, 25% of Yale and 20% of Amherst.
I DON'T CARE WHAT THE % OF ASIANS, WHITES, JEWS, BLACKS OR LATINOS ARE, AS LONG AS THEY ARE ACCEPTED BY A RACE BLIND AND ETHNIC GROUP BLIND ADMISSIONS PROCESS BY APPLYING THE SAME STANDARDS EQUALLY TO ALL APPLICANTS. I DO NOT WANT TO KNOW THE RACE OR ETHNIC GROUP OF THE APPLICANT AND THE ADMISSIONS COMMITTEES SHOULD NOT KNOW EITHER. DO THIS AND LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY.
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Sunday, September 07, 2003 - 10:15 pm: Edit |
To Xiggi:
You said, [No, poor Suki, you were just blind and deaf. Nobody ever said or wrote that the ONLY thing that mattered was ACADEMICS.
Uni-dimensional candidates are indeed rejected in masses every year, and rightly so!
By the way, that is soooooo old news.]
You are soooo wrong. Your racist stereotyping is so glaring!! I think you have reading comprehension problems and have no understanding of the WSJ article by Daniel Golden regarding Henry Park, a Korean American at the prestigious prep, the Groton School. Mr. Golden said, "Indeed, students who are white and privileged regularly benefit from affirmative action of another kind. Some of Mr. Park's lower-performing classmates who were picked by top universities were minorities. But several were affluent white children of alumni, known as "legacy" students. The parents of others were either current or prospective financial donors or celebrities. A few were strong rowers, a sport offered predominantly at uppercrust schools and elite colleges. Unlike these students, Mr. Park couldn't rely on any "hook," as college admissions officers call the criteria for preferential treatment. He did not qualify for affirmative action, which colleges generally limit to underrepresented minorities such as blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans. His parents, who attended college in Korea, say they couldn't afford to donate to a university. Without a hook, applicants to elite universities must, at a minimum, have exemplary scores and grades.]
Mr. Henry Park was not a uni-dimensional student. As he was described in the article, he was multifaceted, because he had interest in music, the martial arts, published an orginal math article on the hypercube in a journal, belong to the math club, ran varsity cross country track, was bilinqual and bicultural in his Asian American heritage and race, in addition to scoring 1560 on the SAT I (800M 760V) and 800s on his SAT IIs and ranking close to the top of his class.
THIS STUDENT WAS MULTI-DIMENSIONAL AND IT IS ONLY THROUGH YOUR RACIST STEREOTYPING OF ASIANS THAT YOU, XIGGI, CALL HIM "UNI-DIMENSIONAL". MR. PARK ALSO HAD TO WORK SEVERAL JOBS TO PAY FOR HIS COLLEGE EDUCATION.
Mr. Henry Park was a victim of anti-Asian American quotas, caps, or limits on the numbers of Asians being admitted, because there are TOO MANY OVER QUALIFIED ASIAN AMERICANS who are multi-dimensional and multi-talented with superior GPAs and SAT scores. Mr. Park was a victim of discrimination by the admissions committees of the Ivies and elites simply because of his Asian race and the anti-Asian American quotas in the Ivies and elite colleges, while Whites are given preferential treatment in admissions with the legacy, rich and famous VIP preferences and blacks and latinos are given racial and ethnic preferences in admissions. All these preferences are known as "hooks" and the legacy and rich VIP preferences are known as Affirmative Action for whites. These hooks also include AA for blacks and latinos and URMs.
MR. HENRY PARK WAS DENIED ADMISSION OR REJECTED BY ALL THE IVIES AND ELITE COLLEGES (MIT, STANFORD) WHICH HE APPLIED TO BECAUSE OF HIS ASIAN RACE AND DISCRIMINATORY ANTI-ASIAN AMERICAN QUOTAS IN THESE SCHOOLS BECAUSE THERE ARE SIMPLY TOO MANY MULTI-DIMENSIONAL, MULTI-TALENTED ASIAN AMERICANS APPLICANTS WITH THE HIGHEST ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND THE HIGHEST SAT SCORES FROM THE BEST SCHOOLS SUCH AS GROTON. MR. PARK WAS NOT REJECTED BECAUSE WAS "UNI-DIMENSIONAL", WHICH HE WAS NOT. HE DID NOT RECIEVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN ADMISSIONS AS HIS LOWER ACHIEVING AND LOWER SCORING WHITE AND BLACK CLASSMATES DID IN BEING ACCEPTED INTO THE IVIES FROM THE GROTON SCHOOL.
XIGGI, WITH YOUR RACIST STEREOTYPING OF MR. HENRY PARK, YOU COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT OF THE WSJ ARTICLE BY DANIEL GOLDEN.
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Sunday, September 07, 2003 - 10:51 pm: Edit |
LOL - Would you kindly point out where my racist stereotyping is in the following text:
"No, poor Suki, you were just blind and deaf. Nobody ever said or wrote that the ONLY thing that mattered was ACADEMICS. Uni-dimensional candidates are indeed rejected in masses every year, and rightly so! By the way, that is soooooo old news."
Anyhow, speaking about points? Did you have a correct point?
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 12:33 am: Edit |
To Xiggi:
THE CORRECT POINT IS:
MR. HENRY PARK WAS DENIED ADMISSION OR REJECTED BY ALL THE IVIES AND ELITE COLLEGES (MIT, STANFORD) WHICH HE APPLIED TO BECAUSE OF HIS ASIAN RACE AND DISCRIMINATORY ANTI-ASIAN AMERICAN QUOTAS IN THESE SCHOOLS BECAUSE THERE ARE SIMPLY TOO MANY MULTI-DIMENSIONAL, MULTI-TALENTED ASIAN AMERICANS APPLICANTS WITH THE HIGHEST ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND THE HIGHEST SAT SCORES FROM THE BEST SCHOOLS SUCH AS GROTON. MR. PARK WAS NOT REJECTED BECAUSE HE WAS "UNI-DIMENSIONAL", WHICH HE WAS NOT. HE DID NOT RECIEVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN ADMISSIONS AS HIS LOWER ACHIEVING AND LOWER SCORING WHITE AND BLACK CLASSMATES DID IN BEING ACCEPTED INTO THE IVIES FROM THE GROTON SCHOOL.
HE WAS NOT TREATED FAIRLY BECAUSE HIS LOWER SCORING AND LOWER ACHIEVING "UNI-DIMENSIONAL" WHITE AND BLACK AND LATINO CLASSMATES RECEIVED FAVORS AND PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN ADMISSIONS TO THE IVIES.
You apparently can't read. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand the point.
Try your sarcasm elsewhere.
| By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 12:34 am: Edit |
Oh my, I just happened to stumble upon this gem of a thread.
Indeed, Asians are under-represented. Indeed, if all admissions were race-blind, Asians would flood the schools, especially the UCs.
However, try to put yourself in the shoes of the white folk: how would you feel knowing that your descendants could receive second-rate educational treatment, placed behind the Asian crowd? Would you sit around quietly, muttering about racial equality? Just because Asians put more emphasis on education than the Caucasian majority? No, you would do whatever it takes to make sure that Asians remain minorities at colleges, even if some deserving kids get thin envelopes and some undeserving kids get thick ones. I'm not saying that Caucasians are immoral, far from it. They are just doing what any normal human being would do.
Blazer, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at by accusing Xiggi of being racist. I have the utmost respect for the guy, and from what I have read, he seems right on target.
Here's a thought: how good are the essays and recs of Asians compared to those of others? I myself am an Asian (and proud of it), but I have noticed that a great many of my Asian counterparts are lacking in the realms of verbal aptitude. Since English isn't their first language for many of them, is it possible that their essays just aren't that good? While it doesn't account for everything, it may explain why Mr. Park got the thin envelopes.
| By Obh100 (Obh100) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 01:29 am: Edit |
Let me begin by saying the college admissions process is terribly flawed... Now if Bush doesn't ask for 87 billion to kill people, rather than take that money and fix the inner-city K-12 schools, so african americans can have an equal elementary education to the average middle class student, then we can begin to remedy the problem.
However, I kind of agree with Pookdogg, seeing that the White protestant is trying to dominate over all in this country. Its almost like legal ethnic cleansing, only keep a few smart, but don't give the deserving a fair shot. I mean look at the Declaration of Independance, "All men are created equal..." Yet if look at the treatment of African Americans, to Native Americans, to the Asians during WW2, and now Arabs with the Patriot Act, its pretty repulsive how the United States have violated these principles since the start. And then the US tries to put a bandaid on the problem by apologizing and making it unfair for one group to get by, to please another group, while keeping itself on top, this is how this country runs, and its sad how our so called "freedom" is compromised everyday. At the risk of being rebuked politically, I'm gonna shut up and get to the point.
Asians are getting the short end of the stick when it comes to affirmative action. And thats a problem that needs to get fixed, yet has a complex solution that stubborn selfish legislators are not willing to address. The problem of affirmative action is coming into light and after years of putting band-aids on the problem, its glaring problems are coming to light. What needs to be done is wealth-based affirmative action. So the poor people who are supposed to be being helped by affirmative action get helped. Why wealth based, check out this stat, "80% of African American college students that attend a top 50 university come from the 80,000 or more income bracket..." How is that helping the kids in the inner-city? I'm gonna stop and await the wrath of white/african american posters...
| By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 01:34 am: Edit |
Pookdogg,
I thought the natural reaction would've been to get your kids to try harder in school. But i guess i was wrong, it's more natural to set up a system like that. Anyways, you're making up an excuse for something that's non-existant! Whites don't benefit due to AA, URMs do, and Whites definitely aren't URMs. Asians under-represented? We are way over-represented in colleges (a very high percentage of asians hold college degrees as well). Whites do have legacy, but legacy was not designed to keep white student numbers high, it's around to raise money for the college.
For the others,
This has been blown way out of proportion; it's not like AA's rejecting every asian that applies to college. AA is a bit of an obsticle, but if you are truly talented, would you be rejected by all the Ivies, PLUS MIT and Stanford? It is harder for an asian to shine for the adcoms, but not THAT much harder, or else why is harvard composed of 20-30% Asians year after year?
I'm just saying, so don't flame me. College is not all about numbers, like Pookdogg said. We don't know how the guy's recommendations, essays and other factors went.
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 01:49 am: Edit |
Blazer1~
First off, I should point out that the use of ALL CAPS is equal to shouting. For some reason, I am sure that it was indeed your intent.
In one simple thread, you have accused me of racism as well as needing to take classes in reading comprehension. Everyone is entitled to an erroneous opinion, and I will respect yours, despite tha fact that it was based on a three line comment.
I also have to thank you for your consistency in posting. Because of your diligence, we now have no less than 5 posts of the infamous WSJ article. You seem to have developed a great affinity to pepper any thread that discusses AA or Asian life with the same article. Could one assume that you deliberately seek to provoke some kind of reaction. The 5 crossposts are especially noteworthy as they represent about 50% of your "contribution" to College Confidential.
A further analysis would also uncover the sheer hypocrisy of your positions. You use the same article to attack AA policies and apparently support Mr Park, yet you also used it to discredit Groton in your illustrious "Andover versus the world" froebelian diatribe. You are entitled to be proud, extremely proud of the accomplishments of your son and his multiple acceptances at the top preparatory schools in the world. However, you are not endearing yourself to many people from or from outside your community by bringing an ultra-obnoxious attitude about the meritocracy of Asian students.
Anyone who frequents this board with a certain assiduity is bound to learn that many, many -probably a vast majority- extremely gifted students and CC contributors are asians. I have nothing but respect for a lot of people on this board, and I can assure you that most of them happen to be Asians and that ALL of them combine great intelligence and humility.
As far as I am concerned, I wish you would spend more energy in helping this community by helping students to get better than by cross-posting the same incendiary articles and insulting everyone who does not applaud your mastery of the cut-and-paste tools. Come and visit us at the SAT Preparation forum and show us how to solve some analogies and Algebra1 problems.
Sincerely,
Xiggi
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 01:51 am: Edit |
Tuann~
LOL - I "almost" made references to our "famous" battle. I wrote that there is a difference between someone who has to work 30 hours a week AND go to High School and someone who is blessed enough to attend Groton. But I decided to erase all of that. I hope senior year is still fun for you!
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 02:01 am: Edit |
I'm gonna stop and await the wrath of white/african american posters...
Not really ... I am a minority but I am 100% behind a AA policy that would be ENTIRELY based on socio-economic factors. That the poor Navajos who live on a reservation need help is a given, but the poor second generation Laotians, Vietnameses, Cambodians are equally deserving. I believe that the minorities ALSO support the idea that the children of highly educated minorities should NOT be given the same consideration.
| By Obh100 (Obh100) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 02:01 am: Edit |
"I thought the natural reaction would've been to get your kids to try harder in school. But i guess i was wrong, it's more natural to set up a system like that. Anyways, you're making up an excuse for something that's non-existant! Whites don't benefit due to AA, URMs do, and Whites definitely aren't URMs. Asians under-represented? We are way over-represented in colleges (a very high percentage of asians hold college degrees as well). Whites do have legacy, but legacy was not designed to keep white student numbers high, it's around to raise money for the college."
Yet how come at every school the population of whites compared to asians is almost double or even triple. However, if you did a study of "qualified" asians vs. whites, I think the rate of acceptances for the asians would be far less than whites. Tuan, the fact is, Whites consitantly have 50-60% of the student populations at the top tier universities, however if Asians start getting into a good school like Berkeley, they need to curb their acceptances because the culture fosters education far more than the culture of the average caucasion? There is a reason why Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore underwent huge economic booms.
| By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 02:02 am: Edit |
Xiggi,
OMG, you still remember that battle? I barely remember what it was about! Hahaha, i remember it was pretty entertaining though, and that you got mad at me for treating it as a "game" (all the editing stuff).
Senior year is awesome. Stressful, but extremely fun. Life gets better as it gets more stressful (for me atleast, i love challenges, as you found out earlier). You're a senior right now too right? It would be fun if we ended up in the same school, i could argue with you forever. You're one of the few people i came across who actually debate for the learning experience (i like that, and enjoy sharing thoughts with people like this).
Anyways, i wouldn't mind if you made references to our debate. It was a well developed debate, both sides were pretty much even (well, last i checked atleast).
| By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 02:11 am: Edit |
Obh100,
Are you forgetting the fact that America is over 70% White? IF the percentage of White overachievers were half of what Asians got, the population of overachieving Whites alone could drown us asians with their spit (IN america i mean)! You make it seem like all Whites get into those top schools through special treatment. SOME do, but a lot sweat to get into those schools. Not all Whites are dumbasses you know, you make it sound like White students stand no chance if AA was eliminated. Once again, WHITES AREN'T CONSIDERED URMS!
Xiggi,
Are those some of my old points you're holding? They sound familiar for some reason.
| By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 02:14 am: Edit |
Obh100,
PLEASE provide these numbers. What's the REAL number of Qualified asians getting in opposed to the REAL number of Qualified whites getting in? I'm curious. You continuously mention it as if it was concluded from a study. YET, you quote only one source which poorly analyzed the situation of only one student (not to mention you posting it OVER AND OVER again). It just seems like you have no other source of back-up but Mr. Park.
| By Obh100 (Obh100) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 02:18 am: Edit |
"Are you forgetting the fact that America is over 70% White? IF the percentage of White overachievers were half of what Asians got, the population of overachieving Whites alone could drown us asians with their spit (IN america i mean)! You make it seem like all Whites get into those top schools through special treatment. SOME do, but a lot sweat to get into those schools. Not all Whites are dumbasses you know, you make it sound like White students stand no chance if AA was eliminated. Once again, WHITES AREN'T CONSIDERED URMS!"
I never said whites stood no chance, and there are brilliant people of all races, to say that whites, asians, blacks, are more talented then others is a terrible generalization and I apologize for that. However, why do Asians get the short end of the stick, even if their more qualified than the white person, yet don't get in and the white person gets in? I mean this country has been ruled by white protestants since its inception, and everytime, it devises new ways to stay in control of the country, I mean look at what happened when JFK ran for president, and he was a catholic, imagine if the Harvard has an Asian majority! Asians are the only group that are smart, assertive, and clever enough to change things and challenge the stubborn white majority, and its hard for me to believe that we all get the short end for other reasons...
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 02:18 am: Edit |
Indeed the debate was fun.
We pushed it as far as we could and I was actually thrilled when the moderator shut us down. There were no winners but absolutely no losers! I have to admit that I also learned a lot by reading your arguments and having to research to "fight back". I remembered learning about the differences among the economic conditions of the asian community and posting the sources, even it contradicted some of my earlier points 
Oh yes, I am senior and I am having the time of my life. It is a lot less stressfull than my junior year that was brutal.
| By Obh100 (Obh100) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 02:23 am: Edit |
Tuann, look at the undergrad population of any top 25 university, sans UC Berkeley.
what your telling me, is that in this country for every 3-4 white applicants, theres only 1 qualified asian applicant? Thats kind of hard to believe...
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 02:23 am: Edit |
Xiggi, Are those some of my old points you're holding? They sound familiar for some reason.
Tuann, it is hilarious. It seems that we have morphed into one. I'm borrowing some of your former points and you also sound like me on some of yours. Does this does not reinforce that we LEARNED something from one another
| By Obh100 (Obh100) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 02:25 am: Edit |
heres more for you Tuann...
"Jack Hasagawa, one of the admissions officers at Yale in the early 90s, that Yale cut 60-70% of the qualified Asian applicants versus 30-40% of the qualified white applicants to ensure a proper racial mix. There was always this urban legend about how a UC admissions officer said once that without affirmative action, Berkeley would be 80% Asian and 20% Jewish."
| By Obh100 (Obh100) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 02:25 am: Edit |
more numbers for doubting Tuann...
"Ira M. Heyman, then Berkeley's chancellor, apologized for the rigged admissions policy and pledged to reform it. Yet a racial disparity still exists: the average Asian freshman in 1994 had an average SAT score of 1293 and a 3.9 GPA, compared to 1256 and 3.86 for whites and 3.43 and 994 for blacks. According to a poll conducted by the National Conference of Christians and Jews, Asians say they have more in common with whites than with blacks or Latinos."
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 02:26 am: Edit |
Obh~
You need to consider the percentages and the distribution of the population. Remember that there are many more whites than asians in the United States. Some states like California have a different ethnic distribution but the overall number of white qualified students is still overwhelming.
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 02:31 am: Edit |
Asians are the only group that are smart, assertive, and clever enough to change things and challenge the stubborn white majority, and its hard for me to believe that we all get the short end for other reasons...
I wish you had not said that. I am sorry you feel that way!
| By Obh100 (Obh100) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 02:32 am: Edit |
Xiggi~
Your gonna have to explain the GPA, SAT difference from Asians to Whites? Why is it so much higher for Asians?
| By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 02:32 am: Edit |
Xiggi,
"There were no winners but absolutely no losers!"
You would say that wouldn't you? (i'm kidding) Hahaha, you were the only one thrilled to have that thread shut down! I still had so much to say, but, of course, by now i don't remember my old points! I think you hold more of my old points than i hold them at this moment! Kind of ironic, but true.
"I remembered learning about the differences among the economic conditions of the asian community and posting the sources, even it contradicted some of my earlier points"
You were kind of pissed at me for that as well. I used your own sources to back up my points, which was kind of funny. Hahaha, but your sources were two faces, it supported both me and you and didn't really give anyone a good foothold.
Anyways, back to schoolwork. Have fun debating with Obh100. This debate isn't as fun as the one i had with you back then though, so i'm leaving. I'll show up much later, i'll pop up once in a while, so have fun (I take IB, so the stress is basically focuses all into senior year)!
| By Obh100 (Obh100) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 02:34 am: Edit |
Xiggi~
Sorry about that quote, it was said more out of anger, but its still amazing how few minorities, women are in politics...
| By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 02:34 am: Edit |
"what your telling me, is that in this country for every 3-4 white applicants, theres only 1 qualified asian applicant? Thats kind of hard to believe..."
Why is it hard to believe?
5-10% of all Americans are Asian. 70-80% of all Americans are white.
A 1:3 ratio of Asians to Whites is WAY too good already.
*anyways, i'm leaving, so i'll give you the last word. You can enjoy this debate with Xiggi.
| By Obh100 (Obh100) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 02:38 am: Edit |
yeah, but 10 whites don't get a 1400 for every 1 asian Tuan, thats what I'm getting at, you can't look at the overall population, you gotta look at the applicant pool and certain applicants...
| By Y17k (Y17k) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 02:42 am: Edit |
ITS TRU ASIANS ARE TAKING OVER THE WORLD
PREPARE FOR DOMINATION
| By Obh100 (Obh100) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 02:44 am: Edit |
nah, Canadians are taking over...
www.standonguard.com
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 03:48 am: Edit |
From the book, Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus by Dinesh D'souza, 1990, Chapter 2
"(Asians are) More Equal Than Others", p. 263 (Chap. 2 footnotes):
"At Harvard in 1982 Asian Americans who were offered admission had a combined SAT average of 1,467; for whites, the average was only 1,355. Thus Asians typically had to score more than 100 points higher (112 points in 1982) than whites to be admitted to Harvard. Further, although Asian American application rates climbed rapidly between 1982 and 1987, Harvard continued to accept between 11 - 15% of Asians (Americans) in each freshman class, an "upper limit quota" in the minds of Asian activists. Robert Klitgaard, "Choosing Elites, Basic Books, N.Y., 1985, pp. 134-41. See also Jon Bunzel and Jeffrey Au, "Diversity or Discrimination: Asian-Americans in College," "The Public Interest", Spring 1987, p. 55.
Stanford's Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid discovered, after an inquiry, found 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
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 03:52 am: Edit |
In the book, "Getting In: Inside the College Admissions Process" by Bill Paul, Addison- Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., 1995, the author writes in his discussion on affirmative action and reverse discrimination against Asian Americans on pp. 200-202: Thomas Kean, head of Drew University and former Governor of New Jersey, says some colleges have "invisible quotas" for Asian- Americans done in the name of "diversity." "Nobody wants to talk about this," he told me in an interview, "but the word is very much around at the most highly-selective colleges. People are practicing that discrimination."
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 04:00 am: Edit |
Studies done internally from Brown and Stanford when charges of bias were presented 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 and at Brown. 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.
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 04:16 am: Edit |
In the book, Illiberal Education by Dinesh D'Souza (1990), D'Souza quotes from Brown University documents that indicate Brown instituted an upper-limit quota on the number of Asian students admitted. From about the mid '70s to 1986, D'Souza shows that while Asian applicants to Brown increased by over 400%, the number of students admitted remained steady.
I refer you to the book, "Questions and Admissions: Reflections on 100,000 Admissions at Stanford", 1995, Stanford U. Press, by Jean H. Fetter, former Director of Admissions at Stanford. On page 97, she states, "The central fact was that while Asian Americans were being admitted to Stanford in numbers proportionally much larger than their representation in California and the U.S. population, the rate at which they had been admitted have been consistently lower than that for white students. Generally similar conditions have prevailed at other universities. Between 1982 and 1985. . . . . Asian Americans applicants to Stanford had admission rates ranging between 66 - 70% of the admission rates for whites ."
This could not be explained by academic/ non-academic ratings for Asian Americans, because the ratings were as good and in many cases, better than any other group, nor from interaction of ethnicity with other factors such as gender or geographic origin. Ms. Fetter denied that there was an implicit quota.
It was troubling because Asian Americans as a group usually have higher academic ratings (i.e. test scores and grades) than all other groups on average. They have never been given preference as a targeted minority group. Asian Americans were paying a penalty by having to have higher grades (the best indicator for future academic success) and higher SAT scores (at Harvard it was 65 points higher than the white mean in 1992; at Rice it was 70 points higher; at Stanford, 58 points higher; Columbia, 42 points; Williams, 36 points; Brown 36 points ; Dartmouth 49 points; Princeton 40 points; and Duke 38 points higher; Sources: Consortium on Financing Higher Education, 1992.
The SAT penalty against Asian Americans could not be explained, but there certainly seems to be an unstated or unconscious bias in the admissions process. Asian Americans do not benefit from being alumni children (this will change in this and future generations), but this alone does not explain the existence of the penalty, except for reverse discrimination towards Asian Americans compared to the white majority, not to mention any other group, via certain "goals" and/or whatever you may call it (quotas). University officials and admissions officers everywhere have been reluctant to confront this issue forthrightly and in many cases to admit that the issue even exists.
| By Obh100 (Obh100) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 05:30 am: Edit |
like I said before, its a legal way of ethnic clensing, prevent Asian people from taking over...
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 09:55 am: Edit |
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."
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 10:16 am: Edit |
Here are the FACTS;
From the 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
--------------------------------------------------
From 2/12/01 The Daily Pennsylvanian (www.dailypennsylvanian.com):
Asian American applicants represent 31% of the 19,086 applicants for the University of Pennsylvanias Class of 2005 but only about 23% of the acceptances. UPenn accepts Asian Americans at a lower rate than any other group.
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 11:20 am: Edit |
Xiggi~
Your gonna have to explain the GPA, SAT difference from Asians to Whites? Why is it so much higher for Asians?
So much higher? SAT? GPA? SAT2? When...this year? Over the past 5 years?
I hope you realize that you can use statistics to illustrate almost ANY points. Is the average SAT of the Asian population the highest in 2002? Yes, it is. Is it MUCH higher? Not at all. Has it always been higher? Not even close. What is the highest AVERAGE score of Asians? Is it higher than 1100?
Here are some questions for you to ponder on;
1. Are the GPA nevessarily higher?
2. What is the distribution of the SAT among all asians?
3. Are there Asians who score well below average on the SAT
4. What is the absolute number of Asians test takers? Compare that with the numbers of white test takers.
I am NOT interested in debating this at all. I do not undersstand the issue at all.
* If you believe that the Asians are not over-represented in elite schools, so be it!
* If you believe that you are ENTITLED to more spots, so be it?
* If you believe that Berkeley should have more Asians than currently, so be it.
* If you believe that Asians have NEVER been helped by Affirnative Action, so be it
* If you believe that colleges are not entitled to determine the diversity of their campus, so be it.
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 11:20 am: Edit |
Blazer1~
What is YOUR point?
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 11:22 am: Edit |
Asian American applicants represent 31% of the 19,086 applicants for the University of Pennsylvanias Class of 2005 but only about 23% of the acceptances. UPenn accepts Asian Americans at a lower rate than any other group.
Analysis 101 = It means that Asians represents a larger percentage of unqualified applicants. You have no data supporting the APPLICANTS were ALL deserving of admission, do you?
Analysis 101b ~ The ratio applicants versus admissions means absolutely NOTHING. What if UPenn would gather 100,000 applications from minorities solely by waiving all application fees, would that not change the admission/applicants ratio?
Analysis 101c - 23% of the acceptance is Asian. Asians in the United States account for .... % of the population. Indeed, the discrimination is blatant!
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 11:33 am: Edit |
Stanford's Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid discovered, after an inquiry, found 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.
What is the situation 17 years later?
Do you need Stanford to have the same numbers as Berkeley to be satisfied?
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 11:42 am: Edit |
Xiggi:
Again:
[I refer you to the book, "Questions and Admissions: Reflections on 100,000 Admissions at Stanford", 1995, Stanford U. Press, by Jean H. Fetter, former Director of Admissions at Stanford. On page 97, she states, "The central fact was that while Asian Americans were being admitted to Stanford in numbers proportionally much larger than their representation in California and the U.S. population, the rate at which they had been admitted have been consistently lower than that for white students. Generally similar conditions have prevailed at other universities. Between 1982 and 1985. . . . . Asian Americans applicants to Stanford had admission rates ranging between 66 - 70% of the admission rates for whites ."
This could not be explained by academic/ non-academic ratings for Asian Americans, because the ratings were as good and in many cases, better than any other group, nor from interaction of ethnicity with other factors such as gender or geographic origin. Ms. Fetter denied that there was an implicit quota.]
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 12:06 pm: Edit |
Xiggi said:
"What is the situation 17 years later?"
The stuation at Brown and Penn hasn't changed at all. Asian Americans are still being accepted at the lowest rate of any designated racial or ethnic group or at 70% of the White acceptance rate and at MUCH LOWER RATES than Blacks and Latinos despite meeting and EXCEEDING all the standards used in admissions, both objective and subjective standards, i.e., overcoming life's obstacles, special talents, EC activities, special awards, highest motivations, living in poverty, English as a second language, etc..
Very little has changed with the anti-Asian American quotas and the suppression of their numbers in the Ivies and elites averaging about 14% Asian Americans. These quotas used to exist for American Jews pre WW II and really up to the 1960s, when Yale was the last to abolish the Jewish quotas, but the Asian quotas still exist.
Again, {Studies done internally from Brown and Stanford when charges of bias were presented 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 and at Brown. 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.]
You also said, "Do you need Stanford to have the same numbers as Berkeley to be satisfied?"
I will be satisfied when the admissions process is race blind and ethnic group blind. I DON'T CARE WHAT THE PERCENTAGES OF EACH GROUP IS.
It does not matter what the percentage of each racial and ethnic group is in each of the elite colleges, public or private, or in each of the elite boarding schools. This does not matter. I don't care if each of these schools is 50% white or 85% black or 35% Asian or 70% latino, as long as RACE and ETHNIC GROUP preferences are not given on admissions. Admissions should be race blind and ethnic group blind.
Preferential treatment of ANY FORM for one group is discrimination against another group. Even you can understand this. Think about this. One form of preferential treatment for one group is not justified by another form based on race. All preferential treatment should be condemned, but the RACE PREFERENCE is illegal. The legacy and rich VIP preferences TRANSCEND race because all racial groups can benefit from them, but these preferences are also unjust and discriminatory. The classification of race in admissions is immutable. THIS IS UNJUST AND WRONG. There's no way you can condone this.
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 12:31 pm: Edit |
Xiggi:
Again, you said, ""What is the situation 17 years later?"
I referred you to the book, "Questions and Admissions: Reflections on 100,000 Admissions at Stanford", 1995, Stanford U. Press, by Jean H. Fetter, former Director of Admissions at Stanford.
The revelations of the Dir. of Admissions, Ms. Fetter, were on page 97, she states, "The central fact was that while Asian Americans were being admitted to Stanford in numbers proportionally much larger than their representation in California and the U.S. population, the rate at which they had been admitted have been consistently lower than that for white students. Generally similar conditions have prevailed at other universities. Between 1982 and 1985. . . . . Asian Americans applicants to Stanford had admission rates ranging between 66 - 70% of the admission rates for whites ."
were made 8 years ago, not 17 years ago.
This could not be explained by academic/ non-academic ratings for Asian Americans, because the ratings were as good and in many cases, better than any other group, nor from interaction of ethnicity with other factors such as gender or geographic origin. Ms. Fetter denied that there was an implicit quota.
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 01:00 pm: Edit |
Xiggi, again, from 8 years ago and nothing has changed today regarding anti-Asian quotas, because the numbers are capped at 14% in these schools, despite higher numbers of Asian American applicants who are even more qualified (the White-Asian GAP in the SAT I has increased since):
-----------------------------------
In the book, "Getting In: Inside the College Admissions Process" by Bill Paul, Addison- Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., 1995, the author writes in his discussion on affirmative action and reverse discrimination against Asian Americans on pp. 200-202: Thomas Kean, head of Drew University and former Governor of New Jersey, says some colleges have "invisible quotas" for Asian- Americans done in the name of "diversity." "Nobody wants to talk about this," he told me in an interview, "but the word is very much around at the most highly-selective colleges. People are practicing that discrimination." Also, the Admissions Dean at U.of Penn, Mr. Stetson, argues, "that they (Asian Americans) are being punished for having succeeded in bettering themselves" in his analogy between the Jewish quotas of yesterday and the quotas against Asian Americans of today. Stetson states on pages 200 and 201, that, "Asians are today's Jews" in the college admission process of TODAY.
-------------------------------------------------
Discrimination against Asian Americans applicants based on race, as stated by former Gov. Kean of NJ, is wrong, unjust, immoral and illegal. Even you can understand this!!
Discrimination against ANY racial, ethnic or relugious group is wrong, unjust, immoral and illegal.
Quotas against ANY racial, ethnic or relugious group is wrong, unjust, immoral and illegal.
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 01:14 pm: Edit |
Ziggi, you said,
[So much higher? SAT? GPA? SAT2? When...this year? Over the past 5 years?
I hope you realize that you can use statistics to illustrate almost ANY points. Is the average SAT of the Asian population the highest in 2002? Yes, it is. Is it MUCH higher? Not at all. Has it always been higher? Not even close. What is the highest AVERAGE score of Asians? Is it higher than 1100?
Here are some questions for you to ponder on;
1. Are the GPA nevessarily higher?
2. What is the distribution of the SAT among all asians?
3. Are there Asians who score well below average on the SAT
4. What is the absolute number of Asians test takers? Compare that with the numbers of white test takers.]
Here are the facts:
Asian Americans are increasing their lead in SAT scores, based on tests in 1999 and 2000.
In 2000, 2% of Asian Americans achieved a perfect 800 score on the Math section as compared to less than 1% for whites. 28% of Asian Americans achieved a score of 650 and above as compared to the next best performing group, whites, of whom only 14% achieved a score of 650.
1% of Asian Americans achieved a perfect score of 800 on the Verbal section as compared to less than 1% of whites. This is quite remarkable given that nearly 40% of the Asian Americans did not have English as their first language.
Despite these high scores, the percentage of Asian Americans in the incoming classes of elite colleges is slowly dropping over the last several years.
For instance, the percentage of Asian Americans in the freshman class at Harvard dropped from 19% to 16% from 1996 to 2000. At Cornell, the drop from 1999 to 2000 was 16% to 15%.
39% of all SAT 1 test takers in 1999 of the Asian American group did not have English as their first language. This percentage is the highest among all ethnic and racial groups, including Latinos (only 29% of Puerto Ricans did not have English as their first language.) Source: The College Board. Of course, the predominant first language of Afro-Americans and white Americans is English. If you view not being able to speak the English language at first as a disadvantage, then Asian Americans should be recognized as having a disadvantage, but Asian Americans have never asked for nor been given preferential treatment. They merely overcame this obstacle even though over half the Asian American population is comprised of immigrants or children of immigrants who also faced racial discrimination and poverty. 15% of Asian Americans live under the poverty level, comparable to the Latino- American group. Source: US Census Bureau,1997.
It is a tribute to Asian Americans that a disproportionate number of them, compared to their percentage of the total population, score in the 700 and 750 ranges in both the Math and most notably, the Verbal sections of the SAT 1.
See The College Board's website
Among all Asian Americans test takers in the SAT 1 Math in 1999, 27% scored above 650 as compared to 24% for whites, 15% above 700 as compared to 6% for whites, and 6% above 750 as compared to only 2% for whites.
Among all Asian American test takers in the SAT 1 Verbal, 6% scored above 700 as compared to 5% for whites and 3% scored above 750 as compared to 2% for whites. Less than a fraction of 1% of non Asian minorities (Blacks, Latinos, and American Indians) score above 700.
These numbers are remarkable for the Asian Americans, especially in the Verbal section, in view of the fact that 39% of the Asian Americans who took the test did not even have English as a first language. If you factored out this 39% subgroup of Asian Americans and compare the rest of the Asian American group to the white group and all other groups on an "equal basis", the percentages of scorers above 700 in the Verbal would even be higher for the Asian American group. This should also be true for the Math section, since it is also written in English, but to a lesser extent.
If this test is biased against minority groups, then it is most certainly biased against Asian Americans both in terms of culture and language.
For some reason, admissions officers and the College Board view the SAT 1 test as biased against non Asian minorities but not against Asian Americans.
The College Board, which administers and devises the SAT 1 Test, even proposes to add 200 additional points to the non Asian minorities" scores and call them "Striver's" points, reasoning that the test is culturally biased. These "Striver's" points would not be given to Asian Americans, a ludicrous proposition. If the test is culturally biased, it is surely also biased against Asian Americans! What is the point of even administrating the test at all then?
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 01:17 pm: Edit |
You also said, "Do you need Stanford to have the same numbers as Berkeley to be satisfied?"
I will be satisfied when the admissions process is race blind and ethnic group blind. I DON'T CARE WHAT THE PERCENTAGES OF EACH GROUP IS.
That is a cop-out answer. Please provide some specifics like. "Blazer1 will be satisfied when all elite schools have a 50% asian population and the combined minority population will be below 5%. I base myself on the overwhelming evidence that asians are better qualified to attend elite schools than whites by a factor of 700% and better than minorities by a factor of 4000%"
And let me ask again, ""What is the situation 17 years later AT Stanford?"
Do you have anything to post that would support that in 2003 Stanford did discriminate against Asian students and enrolled more non-asian students at the expense of more qualified asians? The reality is that Asians are exactly on the same playing field as whites at Stanford, and are actually doing better proportionally.
The classification of race in admissions is immutable. THIS IS UNJUST AND WRONG. There's no way you can condone this.
How quickly one forgets! Aren't you ignoring that same policies you are currently condemning did benefit asians in the past.
Quote:TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING?
When affirmative action was first implemented in the early 1970s, Asian Americans benefitted from it in large numbers, as did Blacks, Hispanics/Latinos, American Indians and the group that has benefitted the most, White women. Since that time, Asian Americans have achieved notable successes in educational attainment, employment, and income (see the earlier discussion on the model minority image).
In fact, on many university campuses around the country, Asian Americans soon became disproportionately represented. That is, it was common for 10%, 15%, or more of a universitys student population to be of Asian ancestry at a time when Asians were only about 3% of the general population. This was also because the Asian American population is relatively young, so many more Asians were applying to college than before as well.
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 01:21 pm: Edit |
I only mentioned the score levels above 650 on the SAT I, because these levels are the most relevant in Ivy and elite colleges admissions where the mean of each school hovers between 1400 and 1500 (1530 at Caltech).
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 01:36 pm: Edit |
Blazer1~
What is the Asian population among the top 10 ot top 25 HS Prep academies. I know that you have those numbers in your research. Just curious!
PS I am checking on those SAT scores...
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 01:50 pm: Edit |
[I will be satisfied when the admissions process is race blind and ethnic group blind. I DON'T CARE WHAT THE PERCENTAGES OF EACH GROUP IS.]
Please don't twist and spin my statement. Copeout? Because you have no rebuttal?
That's the point EVEN you can understand. Very few know what the % of Jews in the Ivies is and rightfully so, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ADCOMS DON'T ASK THE APPLICANT WHETHER HE/SHE IS JEWISH!! BY THE SAME TOKEN, THE ADCOMS SHOULD NOT KNOW THE RACE, ETHNIC OR RELIGIOUS GROUP OF THE APPLICANT. THE JEWISH QUOTAS DO NOT EXIST TODAY, BUT THE EXCLUSIONARY ASIAN QUOTAS STILL EXIST, AS WELL AS THE RACIAL PREFERENCES GIVEN TO MAINLY WHITES (AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR WHITES) IN THE FORM OF THE LEGACY AND RICH AND FAMOUS VIP PREFERENCES, IN ADDITTION TO RACE PREFERENCES OF AA GIVEN TO URMS. JEWS ARE CONSIDERED WHITE TODAY.
I don't want to know what the percentages of each racial and ethnic group in these schools are. The adcoms should not ask what group each applicant belongs to and they don't ask Jewish applicants, former victims of discrimination and quotas.
I am against all racial preferences in admissions, no matter who they benefit, even for Asian Americans, if they ever benefitted. Asian Americans ARE NOT ASKING FOR RACIAL PRFERENCES FOR THEMSELVES, but they only asked for a level playing field in which they are not subjected to racist quotas suppressing their numbers in these schools, no matter what the numbers are. Eliminate the quotas and let the chips fall where they may.
I repeat for Xiggi's benefit, "It does not matter what the percentage of each racial and ethnic group is in each of the elite colleges, public or private, or in each of the elite boarding schools. This does not matter. I don't care if each of these schools is 50% white or 85% black or 35% Asian or 70% latino, as long as RACE and ETHNIC GROUP preferences are not given on admissions. Admissions should be race blind and ethnic group blind."
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 02:01 pm: Edit |
Among all Asian Americans test takers in the SAT 1 Math in 1999, 27% scored above 650 as compared to 24% for whites, 15% above 700 as compared to 6% for whites, and 6% above 750 as compared to only 2% for whites.
Among all Asian American test takers in the SAT 1 Verbal, 6% scored above 700 as compared to 5% for whites and 3% scored above 750 as compared to 2% for whites. Less than a fraction of 1% of non Asian minorities (Blacks, Latinos, and American Indians) score above 700.
Where did you get the ethnic distribution of the scores above 650? I have the distribution but it is not divided among ethnic groups.
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 02:12 pm: Edit |
Blazer1~
If your statistics are true -which I believe are quite skewed-, this is another way to look at it.
Students with 650+ Math
Asians = 27,000
White = 165,000
Students with 750+ Math
Asians = 6,000
White = 14,000
Students with 700 Verbal
Asians = 6,000
White = 35,000
Students with 750 Verbal
Asians = 3,000
White = 14,000
Now plug that in the various tables for elite schools admission rates and tell us why you are discriminated against
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 02:21 pm: Edit |
I don't want to know what the percentages of each racial and ethnic group in these schools are.
Sorry, I must have the wrong Blazer1 who wrote:
Quote:I am the author of this article, "10/29/00: Exclusive Boarding Prep Schools Engage in Reverse Discrimination Against Asian-American Students " I researched and wrote it.
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 02:23 pm: Edit |
Xiggi;
You said, "How quickly one forgets! Aren't you ignoring that same policies you are currently condemning did benefit asians in the past."
You are really something, "a piece of work"!! Again, I don't care who benefits from these racist policies, especially Asian Americans (if they ever did at all). I am against race-based AA and all other preferential treatment given to VIPs and legacies, benefitting whites, by en large, in admissions.
I DON'T CARE WHO BENEFITS FROM PRFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN ADMISSIONS. Preferential treatment is simply wrong, unjust, immoral and illegal in the case of RACIAL QUOTAS.
Can you understand this, Xiggi? Please stop the spin and the twisting.
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 02:34 pm: Edit |
I am not a "piece of work" nor am I twisting or spinning anything.
Start answering direct questions instead of sticking to generalities. You're the one who brought the discrimination theories in this dialogue. Now, try to document them with hard data, instead of SHOUTING.
PS I hope you also realize that without legacies, the schools may not even exist today. But that is irrelevant, until you can demonstrate that the meritocracy is discriminating against asians.
It is pretty simple.
1. The asians are doing EXTREMELY well in securing spots among the elite schools in the United States. Actually, they are doing BETTER than the statistical records of SAT score would indicate.
2. Asians are securing an INCREDIBLY high proportion of the elusive spots when compared with the population distribution.
How's that for a spin?
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 02:43 pm: Edit |
Xiggi:
You said, "Now plug that in the various tables for elite schools admission rates and tell us why you are discriminated against."
I am surprised at you, one who is "proud" of his one or two statistics courses that he/she may have taken.
One does not compare ABSOLUTE NUMBERS WITH RATES OR PERCENTAGES. Give us all a break!
You want "HARD NUMBERS". I'll give them to you. These numbers are are from 1995 and the RATES OF EACH GROUP AT THE BHIGHEST LEVELS OF SATI SCORES ARE COMPARED.
RATES OF ACHIEVEMENT AT EACH LEVEL OF SCORING ON THE SAT FOR EACH GROUP MUST BE COMPARED AS WELL AS RATES OF ACCEPTANCES OF EACH GROUP IN THE IVIES MUST BE COMPARED.
APPLES COMPARED TO APPLES, NOT TO ORANGES.
In the book, "America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible" by Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom, Simom and Schuster, 1997 in Chapter 14, titled "Higher Learning", in Table 4 labeled, "Number and Percent of Black, White, and Asian Students with High SAT Scores, 1981 and 1995": Source; The College Board, Ethnic Data on Scoring, 1981 and 1995, the figures and percentages for each score level are charted.
For example, in 1995, for 103,872 Black test takers of the SAT 1 Test, in the Math ,107 Blacks scored between 750 and 800, 509 Blacks scored between 700 and 749, 1,437 Blacks scored between 650 and 699. Total > 650 for Blacks was 2,053 or 2.0% of all Black test takers. Total > 700 was 616 or 0.6% or six tenths of 1 percent. Total > 750 was 107 or 0.1% or one tenth of 1 percent.
In 1995, for 103,872 Black test takers, in the Verbal, 184 Blacks scored between 700 and 800, 465 Blacks scored between 650 and 699, and 1,115 Blacks scored between 600 and 649. Total > 600 was 1,764 or 1.7% of Black test takers. Total > 700 was 184 or 0.15% or less than two tenths of 1 percent.
In 1995, for 674,343 White test takers of the SAT 1 Test in the Math, 9,519 Whites scored between 750 and 800, 29,774 Whites scored between 700 and 749, and 51,306 Whites between 650 and 699. Total > 650 for Whites was 90,599 or 13.4% of all White test takers. Total > 700 was 39,293 or 5.8%. Total > 750 was 9,519 or 1.4%.
In 1995, for 674,343 White test takers of the SAT 1 Test, in the Verbal, 8,978 Whites scored between 700 and 800, 19,272 scored between 650 and 699, and 36,700 Whites scored between 600 and 649. Total > 600 was 64,950 or 9.6%.Total > 700 was 8,978 or 1.3%.
In 1995, for 81,514 Asian test takers of the SAT 1 Test in the Math, 3,827 Asians scored between 750 and 800, 7,758 Asians scored between 700 and 749, and 9,454 Asians scored between 650 and 699. Total > 650 for Asians 21,039 or 25.8%. Total > 700 was 11,585 or 14.2%. Total > 750 was 3,827 or 4.7%.
In 1995, for 81,514 Asian test takers of the SAT 1 Test in the Verbal, 1,476 Asians scored between 700 and 800, 2,513 Asians scored between 650 and 699, and 4,221 Asians scored between 600 and 649. Total > 600 was 8,190 or 10%. Total > 700 was 1,476 or 1.8%.
Therefore, in reference to the above data for 1995, Asians out perform the other two groups at the highest levels of the SAT 1 scores in terms of RATE of attainment or percentage of the total group at each score level above 650 and 700 and above in both the Math and the Verbal of the SAT 1 Test. In fact, in the 1999 data given by the College Board: Performance by Ethnic
Groups, the rate of attainment or percentage of the total group at each score level above 650 and 700 and 750 and above has risen for the Asian group both independent of and relative to the other two groups.
In 1995, there were only 107 Blacks with a Math score of 750 or above or 0.1% (one tenth of 1 percent) of the total number of Black test takers. There were 9,519 Whites with a Math score of 750 or above or 1.4% of the total
number of White test takers. There were 3,827 Asians with a Math score of 750 or above or 4.7% of the total number of Asian test takers. Asians out perform Whites at 3.4 times the rate at which they score 750 or above (4.7% vs. 1.4%). Asians out perform Blacks at 47 times the rate at which they score 750 or above (4.7% vs. 0.1% or one tenth of one percent).
At the most selective colleges such as Caltech (average of 770 Math score), Harvard, MIT, Stanford and Harvey Mudd and others with 750 Math score averages, there simply are not enough Black applicants (107 in all) in the total Black test taker group who meet the average SAT Math score at these elite schools even to fill a fraction of one percent of their student populations, let alone a quota or a goal of 7 to 10 percent or more of the student bodies for all the elite colleges in the nation. Consequently, there is a huge test score gap that exists between the Blacks and Whites and even a bigger test score gap between Backs and Asians at the most selective colleges. The SAT 1 Test composite score for the most competitive or selective colleges are between 1450 to 1500 on average now in year 2000, 30 to 40 points higher than four to five years ago. This score rises upwards of 10 points for each of these schools for each subsequent year, therefore the test score gaps that exist between Blacks and Whites, and between Blacks and Asians are also increasing on a yearly basis because of increased competition amongst the highest scorers.
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 03:42 pm: Edit |
Hehe, Blazer, another page full of blah, blah and cut/pastes.
I do not understand the comments regarding statistics. Are you intimating that I do not understand how to calculate and interpret statistical data?
One sure way to demonstrate your "superior" intellect would be to analyze the correct date of The College Board and show how wrong I am. I believe that you conveniently switched from 1999 to 1995 and are now quoting a book, after pointing me to The College Board website. But, it does not matter to me. I can use any of your numbers and get to the same results. Also, let's stick to the White/Asian discussion. Your attempt to muddy the discussion with the scores for Black is futile.
Students with 750+ Math
Asians = 6,000 in 99 and 3827 in 95
White = 14,000 in 99 and 9519 in 95
Students with 750 Verbal
Asians = 3,000 in 99 and 1476 in 95
White = 14,000 in 99 and 8976 in 95
In 1999, Students with 650+ Math
Asians = 27,000
White = 165,000
In 1999, Students with 700 Verbal
Asians = 6,000
White = 35,000
I forgot that acording to you... the absolute numbers are not relevant. I guess it is baseless to compare the size of the pool of qualified applicants with the size of the enrollment at the various schools.
I believe that a certain NYC Magnet program was pretty lacking when it came to teaching common sense and basic math.
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 03:46 pm: Edit |
In 1995, there were only 107 Blacks with a Math score of 750 or above or 0.1% (one tenth of 1 percent) of the total number of Black test takers. There were 9,519 Whites with a Math score of 750 or above or 1.4% of the total
number of White test takers. There were 3,827 Asians with a Math score of 750 or above or 4.7% of the total number of Asian test takers.
Asians out perform Whites at 3.4 times the rate at which they score 750 or above (4.7% vs. 1.4%). Asians out perform Blacks at 47 times the rate at which they score 750 or above (4.7% vs. 0.1% or one tenth of one percent).
The White-Asian SATI scoring gap is even WIDER today at the highest levels of scoring, at 700 or above than it was in 1995 resulting in Asians outperforming whites and blacks at a greater degree at these levels of scoring than in 1995.
In view of the above RATES of attainment at the highest level of SATI scoring, above 700 at which Asian Americans outperform whites at 3.4 times the white rate of attainment in SATI Math level 750, the Asian American RATES of acceptance in the elite colleges (i.e. Stanford in the 1990s, Brown and Penn today) are a fraction, 66-70%, of the acceptance RATES of whites to the Ivies. I won't even mention black rates of attainment.
You could also use the rates of attainment on the SATI Verbal where Asian Americans outperform whites at the highest levels of scoring of above 750, around the median Verbal SAT Verbal score of the top Ivies and elites, yet the rate of acceptance to these schools are a fraction of the white acceptance rate.
Of course, the SAT I is only one objective standard used in admissions and Asian Americans are required to pay a penalty by having to score higher to gain acceptance, as much as 100 points or more, higher than whites on the SAT I composite score.
Of course, as I had mention before, there are other factors used in admission and with each study, Asian Americans have meet or exceeded these subjective standards for admission as well as the objective standards, and yet they are accepted at 60-70% of the white acceptance rate.
This is due to caps or discriminatory quotas/goals imposed on Asians.
As I had said before, There is a direct correlation between the average SAT 1 scores, exclusive of all other college admission criteria used, of these boarding schools and the percentage of its seniors admitted to the Ivy League and to the U.S. News Top Ten Lists of colleges. Groton, with average SATs of 1400, has 34% of its seniors going to the Ivies, whereas Exeter and Andover (average SATs of 1370 and 1350 respectively) have 30% of its seniors going to the Ivies in 2000. Choate, with average SATs of 1300, has 20% of its seniors going to the Ivies. Hotchkiss with average SATs of 1285 has 19% of its seniors going to the Ivies.
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 04:02 pm: Edit |
You could also use the rates of attainment on the SATI Verbal where Asian Americans outperform whites at the highest levels of scoring of above 750, around the median Verbal SAT Verbal score of the top Ivies and elites, yet the rate of acceptance to these schools are a fraction of the white acceptance rate.
Do you know HOW to count?
I guess that in Blazer's world, Taiwan would win all the events at the 2004 Olympics because statistically their percentages are better.
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 04:03 pm: Edit |
LOL, are you at a lost for words? Apparently, you can read somewhat, but only SELECTIVELY. You only read what you want to read.
You said, "I forgot that acording to you... the absolute numbers are not relevant. I guess it is baseless to compare the size of the pool of qualified applicants with the size of the enrollment at the various schools."
Hey, I only COMPARED RATES, while stating the "HARD NUMBERS". EVEN YOU COULD UNDERSTAND THIS by listing the contents of a basic statistics course. Let me remind you, you don't need rocket science to understand what I had said.The rise in the applicant pool affected all groups and as I had shown before, this rise in the applicant pool only WIDENED the scoring gap between Asians and whites at the highest level of scoring, yet the Asian American group are still accepted at a fraction of the white acceptance rate, quotas capped at 14% on the average for Asian Americans, the same % for over ten years.
In fact, the % of Asians HAS DECREASED in certain cases.
Xiggi, please don't make me repeat myself for your benefit only, because of your lack of comprehension and shortcomings.
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 04:06 pm: Edit |
Of course, as I had mention before, there are other factors used in admission and with each study, Asian Americans have meet or exceeded these subjective standards for admission as well as the objective standards, and yet they are accepted at 60-70% of the white acceptance rate.
This is due to caps or discriminatory quotas/goals imposed on Asians.
That is simply NOT true.
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 04:21 pm: Edit |
My lack of comprehension? My lack of understanding of statistics? Me being at a loss for words? Stop insulting me with moronic accusations and try to SHOW my errors. If you want to compare our knowledge of statistics, let do it? However, I believe that basic arithmetic is quite challenging for you. After all, you can't cut and paste knowledge and common sense. The way I see it, you have been thoroughly ridiculed by a 17-year old high school senior.
You have NOT been able to make any sense whatsoever in 10-12 posts. You are constantly dancing around the real issues.
No matter how you calculate it, the asian community is doing extrenely well in the admission process of elite schools. It is obvious that about 100% of the asians students who are scoring 750+ on the SAT do attend an elite school.
Speak all you want about percentages and attainment rates, the number of asian students who are admitted is very much in line with the number of qualified applicants. No matter what, you will never be able to demonstrate that there are MORE asians who qualify than whites. Why, because it it simply NOT true.
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 04:22 pm: Edit |
Xiggi, you want proof or "hard evidence". Apparently, during one of your selective readung spells, you ignored this:
In the book, "Getting In: Inside the College Admissions Process" by Bill Paul, Addison- Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., 1995, the author writes in his discussion on affirmative action and reverse discrimination against Asian Americans on pp. 200-202: Thomas Kean, head of Drew University and former Governor of New Jersey, says some colleges have "invisible quotas" for Asian- Americans done in the name of "diversity." "Nobody wants to talk about this," he told me in an interview, "but the word is very much around at the most highly-selective colleges. People are practicing that discrimination." Also, the Admissions Dean at U.of Penn, Mr. Stetson, argues, "that they (Asian Americans) are being punished for having succeeded in bettering themselves" in his analogy between the Jewish quotas of yesterday and the quotas against Asian Americans of today. Stetson states on pages 200 and 201, that, "Asians are today's Jews" in the college admission process of TODAY.
Please speak to Mr. Kean, or better yet, Mr. Stetson, since he is still the Admissions Dean at Penn, a school which I used for an example. They didn't come to their conclusions through "hearsay". They had access to the hard evidence. C'mon. Xiggi, get the reference and tell Mr. Stetson and Mr. Kean that they based their conclusions on "hearsay". Now, you must really be joking, but there's no more LOL.
Tell this to the American Jews of yesterday, victims of discrimination, that their quotas were based on "hearsay".
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 04:39 pm: Edit |
Xiggi, now you are losing it. What on earth are you talking about? You said, "Now, go back to create your little lists of "the top ten prep schools in the country" and pursue your sick obsession with the elite. It must be so hard to accept that no matter what, you'll never belong!"
I quess YOU ARE LOST FOR WORDS, and most importantly, a credible rebuttal. I will address your use of name-calling and other such pleasantries at another time. You are in no position to evaluate "sickness", "obession", or "belonging" of anyone, even yourself. Please stop with this modus operandi, if you can. Please resist personal attacks on these boards, which you have so often resorted to in your posts.
I don't really care how "proud" you are, or what "race" you belong to, or even what you do with your time. I DON'T REALLY CARE AND I DON'T WANT TO KNOW AS I DO NOT WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE RACE OR ETHNICITY OF THE COLLEGE APPLICANT IS. All of this, including your antics, are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to this discussion.
You can't even understand the above.
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 04:51 pm: Edit |
Xiggi:
You said, "Speak all you want about percentages and attainment rates, the number of asian students who are admitted is very much in line with the number of qualified applicants. No matter what, you will never be able to demonstrate that there are MORE asians who qualify than whites. Why, because it it simply NOT true."
What on earth are you talking about? I was NOT demonstrating what you stated. Are you hallucinating by reading or hearing nonexistent words which don't exist in reality? You know, this can be a potential problem for you. I can't make evaluation, but if this persists, I advise you to seek professional help.
You also said, ""Speak all you want about percentages and attainment rates, the number of asian students who are admitted is very much in line with the number of qualified applicants."
Really? I have just shown to you that this is not true. Please reread my posts for your benefit only.
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 05:19 pm: Edit |
1. Please resist personal attacks on these boards, which you have so often resorted to in your posts.
2,Are you hallucinating by reading or hearing nonexistent words which don't exist in reality? You know, this can be a potential problem for you. I can't make evaluation, but if this persists, I advise you to seek professional help.
3. I am surprised at you, one who is "proud" of his one or two statistics courses that he/she may have taken.
4. You are really something, "a piece of work"!!
5.
I don't really care how "proud" you are, or what "race" you belong to, or even what you do with your time.
I would prefer to let the board be the judge!
As far as all your empirical data, why don't you do the following exercise:
1. Take the Ivies + Caltech, MIT, Berkeley and Stanford.
2. Add up all the freshman enrollment of Asians
3. Compare that with the TOTAL number of Asians who scored above 750 on the SAT.
4. Ditto for the Asians who score above 700.
Is that too complicated? It requires adding 12 numbers. We are not talking about standard deviation or regression analysis!
I am just afraid we'll see some of the same intellectual integrity as in the "researched" article about the discrimination in the prep school.
Until you do so, I am done with you. You have been measured and you have been found lacking!
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 05:23 pm: Edit |
Xiggi:
You said, "No matter how you calculate it, the asian community is doing extrenely well in the admission process of elite schools. It is obvious that about 100% of the asians students who are scoring 750+ on the SAT do attend an elite school."
C'mon, everything is all relative. So do whites, depending on your definition of an "elite school". I am referring to one school at a time, not all elite schools in the collective sense as a single entity.
The SAT penalty as quantified for each school is evidence enough which requires Asian Americans to score as much as 100 points higher than whites on the average to be admitted to Harvard is an example. Of course, the Asian who did not score higher but as high as the white and was denied at Harvard, more than likely was admitted to "an elite school" or whatever you mean by this. The point is that he was discriminated against BECAUSE he was denied at Harvard, his first choice, and FORCED to go to another "elite school", a lower choice. Asian Americans are DENIED the Ivies with its limited number of spaces and quotas on Asians WHICH do not give room for ALL overqualified Asians, DENIED AT A HIGHER RATE THAN OVERQUALIFIED WHITES, by whatever admission standards they use. Race is not a qualication for admission, but it is used as such. Preferential treatment via preferences for legacies and VIPs should not be use as standards for admission, but they are.
| By Blazer1 (Blazer1) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 05:40 pm: Edit |
There you go again with the use of the word, "superior". Who said anything about "superior intellect" or superior anything. You don't stop, do you?
| By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 06:06 pm: Edit |
"The point is that he was discriminated against BECAUSE he was denied at Harvard, his first choice, and FORCED to go to another "elite school", a lower choice."
OMG, atleast use a better applicant! Seriously, we don't know how the guy's essays and recommendations went. You make it sound like not going to Harvard's going to ruin his entire life! His SAT scores are very good. But even valedictorians with 1600s get rejected once in a while. I see where you are going with your debate and all, but atleast don't choose one isolated case as the example. There are many people who are held back by AA, and that's why i support something new (maybe something socio-economically based instead of race). Since theoretically speaking, if Blacks and Hispanics are suffering due to their socio-economic situation, then this should be the best solution (it benefits the disadvantaged of all ethnics). If they end up not getting in still, it just means it's their fault, and no one else should be suffering due to their weaknesses.
*I kind of strayed off a bit, but i'm just saying. PLEASE don't use that kid from Groton as another example. PLEASE, we know TOO LITTLE about him other than his numbers. If EVERYONE with a 1550+ score on the SAT should get into Harvard, then Harvard probably would be overflooded and would even be considered underfunded! I know where you're going, i'm just saying, that kid has nothing over any other applicant except his numbers, which aren't everything (Trust me on this).
| By Tuannguyen (Tuannguyen) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 06:15 pm: Edit |
Also, AA is not benefiting Whites. I said it before and i'll say it again, Whites aren't URMS! IF a white person gets in over an asian who has better everything, this is not due to AA. It's due to the adcom's general biases (which aren't supported by AA). This means that the general attitude of the N. American public needs to change, not just AA. I don't like AA either, but i'm just saying. There's more to blame than just AA. It's our entire society as a whole, these adcoms grow up with these biases, even if we abolish AA, the admission process will still be a good mixture of subjective and objective views. There are still many racists in this world, even those who deny they are. The only way to end racism is to just give every applicant a number and hide the name and race. But that would take away a huge part of your application (ie. your own person). If there was no AA, when you indicate in any way that you're asian (through essays, recs., name etc...), the automatic response will still be to refer to the stereotypes you learned early in life. This will still occur even without AA.
IF there is any undertable work going on, it's not due to AA. It's right out racism and discrimination which won't go away by demolishing AA. It's due to an inlaiden attitude set up throughout a person's life.
That's what i think. Discrimination against asians go much deeper than just AA. Instead of just arguing over whether AA is good or bad, maybe we should be trying to draft up a BETTER model. Like i said, i propose a model based on socio-economic situation (which should give the poor who can't afford a good education early on a boost).
Oh, and i'm restricting myself to two to three posts a day, so don't flame me like crazy and expect me to reply. I might just end up giving up if you post 10 posts directed at me (since if there are way too many i would just not read it and go back to doing homework).
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 06:16 pm: Edit |
The SAT penalty as quantified for each school is evidence enough which requires Asian Americans to score as much as 100 points higher than whites on the average to be admitted to Harvard is an example.
14,000 white scored 750 or more on the verbal or math component of the SAT; that is several times the freshman class size. Does that mean that Asians have to score above the perfect score to be accepted?
Asian Americans are DENIED the Ivies with its limited number of spaces and quotas on Asians WHICH do not give room for ALL overqualified Asians, DENIED AT A HIGHER RATE THAN OVERQUALIFIED WHITES, by whatever admission standards they use.
Besides being a complete fabrication, what is the number of OVERQUALIFIED ASIAN applicants? 100% of all who score over 750 on the SAT? 200%? 300%? 400%? What is your number?
This is from Harvard:
9/23/99 letter from Harvard
Thank you for your letter of August 16th. In response to your queries, I am enclosing a profile of the Class of 2003, the current freshman class. We do not make available to the public such data as the number of applicants in each ethnic category nor do we make public their average SAT scores or average grade point averages. I hope this information is helpful to you. With best wishes.
Margot Hsu Carroll
Senior Admissions Officer
Anyhow, have you figured out yet how many asians are in the top 12 schools? I did not think so! It is easier to pull out numbers from thin air.
| By Sheeprun (Sheeprun) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 06:16 pm: Edit |
Blazer, et al,
If you wish to post SHORT---that means VERY brief---segments from an article, that is fine. DO NOT post complete articles. Do not post multitudes of long articles. If your posts get overly wordy, I will delete them. If you continue the practice, you will be banned. Understand?
This thread has deteriorated into an argument... and is being shut down. This is a discussion board---not and argument board.
<moderator>
Report an offensive message on this page
E-mail this page to a friend
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |